That, if one is sufficiently motivated, one can come up with a scenario to support any position one wants if it is assumed we live in a universe in which anything can happen (e.g. one in which there exists an omnipotent being) and are only restricted by what cannot be falsified by current scientific knowledge.
If my hypothesis is pointless (and I am not saying it isn’t), then so is @swamidass’s.
I dont believe science has made any of your assertions especially credible .
We could devote a whole website to your position… but it would be mismatched resources: there is juat one of you.
There are millions of YECs.
If you read @swamidass’ book on the GAE (when it comes out), you will see that believes which require a larger amount of miracles to be true are considered less favorable. For example, some people believe that A&E were created de novo with some genetic content which were then magically propagated to all of their descendants. Such propagation would require ongoing miracles or some yet undiscovered naturalistic mechanism. This makes such a scenario less favorable. Your scenario also fails under a similar set of criteria.
In contrast, the basic GAE hypothesis requires only one miracle which is arguably (though not indisputably) recorded in Scripture. It is both theologically favorable and not very distasteful even to the naturalist, as it requires only a single miracle (i.e. anomaly) happening 6-10k years ago in the Middle East. Nothing about this miracles hinders our ability to do legitimate empirical science right now. Whereas your scenario, if true, would seriously undercut the ability of scientific investigation to say true things about reality. (For me, this is also why many YEC-type scenarios seem very clumsy, as they need a lot of miracles to work.)
Biblically, there’s only one such creative Being:
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.He was in the beginning with God.All things came into being through Him, and apart from Him nothing came into being that has come into being.In Him was life, and the life was the Light of men. - John 1:1-4 NASB
Both @John_Harshman and @dga471 have it right.
Positing a deceptive God is a disaster for science, leading to solipsism and absurdity. Your hypothesis posits a deceptive God. It also posits ongoing miracles that can be invoked ad hoc to hide evidence from us.
The GAE does not, precisely the opposite. The GAE does not rely on miracles to hide evidence. These distinctions are important. If you’d like to press your hypothesis, it falls prey to serious scientific and philosophical objections.
And yes it fails on evidence too. @John_Harshman gave the example of birth certificates, and your response was to posit a whole new class of ongoing deceptive miracles, not in you original hypothesis. That move is an example of epicycles, an ad hoc rescue, a special pleading. The GAE does not do this even once.
It does not take deep thought to find more classes of evidence for which you would have to posit a new class of ongoing miracle for the sole purpose of hiding evidence. Your scenario means that 1/6 of the people we meet were de novo created, without parents, without histories before some age. It is inconceivable we would not notice this, not without descending into Last Thursday-ism.
Your hypothesis leads to that abyss, but the GAE does not, because the GAE does not posit any ongoing miracles to hide evidence and it does not posit a deceptive God. That distinction is clear as day, as your comparison point helpfully illustrates.
I did not say it has. It has not made the assertion of “de novo creation” of human beings credible under any circumstances.
Is that a problem?
So my scenario would be even more miraculous than GAE. Shouldn’t that be a point in its favour?
The Bible has no relevance to my hypothesis.
That’s an argument in favour in which no miracles occur, not against my hypothesis. If you are so concerned about the deleterious effects belief in miracles would have on science, you should not be promoting GAE.
You are making presumptions about my hypothesis that are not based on anything I have said. It would not be necessary for false birth certificates to be created, though that would be one possibility. But it is also possible that the de novo creation involved creating humans in the forms of embryos which are then implanted, again thru supernatural means, into women’s uteruses. That actually seems to me to be the more plausible scenario. So thanks for that peer review!
You are just describing differences between our two hypotheses. That mine involves more miracles is not a weakness. Once you open the door to accommodating miracles in science, why stop at one?
I also fail to see why GAE does not reveal God to be deceptive. If God introduces a new strain of humans into the population that are indistinguishable from those who were not created “de novo”, how is that not deceptive?
Obviously, as does no other truthful frame of reference. You are free to imagine as you please, but that does not shape nor conform to reality.
I don’t see how one could, this doesn’t seem like a testable or falsifiable hypothesis. Do you have any suggestions?
I don’t understand why this is a “consequence”. Who said original sin is genetic?
No, I do not believe it is falsifiable. This is good news. It would appear I have stumbled upon an idea as signicant as Geneological Adam.
Not literally genetic, but it is passed down by descent in an analogous manner. Pope Pius XII explained this in his encyclical Humani generis. If I understand correctly, it is part of the motivation behind @swamidass’s GAE hypothesis, which is a competitor to mine. He needs a hypothesis that is compatible with evolution but which retains the tenet of Christianity that all humans that have ever lived are subject to original sin, which can only be redeemed thru the blood of the Christ.
You are sounding like the worst examples of YEC and ID. Fairly entertaining. Good luck with that, cause if this is all you got the anti-religious response to my book is gonna be sputtering fun all around.
Can you explain to me why having more miracles would make it more favorable?
If GAE is good because it has one miracle, then my version with lots of miracles must be that much better.
Let me ask the question again: why do you think more miracles must be much better?
How so? What is scientifically inaccurate about my idea? It is solidly supported by all the scientific evidence, to the same extent that GAE is. I admit, my idea does not pander to the beliefs of Christians who are skeptical of science. But that should not matter in terms of the value of my idea.
You’re not making a lot of sense to me. Your hypothesis is an interesting one, but not one that can be scientifically verified (at least probably not in any convincing way). As far as I can see, you haven’t provided any other types of evidence and there doesn’t seem to be any reason for the hypothesis, so I don’t see any advantages to your model (if that’s what it is).
Now, GAE also cannot be scientifically verified and it doesn’t make any scientific claims. Josh has never claimed, as far as I can tell, that GAE is scientifically verifiable. On the other hand, unlike your hypothesis, it does make a lot of sense of existing theological questions within Christianity.
There are people who think Jesus was this great guy because of all the miracles they believe he performed. Would he be greater if he had performed no miracles?
There are many scientific claims being made. However, I do claim we cannot verify GAE with scientific evidence. That itself is a scientific claim.