If point B is the beginning and point A is a false beginning but one we can observe then God is being a deceptive a-hole.
It's not supposed to be a trick. That's just the way it works. It's the beginning that would be.
Try it like this. It's like reading a mystery book; there's a back story to it, but in many cases it's one that we'll never see. The author isn't being deceptive by not creating it despite the fact that it would have existed. The author would rather skip over the irrelevant part.
That's not even to say that the readers can't inquire about the past or make assumptions about it. But assuming God is the "writer" of our world, it simply doesn't change the story itself if there really was or wasn't a point A. We can still learn from point A, and possibly make assumptions about more laws of nature. How would God leaving evidence of point A for us to study and evaluate be an act of deception?
No I said that and me being God and creating everything just as it is less then a half hour ago with the memories you have of the past being nothing but a fabrication is just as possible as your theory.
A little less possible, because in my theory, it doesn't affect human interaction, and the point is placed further into the past.
I was just throwing out a theory; no need to insult it because you don't agree.
Try it like this. It's like reading a mystery book; there's a back story to it, but in many cases it's one that we'll never see. The author isn't being deceptive by not creating it despite the fact that it would have existed. The author would rather skip over the irrelevant part.
That's not even to say that the readers can't inquire about the past or make assumptions about it. But assuming God is the "writer" of our world, it simply doesn't change the story itself if there really was or wasn't a point A. We can still learn from point A, and possibly make assumptions about more laws of nature. How would God leaving evidence of point A for us to study and evaluate be an act of deception?
However we are not the reader we are the character so to speak and from that point of view it is deceptive. Leaving evidence for a non existent point A is deceptive because it wouldn't be the truth.
A little less possible, because in my theory, it doesn't affect human interaction, and the point is placed further into the past.
If your going to say that things didn't start in the way or at the point they appear to have started because God made it to look that way, weather it effects human interaction or not is irrelevant.
I didn't think I would jump into this battle but the thing that I don't get is how can there be this point A or a beginning before the recorded beginning. We all agree that there was a start to (the beginning) but how can one say that there was an always existing before (the beginning)? If there is no evidence of an always existing before (the beginning) then God must not have always existed. And for how the world was created, who knows? Just enjoy the Earth.
We all agree that there was a start to (the beginning) but how can one say that there was an always existing before (the beginning)?
It's a non-existent beginning, but a beginning in theory. This is for our universe, not from God's perspective.
However we are not the reader we are the character so to speak and from that point of view it is deceptive. Leaving evidence for a non existent point A is deceptive because it wouldn't be the truth.
It teaches the truth of our laws, so there's enough truth in it that it's useful. Why would that offend you if God left traces of a non-existent point A? The important thing is that you can learn from point A, and that this non-existent point follows the current laws of nature. Even if you were deceived, why the hell would you care? It doesn't make a difference, at least in this life, whether or not God created traces of point A or if God doesn't exist and point A does.
If your going to say that things didn't start in the way or at the point they appear to have started because God made it to look that way, weather it effects human interaction or not is irrelevant.
My theory is that God left traces of a point A. Yours is that God altered our minds to believe we had memories that we really didn't. That's very relevant.
I don't think I'll ever understand how that makes God an a**hole. If you want to try to explain, feel free, but the direction you've been taking hasn't made any sense to me. At this point, my responding is kinda pointless; you can respond, and I'll see what you have to say, but this conversation's going nowhere.
It teaches the truth of our laws, so there's enough truth in it that it's useful. Why would that offend you if God left traces of a non-existent point A? The important thing is that you can learn from point A, and that this non-existent point follows the current laws of nature. Even if you were deceived, why the hell would you care? It doesn't make a difference, at least in this life, whether or not God created traces of point A or if God doesn't exist and point A does.
Very simple one would be the truth the other would not be. If B is true then the things we learn from observing A would be false. I would rather know the truth.
My theory is that God left traces of a point A. Yours is that God altered our minds to believe we had memories that we really didn't. That's very relevant.
Well actually it would be that God made our minds with the memories of things that never really happened. Either way it's a false start.
I don't think I'll ever understand how that makes God an a**hole.
Weather God being an a-hole or not is a bit irrelevant to the topic. I was just trying to come up with a bit stronger language.
On the subject of the author's comment There is a lamp in your room? It makes light, but it's not the sun. Maybe I should start a forum about flaws in atheist statements.
We all agree that there was a start to (the beginning) but how can one say that there was an always existing before (the beginning)?
It is very simple. To BigP08, there was the universe for billions of years. This is point A, the true beginning. God comes in and makes the earth. This is the very first thing that has happened in billions of years! This, point B, is another beginning, but only for the Earth, not the universe.
In regards to the first post. It saysKing James Version) that he created Light(probably the Sun) on the 1st day. Then He said Let there be LightS(Probably the Moon and Stars) in the firmament of the heaven to separate day from night
so the 1st was probably the sun and the 4th was probably the stars and moon
"And God made two great lights; the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night: he made the stars also."
Technically, it's only one great light. The lesser light is a reflection off the moon from the greater light. I thought God was smarter than that. Hmm, guess not...
