Does Appearance of Age Render God a Deceiver?

Can’t really speak about geology, but uniformitarianism in physics is not completely unfounded. We have experiments measuring whether “constants” actually change in time and they have so far found no evidence of change. We also have experiments measuring if the laws of the universe are constant in all directions.

In addition, I also tend to think that if the laws of physics that we encounter around us and can be verified to be true today turned out to just be a very specific instance that is local in space and time then that would stand in stark tension with the general order and beauty that we have found in many of our scientific experiments. You would essentially be saying, God created this beautiful, uniform, scientific order around us that is present today, but in the past it was actually chaotic and impossible to scientifically study. That is difficult for me to accept.

This is interesting. God could have created the universe last Thursday and still made it with the appearance of age, because he wanted us humans to scientifically study it - maybe because he thinks that’s an intrinsically great thing to do science (with assumptions of uniformitarianism). Of course, this means our science shouldn’t be affected, even if it is actually false.

One could take this further and say that it’s possible the external world is not real - we are all just inhabitants of a Matrix-like simulation that God created and sustains. But, God wants us to act as if this simulation is real because it is a good thing to do.

Is this such a problem. Didn’t God bring the animals miraculously to the Ark? And fitting them all in it would also need a miracle… so why not one more miracle? Maybe God had a place where he wanted kangaroos to exist (an artistic preference perhaps).

There is no need to think in terms of deception or ambiguity to explain biogeography. It could be aesthetic choice.

What YECs will claim is that , there is no class 3. And since a global flood is miraculous all the way through , there is a lot of leverage to claim that. Miracles+ unknown mechanisms will explain pretty much any feature of biogeography.
Like you said ,just because something looks old to is based on assumptions of uniformitarianism and naturalism , it doesn’t mean God is deceiving us.
As far as I can see, the issue is definitely things like the speed of light and rates of decay.

A YEC could argue that God miraculously made light go faster in an undetectable way in the past. Or maybe God miraculously teleported light from the far reaches of the universe to Earth, so that we would get the opportunity to see his handiwork. What would be wrong with yet another miracle like that?

I tend to agree with you. However that doesn’t mean that somebody making the opposite claim is necessarily wrong.
That’s all I am saying.

1 Like

There are just a large number of issues like that arise. There is no good way I’ve seen to explain away Lake Varves, Volcanic Ash, and the Great Isaiah Scroll. It is not just that God would have had to hide evidence of the flood, he would have had to have miraculously created new evidence of an old earth after the flood.

1 Like

At some point, a YEC will have to say he doesn’t have a good explanation for some features yet.
But he can claim to be working on one .
Since scientists do the same , why not give them the same latitude?
It’s entirely possible there are unknown/unthought of explanations that would resolve the problem.

Edit: As to deception. How can anyone claim that unless he is willing to look at things considering Gods actions?

Not last Thursday, but 6,000 years ago. And yes, science would be totally legitimate, and God would not be a liar. Also, this position would be much more preferable than AIG. Rather than getting accusations of dishonesty and bad scientific arguments, we would have YECs entering the science, even astrophysics, doing well alongside the rest of us. Why not? What YECs believe in their hearts is not important in science, as long as they play by the rules in science.

This gets the definition of “real”. That Matrix-like simulation is actually “real”. It is that we also have an existence outside this simulation too. In this context, “real” is more a value judgement. The simulation is still a construct outside us all that we all inhabit together. So it is a reality of some sort or another. It is an alternate reality.

1 Like

If we are using the language of miracles, we can claim God maintains the speed of light as constant miraculously :wink:
Any miracle that happens regularly would be “natural”. Hence the argent will be that the speed of light is not constant. They could then make models accordingly and make predictions.
After all its not like we have any reason for why the speed of light is what it is.

Not necessarily. You could argue that God just did the miraculous speeding up or teleportation of light once, similar to the YEC argument that God distributed different flora and fauna once in the past. This model wouldn’t be easily falsified by science, since they would also claim that light has behaved in a uniform way since.

My point is that once you allow miracles to affect the way you think things came to be, that applies to physics as well as biology. Maybe it seems more awkward in physics because it is a more precise science. But the method is the same. Every time your theory doesn’t seem to match up, you can just say that God miraculously intervened once at that time and “fixed” your physics such that it does match up.

1 Like

This is exactly what they currently do, by the way. As soon as you start invoking unattested miracles, you can no longer claim that “the evidence” is on your side. That is a key point. Perhaps it is true, but the evidence is not telling us.

1 Like

I guess it’s possible…
And here is the rub. There is no reason it might not be true either.
A better explanation would be that God created the universe in a mature state. Maybe because he wanted stars to be visible to us.
And maybe there is an unknown purpose to why the universe is expanding.

The main point is that if the universe did not arise in a purely uniform manner with the laws remaining constant from the beginning, then our conclusions (I say our, because I agree with the conclusions) based on an assumption of uniformitarianism would be inevitably wrong. And we cannot blame God for our wrong conclusions. It’s an issue of perspective.

I agree.
However that would not amount to deception on Gods part. Ruling out miracles was a choice made by human beings in this case.

Which is why we do not consider miracles in science. If we did, we wouldn’t be able to say anything about anything. Whatever evidence we do not like could just be miraculous intervention. That is why considering miracles in science breaks science.

2 Likes

Yes. However these are human limitations.
Our misunderstanding of God’s actions due to the limitations of being human does not amount to deception on the part of God.
There is no intention to deceive.
This is the main point I am making.

I myself believe in an old earth. But, if the earth turns out it be young and everything the YECs claim is true. Then I wouldn’t feel decieved.

On another note… what about “miracles” of chance?
It seems to me that any coherent explanation of the universe at some point or the other relies on “miracles”.

I don’t think the speed of light is in top ten. yet i do suspect there is no speed of light from genesis account.
instead light is the essence of the universe and is everywhere. it never moves only something within it.
probably off thread.

actually this is a favorite subject of mine. i wrote an essay called “Post Flood Marsupial Migration Explained” by Robert Byers. just google.
The marsupials are placentals that upon migrating to nthe farthest areas from the ark, S America/australia, in order to increase reproduction for a limited timeframe, before the waters rose to present levels. became what we call marsupial. Also a few minor traits in the rest of the body.
Biogeography is a friend to creatyionist truth. not the others.

Can you explain further? Do any YEC physicists hold to this view? It sounds like an argument based on semantics. isn’t the part that moves what physicists call light?

Thanks for the link. It’s really interesting… will go through it.

1 Like