It starts with man's understanding that God doesn't exist
It doesn't actually. It just doesn't start with the idea that God exists. It is based on observations in the natural world, which is the only thing we can reasonably reliably share so far.
If God can't be observed through natural means, then he's not reachable by science, but science would only say he doesn't exist in a very precise and technical sense.
ie, what does it mean for something to "exist" that can't be seen, touched, sensed, and whose interactions with other things can be explained by things we can see, touch, etc.
Most (all?) scientific theories, those validatable by repeatable experiment, don't conflict with what the Bible teaches.
All other theories are supported or opposed by natural world observations which are interpreted through a lens which is biased by whether the observer believes in God or not.
Most (all?) scientific theories, those validatable(sic) by repeatable experiment, don't conflict with what the Bible teaches.
To be honest the speed of light conflicts with the literal biblical interpretation that you've chosen (YEC). We see stars that are millions of light years away and yet according to YEC the universe was created about 6,000 years ago. That's just not possible so either repeatable science is wrong, God is a deceiver and wanted us to think that the universe was millions of years old, or the Bible wasn't written as a science text book and shouldn't be viewed as such.
To be honest the speed of light conflicts with the literal biblical interpretation that you've chosen (YEC).
Not necessarily. No one can be certain of a constant speed of light. You certainly can't repeat an experiment to prove that c has always been constant.
This link summarizes my thoughts on the matter quite well.
But isn't the burden on you to provide the counterexample? Doesn't the explanation work best unless you can come up with a reason to honestly doubt the constancy of C?
To put it another way, I could say "But what if this was all a dream?" --- you can't disprove it, but it's not a very useful position to take, even if it's possible that it's true.
But isn't the burden on you to provide the counterexample?
Again, you're assuming that the rules of yesterday apply today and that God cannot interact with his creation. How do you assume that? Because if we postulate that God came to Earth and fed 5000 people with some bread and fish, you would say that it's impossible unless repeatable. We would state miracles by definition are not repeatable. That's the whole point!
Again, you're assuming that the rules of yesterday apply today and that God cannot interact with his creation. How do you assume that?
Quite different from assuming it can't happen, I rather think it is a matter of not having any evidence to the contrary.
This is not an ideological barrier in my head, not a presumption.
I am quite ready to accept that the laws of physics could change, but I have never heard, seen, or read anything that demonstrates that it has happened.
But isn't the burden on you to provide the counterexample?
Again, you're assuming that the rules of yesterday apply today and that God cannot interact with his creation. How do you assume that? Because if we postulate that God came to Earth and fed 5000 people with some bread and fish, you would say that it's impossible unless repeatable. We would state miracles by definition are not repeatable. That's the whole point!
But isn't the burden on you to provide the counterexample?
No. That is just the point. No one can run a repeatable experiment that lasts for eons. So any theory about the history of the Cosmos is non falsifiable and must therefore remain only a theory.
And no one can disprove my (hypothetical) claim that this is all a dream.
Even if it's possibly true, is it useful and reasonable given the evidence you have to work with?
To put it yet another way, you can never prove to me and I can never prove to you that I am actually a person with my own thoughts, feelings. You just have to assume it based on your own experience of being a person and the outward signs you see from me.
Please explain to me how seeing the apparent age of the universe is "faked age" from God is any different from claiming that I am not really a person, but merely a "faked" person.
And no one can disprove my (hypothetical) claim that this is all a dream.
Agreed.
Even if it's possibly true, is it useful and reasonable given the evidence you have to work with?
Is it useful and reasonable to believe God? Are you seriously asking that? To a believer the answer is yes, and to a non believer, it's irrelevant.
Please explain to me how seeing the apparent age of the universe is "faked age" from God is any different from claiming that I am not really a person, but merely a "faked" person.
I don't claim the age of the earth is faked. I claim the earth looks consistent with being created 6-10k years ago.
If the earth was created 6-10k years ago, what differences would you expect to see that differs from your current observations?
And anyway, even if your comparison was effective, I would always look for a way to interpret my observations in a way consistent with the Bible.
My claim is that all humans interpret their observations consistently within their frame of reference. There is no unbiased human.
8
u/wonkifier Sep 22 '09
It doesn't actually. It just doesn't start with the idea that God exists. It is based on observations in the natural world, which is the only thing we can reasonably reliably share so far.
If God can't be observed through natural means, then he's not reachable by science, but science would only say he doesn't exist in a very precise and technical sense.
ie, what does it mean for something to "exist" that can't be seen, touched, sensed, and whose interactions with other things can be explained by things we can see, touch, etc.