Nothing suggests that the earth was created, by magic, only 6,000 years ago. It was prepared ENOUGH for mankind to inhabit the earth. It took eons and eternities for the earth to be prepared enough for mankind.
"We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;" Abraham 3:24
None that truly know the time frames would ever suggest that God had a magic wand and created a world in a paranormal way. God lives by law.
#2. You continually use language that is meant to incite an emotional response "i.e. calling the works of God "sick" and "twisted" when you admitted in the end that you personally just "dislike" such things. That's a pretty drastic difference in feelings.
This tells me that on certain levels you are trying to manipulate some people's thought process based on emotional response so that they will decide to reject the idea of God before they study the objective evidence.
1.) I don't really capitalize anything like that, I tend to distrust anyone who thinks they know the "truth" with a capital T. or Faith or Love.
2.) It's me appealing to the emotional side of people, but it's more then "manipulating" people. The idea of a god that loves us, but would do this unloving action are at odds with each other. Sick is definitely my own opinion, but is based on this real problem for the god.
I would also like to interject that he used this after stating his philosophical argument and perspective. If he truly believes what he is saying, and I think he does, then he should have passion in my opinion.
This isn't manipulation, it's just drawing an emotional conclusion. Dislike or having a preference against does not incite any emotional degree. You may draw one, but one should be taken as a sum rather than individual parts when discussing an emotional approach to the video.
Thanks for keeping this discussion going. I've enjoyed the exchange of ideas! I would like to make a couple of final observations about our conversation.
#1. You are very careful never to capitalize the "g" in God, even when using the word as a proper name. (i.e. "god would" instead of "a god would.") Note that the most evil and even fictitious characters typically receive such respect in writing. (i.e. if you were to write about "Hitler" you would not use a small "h." What about "superman?"
Got it, so therefore the idea of apparent age is not really sick in and of itself, but you personally just dislike the idea of it and believe that 'most' people would also dislike it, when looking at it through the lens of God creating the desire for knowledge, then creating the universe in a seemingly deceptive manner.
I think some people would find the idea confusing, but 'most' people would not find the idea all that objectionable, since 'most' people trust that God is smarter than they are.
So then, inflicting pain, in such a manner, is unquestionably sick in your opinion, and additionally, you believe that the majority of people in our culture would agree, but you concur that the (A) part is subjective. Is that what you are saying?
To use a different example, many have called the attacks of 9/11 sick, yet others (some even verbally this week as reported in the news) have labeled them as heroic.
But (B) is not subjective, since the attacks inflicted pain and suffering, correct?
Well, the attacks of 9/11 did cause pain weather or not you see a problem with the pain caused. B is not subjective, A is the subjective conclusion drawn from B.
There is nothing objectively wrong with me grabbing my cat's tail and bouncing it up and down until it dies, but that does not mean I have to tolerate or be fine with anyone else doing it.
Societies of cat-torturers or who like the attacks of 9/11 are societies that I do not want to live in, as the have characteristics I dislike.
So are you suggesting that God did not create time, but rather exists within time.? It sounds that way to me, because if God created time from beginning to end, how could you label the 'beginning' a "lie" and the 'end' not a "lie"? By doing so, you must imply that creation occurred at some point within time, rather than time being a product of creation.
Also, the Apparent Age (or Omphalos) theory do not fit in with YEC's since it does acknowledge an old earth.
"So are you suggesting that God did not create time, but rather exists within time.?"
No.
It's just a universe with an apparent age. You can make a new cabanit and antique it so it looks old. Well, this would be like creating and antiquing a universe.
Plausible, but I think it more probable that since God created time, that he created the beginning of time as well as the end of time. For example, scripture tells us that the end has been written. From God's perspective it has already happened, that doesn't mean that what happens today and tomorrow are not real. Likewise, 14 billion years ago 'really' happened, but that doesn't mean they happened 'after' God created them since they were created 'outside' of time. Make sense?
Well, if we think of time as a long tube, with the beginning at one end [big bang,] and the end at the other [heat death?] and humanity is halfway trudging down the tube towards the end, then the time before humans would still "exist." The time is there, the idea that I am attempting to focus on here is that instead of that part of the tube before humans "existing" that god would have only made it appear to exist, but have it not actually be there.
Human nature wants to understand the entire tube, but god only created a tube that LOOKS like it goes into the "past" longer then it actually does. This is why I call it "sick," god would make us desire to look back to a time that only appears to exist.
I think you are right about how human nature wants to view the "entire tube." but...
(please know that I ask this next question with sincerity of wanting to know your answer, not with the sarcasm that might get read into it on first read)
What gives you the 'right' to call God, or those who put the idea out there, "sick and twisted?" Do you think that is a subjective idea? In other words, is that just how you like to think of it, or do you really have a problem with people who think that way?
I think we all have the "right" to our own opinion. And I'm calling the idea of it sick, not the people who propose that idea.
I'm just trying to point out what this kind of situation would entail, it's essentially a cruel joke, and I just wanted to bring it up for anyone who had the idea but maybe didn't make this connection.
I hear you, but I wonder how can you call just an "idea" sick? Aren't ideas "amoral?" Aren't you really saying that God Himself would be "sick" if He did create the universe under these conditions?
In other words, say someone wants to molest children. Would just the "idea" be sick or would the person himself/herself be sick for thinking it or for actually doing it?
So aren't you essentially saying that if God were real, and He did create the universe in this way, He would be sick?
The idea just points to an action, the action is the repulsive part. Entertaining the action of molesting children or god creating humans to yearn for the truth in this way and putting it forever out of their reach are both things most people would consider "sick" as it's cruel, it inflicts pain or denies a person of something.
Okay, just let me make sure I'm understanding your premise here. Are you essentially saying that you can label something as sick if it meets two criteia:
(A) most people would consider it to be sick.
*and*
(B) it inflicts pain or denies a person of something.
These are the two standard you are using, correct? Did I miss one?
Well, I basically tried to lay it out in a way where A would be true. Most people would be upset to learn that a god put in them a desire then purposely put them in a universe where that desire can not be meet. But as far as the two premise you just gave, A works because of be, people would find it sick BECAUSE it's the intentional infliction of pain or denial of a desire that was put in place by the same god who denies us of it.
ROFL... Xians say god tried to fool us.... this is exactly what Pastafarians say the FSM did with his noodly appendages! Personally I'd believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster before I'd believe in Jahweh!!
I have no problem with the universe being VERY VERY old.
THELDSLIFE 8 months ago
Nothing suggests that the earth was created, by magic, only 6,000 years ago. It was prepared ENOUGH for mankind to inhabit the earth. It took eons and eternities for the earth to be prepared enough for mankind.
"We will go down, for there is space there, and we will take of these materials, and we will make an earth whereon these may dwell;" Abraham 3:24
None that truly know the time frames would ever suggest that God had a magic wand and created a world in a paranormal way. God lives by law.
THELDSLIFE 1 year ago
@THELDSLIFE Wait.... God is not paranormal? In once sentence you are bible-quoting and in next your are saying that your deity obeys natural laws?
obijan42 8 months ago
Not to necromance on your videos (bring up old comments and such) but they're solid things and I hope that they're watched by more people!
TrueEmergence 2 years ago
#2. You continually use language that is meant to incite an emotional response "i.e. calling the works of God "sick" and "twisted" when you admitted in the end that you personally just "dislike" such things. That's a pretty drastic difference in feelings.
This tells me that on certain levels you are trying to manipulate some people's thought process based on emotional response so that they will decide to reject the idea of God before they study the objective evidence.
Fighting fire with fire?
yjoeyh 3 years ago
1.) I don't really capitalize anything like that, I tend to distrust anyone who thinks they know the "truth" with a capital T. or Faith or Love.
2.) It's me appealing to the emotional side of people, but it's more then "manipulating" people. The idea of a god that loves us, but would do this unloving action are at odds with each other. Sick is definitely my own opinion, but is based on this real problem for the god.
MotionFur 3 years ago
I would also like to interject that he used this after stating his philosophical argument and perspective. If he truly believes what he is saying, and I think he does, then he should have passion in my opinion.
This isn't manipulation, it's just drawing an emotional conclusion. Dislike or having a preference against does not incite any emotional degree. You may draw one, but one should be taken as a sum rather than individual parts when discussing an emotional approach to the video.
TrueEmergence 2 years ago
Thanks for keeping this discussion going. I've enjoyed the exchange of ideas! I would like to make a couple of final observations about our conversation.
#1. You are very careful never to capitalize the "g" in God, even when using the word as a proper name. (i.e. "god would" instead of "a god would.") Note that the most evil and even fictitious characters typically receive such respect in writing. (i.e. if you were to write about "Hitler" you would not use a small "h." What about "superman?"
yjoeyh 3 years ago
Got it, so therefore the idea of apparent age is not really sick in and of itself, but you personally just dislike the idea of it and believe that 'most' people would also dislike it, when looking at it through the lens of God creating the desire for knowledge, then creating the universe in a seemingly deceptive manner.
I think some people would find the idea confusing, but 'most' people would not find the idea all that objectionable, since 'most' people trust that God is smarter than they are.
yjoeyh 3 years ago
So then, inflicting pain, in such a manner, is unquestionably sick in your opinion, and additionally, you believe that the majority of people in our culture would agree, but you concur that the (A) part is subjective. Is that what you are saying?
To use a different example, many have called the attacks of 9/11 sick, yet others (some even verbally this week as reported in the news) have labeled them as heroic.
But (B) is not subjective, since the attacks inflicted pain and suffering, correct?
yjoeyh 3 years ago
Well, the attacks of 9/11 did cause pain weather or not you see a problem with the pain caused. B is not subjective, A is the subjective conclusion drawn from B.
There is nothing objectively wrong with me grabbing my cat's tail and bouncing it up and down until it dies, but that does not mean I have to tolerate or be fine with anyone else doing it.
Societies of cat-torturers or who like the attacks of 9/11 are societies that I do not want to live in, as the have characteristics I dislike.
MotionFur 3 years ago
So are you suggesting that God did not create time, but rather exists within time.? It sounds that way to me, because if God created time from beginning to end, how could you label the 'beginning' a "lie" and the 'end' not a "lie"? By doing so, you must imply that creation occurred at some point within time, rather than time being a product of creation.
Also, the Apparent Age (or Omphalos) theory do not fit in with YEC's since it does acknowledge an old earth.
yjoeyh 3 years ago
"So are you suggesting that God did not create time, but rather exists within time.?"
No.
It's just a universe with an apparent age. You can make a new cabanit and antique it so it looks old. Well, this would be like creating and antiquing a universe.
MotionFur 3 years ago
Plausible, but I think it more probable that since God created time, that he created the beginning of time as well as the end of time. For example, scripture tells us that the end has been written. From God's perspective it has already happened, that doesn't mean that what happens today and tomorrow are not real. Likewise, 14 billion years ago 'really' happened, but that doesn't mean they happened 'after' God created them since they were created 'outside' of time. Make sense?
yjoeyh 3 years ago
Well, if we think of time as a long tube, with the beginning at one end [big bang,] and the end at the other [heat death?] and humanity is halfway trudging down the tube towards the end, then the time before humans would still "exist." The time is there, the idea that I am attempting to focus on here is that instead of that part of the tube before humans "existing" that god would have only made it appear to exist, but have it not actually be there.
MotionFur 3 years ago
Human nature wants to understand the entire tube, but god only created a tube that LOOKS like it goes into the "past" longer then it actually does. This is why I call it "sick," god would make us desire to look back to a time that only appears to exist.
MotionFur 3 years ago
I think you are right about how human nature wants to view the "entire tube." but...
(please know that I ask this next question with sincerity of wanting to know your answer, not with the sarcasm that might get read into it on first read)
What gives you the 'right' to call God, or those who put the idea out there, "sick and twisted?" Do you think that is a subjective idea? In other words, is that just how you like to think of it, or do you really have a problem with people who think that way?
yjoeyh 3 years ago
I think we all have the "right" to our own opinion. And I'm calling the idea of it sick, not the people who propose that idea.
I'm just trying to point out what this kind of situation would entail, it's essentially a cruel joke, and I just wanted to bring it up for anyone who had the idea but maybe didn't make this connection.
MotionFur 3 years ago
I hear you, but I wonder how can you call just an "idea" sick? Aren't ideas "amoral?" Aren't you really saying that God Himself would be "sick" if He did create the universe under these conditions?
In other words, say someone wants to molest children. Would just the "idea" be sick or would the person himself/herself be sick for thinking it or for actually doing it?
So aren't you essentially saying that if God were real, and He did create the universe in this way, He would be sick?
yjoeyh 3 years ago
The idea just points to an action, the action is the repulsive part. Entertaining the action of molesting children or god creating humans to yearn for the truth in this way and putting it forever out of their reach are both things most people would consider "sick" as it's cruel, it inflicts pain or denies a person of something.
MotionFur 3 years ago
Comment removed
yjoeyh 3 years ago
Okay, just let me make sure I'm understanding your premise here. Are you essentially saying that you can label something as sick if it meets two criteia:
(A) most people would consider it to be sick.
*and*
(B) it inflicts pain or denies a person of something.
These are the two standard you are using, correct? Did I miss one?
yjoeyh 3 years ago
Well, I basically tried to lay it out in a way where A would be true. Most people would be upset to learn that a god put in them a desire then purposely put them in a universe where that desire can not be meet. But as far as the two premise you just gave, A works because of be, people would find it sick BECAUSE it's the intentional infliction of pain or denial of a desire that was put in place by the same god who denies us of it.
MotionFur 3 years ago
It's worse than that, my friend. God would also have had to create pentillions of times as much universe as our single solar system, too.
RyuDarragh 3 years ago
ROFL... Xians say god tried to fool us.... this is exactly what Pastafarians say the FSM did with his noodly appendages! Personally I'd believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster before I'd believe in Jahweh!!
ChuckyJesus666 3 years ago