From: 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer)
Newsgroups: sci.skeptic,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Young earth creationist logic NOT!
Date: 28 Aug 92 22:00:01 GMT

I have edited fairly ruthlessly to cut down on length.  If I have cut
out too much context so that understanding is harmed, I apologize.

In article <1992Aug27.183338.12915@acuson.com>, 
 lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
> In article <1992Aug25.131853.8962@bsu-ucs.uucp> 
> 00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug24.162037.5468@acuson.com>, 
>> lawson@acuson.com (Drew Lawson) writes:
>>> In article <1992Aug21.155926.8939@bsu-ucs.uucp> 
>>>  00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.uucp (Paul Neubauer) writes:
> 
>>> If I make a (for example) medical statement to a group of people where
>>> half are medically trained and the others are not, the statement is
>>> likely to be misunderstood by half of the crowd.  However, if it is
>>> intended for those who are trying to learn about medical matters, the
>>> confusion of the others is irrelevant.
>>
>>Not a bad point.  The only problem (for you) is that it argues
>>*against* creationism.  (How many 2nd millenium BC Isrealites were
>>scientifically trained?  How does their confusion bind us to the
>>confused account that they recorded?)
> 
> I'm afraid you lost me here.  If spiritual matters are presented and
> only those seeking spiritual learning understand, how does that derail
> the creation?  Why do you feel that "2nd millenium BC Isrealites"
> needed to be scientificly trained to understand that God created the
> world?
> 
> I'm sure I've missed part of your intent, but I'm not sure where.

You have it backwards.  The problem is not that "2nd millenium BC
Isrealites" would not need to be scientifically trained to understand
*that* God created the world, but that they would have needed
significant education (that did not exist at that time) to have
understood *how* and *when* God created the world.  So why should we
(or rather you) feel bound to accept as completely accurate an account
that appears to be a considerable oversimplification.  The point
(which others have also made) is that given the volume and quality of
evidence accumulated by now, virtually everybody who has spent the
effort required to understand any significant fraction of it has come
away convinced that things did not happen in the way described in
Genesis.  The Christians among those people therefore usually take
exactly the position that you advocated in the paragraph about the
medical explanation, namely that since the people who wrote down the
explanation in Genesis (either from previous accounts or from
first-hand inspiration) were not able to understand a detailed and
accurate explanation, they wrote a version of the story that still got
across the point *that* God created the world, but did not get all the
details right.

>>>>Your actions or my actions can produce unintended consequences.  If
>>>>you believe in an omniscient and omnipotent God, then you cannot
>>>>assert that His actions could produce unintended consequences, since
>>>>He would be in a position to both know the consequences of any action
>>>>and avoid such consequences if He did not want them to occur.
>>> 
>>> Let me ask you a question about this.  Lets say you have two children,
>>> about 5-7 years old.  Through some course of events, the three of you
>>> are high up on a building, and slip.  You manage to grab each by the
>>> wrist, but you haven't the leverage to pull them up, and both grips are
>>> slipping.  You _know_ that if either falls, he will die.  You _know_ that
>>> if you try to hold with one hand, each will slip.
>>> 
>>> Do you _intend_ for your children (or one child) to die?
>>> 
>>> God doesn't _intend_ for us to fall, even though He knows whether we
>>> will.  If He didn't allow it, though, the choices would not be ours to
>>> make.
>>
>>This is another stupid analogy.  I am not omnipotent.
> 
> That's an easy way out of answering the question:  "That's stupid.
> Next question."

No.  It's a way of saving time.  God would not have to make that kind
of choice, so why should I debate such a silly point?

>>> If this "evidence" were not there, would you have any choice about
>>> accepting the story of the creation?  You cannot have a choice unless
>>> there is an alternative available.  God makes two doors and says, "Go
>>> through door #1."  When you go through door #2, you say, "God didn't
>>> make this door.  It made itself."
>>> 
>>> What is lacking from this discussion is that, while mistakes are
>>> allowed, choices are _essential_.  We cannot get from this life the
>>> kind of growth we need without the oppurtunity to choose between right
>>> and wrong.
> 
>>What you appear to be claiming in your 2 immediately preceding
>>paragraphs is that God has manufactured a second door for us, and not
>>content with merely leaving us the alternative of simply not accepting
>>your Biblical interpretation (which says to choose door #1), He has
>>also deliberately created physical evidence for us that strongly
>>suggests that door #2 is a better choice.
> 
> When you make that statement, you imply that you are ready to choose
> door #2.  Actually, you have already walked through it.

Precisely.  And I have walked through it *because* I saw the
overwhelming evidence that it was the better choice.  If I saw a good
reason to reverse my course and take the other route, then I would,
but your claim that the overwhelming evidence is merely there to give
me a way to go wrong does not get very far.  If that were the case,
then that *constitutes* deception and why should I assume that a God
who would deceive me by creating overwhelming evidence for a course
that He did not want me to take would not deceive me by allowing a
deceptive interpretation of the Bible (IMHO, yours)?  

> My appologies.  On a reread, I realize that I mistook the punctuation.
> I thought that you were saying that the preceeding statement ("quite
> clear on many points that conflict with the creationist reading of
> Genesis") was establisted.

OK.  Sorry for the tone of my (deleted) comment.

>>What you would have a harder time with, though would be
>>claiming that the evidence (and its straigtforward interpretation) are
>>not present at all.
> 
> Parentheses are interesting.  If I disagree, are you going to accuse me
> of disputing the evidence?  I don't hold that the "straightforward
> interpretation" is the only valid viewpoint.

Sorry about the parentheses.  I did not intend to put words into your
mouth. I don't hold that the "straightforward interpretation" (SI) is
the only valid one either.  However, my point is that the SI of the
physical evidence is in no way worse than the corresponding SI of the
Bible, but it is in conflict with an SI of the Bible.  The question is
therefore which must be interpreted in a nonstraightforward manner.  I
have argued that an SI of the physical evidence can easily be
reconciled with a non SI of Genesis, but that the SI (i.e. young-earth
creationist) of the Bible cannot easily be reconciled with *any*
reasonable interpretation of the physical evidence (except the
deceptive one).

-- 
Paul Neubauer   00prneubauer@leo.bsuvc.bsu.edu  00prneubauer@bsuvax1.BITNET
                00prneubauer@bsu-ucs.UUCP       neubauer@bsu-cs.UUCP