Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.
 

[creat] Re: State Vector

Expand Messages
  • Paul Andrew King
    Commments on some bits. ... That comes down to the mature Universe versions of the apparent age argument. It still has the problem that it implies
    Message 1 of 15 , May 31, 2001
      Commments on some bits.

      >***Mike H responds:
      >My point here is, with an omnipotent God, he could know the entire
      >boundary conditions necessary without having to have an existing
      >universe to measure.

      That comes down to the "mature Universe" versions of the apparent age
      argument. It still has the problem that it implies deception, since
      many signs of age are not required for the universe to function as a
      mature universe.


      >***Mike H responds:
      >I would ask you what this deception is. Since, in the case under
      >discussion, God created the universe, and told man that he did, then
      >there is no disagreement between what he did and what he said he did.

      That demands that the evidence that God did indeed say so must be
      very strong. Which it isn't. And because it isn't, in this
      scenario, people ARE deceived.

      >
      >***Mike H responds:
      >Here, our observations as we have progressed through life have been
      >diametrically opposed. The more I have studied and observed, the more
      >convinced I have become of the divine inspiration of scripture. Lee
      >Strobel wrote two books that match my understanding to a high degree:
      >The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ. He started his journey to
      >Christ as an attorney and atheist, and in these books describes the
      >broad spectrum of reasons he came to believe in the Christ of
      >scripture.

      That's not my impression from reading reviews and discussion about
      the book. It's more putting forward a case for his CURRENT
      conservative beliefs.

      (Todd)
      >Whether it's geometric
      >calculations of the distance of astronomical entities, magnitude
      >measurements of distant stars and galaxies, or geological
      >considerations such as impact craters on the earth, it all shows us
      >the very same thing: The world is ancient. Yet time and again I meet
      >with young earth creationists who seem to almost gleefully indulge in
      >obfuscating such simple facts as these with barns full of empty
      >rhetoric and careless errors. That approach is just not right.

      >***Mike H responds:
      >Unfortunately, I don't think this represents a problem for what I
      >have postulated. We read:
      >Gen. 1:3-5 (KJV) 3And God said, Let there be light: and there was
      >light. 4And God saw the light, that it was good: and God divided the
      >light from the darkness. 5And God called the light Day, and the
      >darkness he called Night.
      >>From this we see that the very first thing created was light. Not
      >stars, the sun, and the moon. Just light. Only after He saw that it
      >was good did he divide the light from the darkness.

      ...Which seems to refer to the establishment of the day/night cycle.
      That makes any interpretation of the preceding verse as referring to
      an initial creation of light problematic to say the least. It's also
      a bit of a problem for a "universe cloning" point of view - why do it
      in stages ?

      > Since light is
      >electromagnetic radiation, I don't think words written to the
      >ancients about light excludes other forms of radiation that was
      >unknown and unobservable to them. From what I understand about
      >astronomy, our knowledge of the universe is based on observation of
      >radiation in its many forms, not direct observation. Therefore, we
      >know nothing about SN1987A except the observations made on radiation
      >arriving from that specific direction.

      Which comes down to God creating electromagnetic radiation which
      gives a perfect illusion of a star exploding 168,000 years ago. In
      short it *is* still a problem for you that the evidence shows that
      the universe is ancient. Because that evidence shows a history that
      - in the scenario you suggest - did not happen.
      --
      --
      "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
      immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
      in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
      Guide to Taoism_

      Paul K.
    • Mike Hewlett
      ... degree: The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ. He started his journey to Christ as an attorney and atheist, and in these books describes the broad
      Message 2 of 15 , Jun 1, 2001
        > >***Mike H responds:
        > >Lee Strobel wrote two books that match my understanding to a high
        degree: The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ. He started his
        journey to Christ as an attorney and atheist, and in these books
        describes the broad spectrum of reasons he came to believe in the
        Christ of scripture.
        >
        --- In creationism@y..., Paul Andrew King <paul@m...> wrote:
        > That's not my impression from reading reviews and discussion about
        > the book. It's more putting forward a case for his CURRENT
        > conservative beliefs.
        >
        Mike H again responds:
        Paul,
        You, having read reviews by others and discussed the topic with
        others, have merely arrived at a different conclusion that I got from
        actually reading the books.

        --Mike H
      • Paul Andrew King
        ... A point of universal agreement is that the book is strongly biased in favour of Strobel s current views. No other point of view gets a look in. In light
        Message 3 of 15 , Jun 1, 2001
          > > >***Mike H responds:
          >> >Lee Strobel wrote two books that match my understanding to a high
          >degree: The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ. He started his
          >journey to Christ as an attorney and atheist, and in these books
          >describes the broad spectrum of reasons he came to believe in the
          >Christ of scripture.
          >>
          >--- In creationism@y..., Paul Andrew King <paul@m...> wrote:
          >> That's not my impression from reading reviews and discussion about
          >> the book. It's more putting forward a case for his CURRENT
          >> conservative beliefs.
          >>
          >Mike H again responds:
          >Paul,
          >You, having read reviews by others and discussed the topic with
          >others, have merely arrived at a different conclusion that I got from
          >actually reading the books.

          A point of universal agreement is that the book is strongly biased in
          favour of Strobel's current views. No other point of view gets a
          look in. In light of that I think my point stands.
          --
          --
          "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
          immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
          in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
          Guide to Taoism_

          Paul K.
        • Mike Hewlett
          ... high ... about ... from ... in ... Paul, Anything universal has no exceptions. A single exception disproves it. I do no agree with your claim. Therefore it
          Message 4 of 15 , Jun 1, 2001
            --- In creationism@y..., Paul Andrew King <paul@m...> wrote:
            > > > >***Mike H responds:
            > >> >Lee Strobel wrote two books that match my understanding to a
            high
            > >degree: The Case for Faith and The Case for Christ. He started his
            > >journey to Christ as an attorney and atheist, and in these books
            > >describes the broad spectrum of reasons he came to believe in the
            > >Christ of scripture.
            > >>
            > >--- In creationism@y..., Paul Andrew King <paul@m...> wrote:
            > >> That's not my impression from reading reviews and discussion
            about
            > >> the book. It's more putting forward a case for his CURRENT
            > >> conservative beliefs.
            > >>
            > >Mike H again responds:
            > >Paul,
            > >You, having read reviews by others and discussed the topic with
            > >others, have merely arrived at a different conclusion that I got
            from
            > >actually reading the books.
            >
            > A point of universal agreement is that the book is strongly biased
            in
            > favour of Strobel's current views. No other point of view gets a
            > look in. In light of that I think my point stands.
            > --
            Paul,

            Anything universal has no exceptions. A single exception disproves
            it. I do no agree with your claim. Therefore it is not universal, and
            you are quite arrogant to make such a false claim.

            --Mike H
          • Paul Andrew King
            ... Then please produce one. ... You aren t included in it, since you are not the author of any of the reviews I have read, nor are you one of the people I
            Message 5 of 15 , Jun 1, 2001
              > > A point of universal agreement is that the book is strongly biased
              >in
              >> favour of Strobel's current views. No other point of view gets a
              >> look in. In light of that I think my point stands.
              >> --
              >Paul,
              >
              >Anything universal has no exceptions. A single exception disproves
              >it.

              Then please produce one.

              >I do no agree with your claim.

              You aren't included in it, since you are not the author of any of the
              reviews I have read, nor are you one of the people I have discussed
              it with.

              > Therefore it is not universal, and
              >you are quite arrogant to make such a false claim.

              No, you're simply taking my statement out of context.

              Now perhaps you could explain why, if Strobel is not biased, he ONLY
              interviewed conservative Christian scholars for his book ?
              --
              --
              "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
              immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
              in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
              Guide to Taoism_

              Paul K.
            • Todd S. Greene
              Hi, Mike. Exercises can be fun! Just a few points regarding your latest response... ... No parent universe? *Could* He? Does God have the power and the
              Message 6 of 15 , Jun 3, 2001
                Hi, Mike.

                Exercises can be fun!

                Just a few points regarding your latest response...


                > ***Todd G wrote:
                > Third, even thinking in the simple terms of a "parent" universe
                > and a "child" universe, which I do not at all grant, there *is*
                > a "parent" universe with a real history, in the terms of the
                > scenario.
                >
                > ***Mike H responds:
                > My point here is, with an omnipotent God, he could know the
                > entire boundary conditions necessary without having to have an
                > existing universe to measure.

                No "parent" universe? *Could* He? Does God have the power and the
                intelligence, *and the motivation of doing it for the purpose of
                being fascinated by "surprise"*, to create a universe that has
                random chance embedded into its fabric such that He does not know
                how it will develop? If God does have that power and intelligence
                and motivation, then He could also not do what you describe with
                that kind of universe. (Does the concept of omniscience imply that
                God cannot create "surprise" for himself? If He cannot, then does
                this imply a contradiction of omnipotence?)

                Sorry, I should have pointed out that aspect earlier when I was
                mentioning the randomness of quantum events.

                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                > ***Todd G wrote:
                > Fifth, we have not pondered the "cloning" process itself, what
                > it really means, or what effects it might produce. For example,
                > there is a quantum mechanical effect such that matter literally
                > pops into and out of existence all around us all of the time.
                > The effects of this process have been observed. What could we
                > observe of a "cloning" process?
                >
                > ***Mike H responds:
                > If the universe is created, the creator knows his own laws of
                > physics sufficiently to represent anything we have observed -
                > with real or apparent age.

                But then God would not have the kind of universe that possesses the
                "potential of creativity" ("surprise") that I mention above - which is,
                apparently, as seen by the quantum mechanical nature, the kind of
                universe we live in. We do not have a Newtonian clockwork universe.

                Additionally, why would God create something in such a way that it is
                obviously deceiving, such as when we see the stellar explosion SN1987A
                even though the stellar explosion never really happened? Take a look
                at the HST image in my article at:

                http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/ancientproof/SN1987A.html

                Or take a look at many other images regarding SN1987A:

                . Supernova Blast Begins Taking Shape
                http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/03/A.html

                . STIS Chemically Analyzes the Ring Around Supernova 1987A
                http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/14.html

                . STIS Reveals Invisible High-Speed Collision Around Supernova 1987A
                http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/97/19.html

                . Shock Wave Sheds New Light on Fading Supernova
                http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1998/08/

                . SN1987A in the Large Magellanic Cloud
                http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/pr/1999/04/

                . Onset of Titanic Collision Lights Up Supernova Ring
                http://oposite.stsci.edu/pubinfo/PR/2000/11/

                . The Tarantula Nebula and SN1987a in the Large Magellanic Cloud
                http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat048.html

                . Supernova 1987A and Sanduleak -69°202
                http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat048a.html

                . The Tarantula Nebula, before SN1987A
                http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat049.html

                . Near the Tarantula Nebula in the LMC, before and after SN1987A
                http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat050.html

                . The light echo of supernova 1987A
                http://www.aao.gov.au/images/captions/aat066.html

                . Supernova 1987A
                http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/l6S6.htm

                . The SN1987A Circumstellar Ring and the Distance to the LMC
                http://cosmos.colorado.edu/astr1120/homework4/hwk4.html

                Astronomers are still watching the aftermath of this stellar explosion.
                As far as I see it, there're no two ways around it. If that stellar
                explosion never actually occurred, but this - and everything else we
                observe in the universe - is merely a great cosmic illusion, then that
                is truly deceit on a God-like scale. Also, I do not grant that God has
                "told us" anything unequivocal other than the very objective reality
                that anyone and everyone can directly observe. Moreover, I know by
                real-life experience that objective information from the real world is
                far, far more reliable than equivocal interpretations of ancient texts
                that some humans promote as having come from the gods. I note that you
                aren't promoting any Hindu scriptures. I claim that the empirical data
                from the real world that you and I and anyone else can acquire and
                examine is far superior in epistemological value to claims of divine
                knowledge. And I believe the achievements of the history of science
                against the history of other approaches substantiates my claim very
                strongly. Indeed, in this respect, I would say that, assuming God
                created the world, then the world that He created shows us how old it
                is, so we can check the validity of anyone who comes along claiming
                special knowledge based on the fruits of divine inspiration by seeing if
                what he claims matches the real world. This is, indeed, the only kind of
                objective checking that exists. Otherwise, we might as well all be
                geocentrists (or subjectively take rides on comets by committing
                suicide), because what we actually observe of the real doesn't matter.

                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                > ***Todd G wrote:
                > You state that, "A necessary inference from our above discussion
                > is that an omnipotent, omniscient force, by knowing the complete
                > boundary conditions of the 'state vector', could create a universe
                > having apparent age far in excess of its actual age." I'm sorry,
                > but I just don't see the necessity of the "could" in that
                > proposition. Additionally, as I've intimated, I don't see that
                > such an event is necessarily completely "invisible" to the
                > possibility of being empirically examined (tested).
                >
                > ***Mike H responds:
                > You are absolutely correct. There is no necessity that this
                > proposition be correct. However, the assertion that this creation
                > might be subject to examination contradicts the omniscience of
                > God, since to be detectable, God would have been unable to make it
                > undetectable, since I had originally postulated that he did make
                > it identical even down to the sub-atomic level.

                But in order to do this with a "creative" universe, which is what
                ours is, God at least needs a "parent" universe, and then we are back
                where we started. I know that my comments would appear to contradict
                the traditional notion of omniscience, but the presence of evil has
                been interpreted by theists to not contradict the notion of
                omnibenevolence, so who knows what might be possible by further
                conceptual investigation? ;-) ;-)

                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                An additional point which I have touched on but have not made clear is
                that the idea of the "cloning" process (or the "instantaneous creation
                of a particular state vector" process) does not in any way imply that
                the "cloning" process event itself is supposed to be "invisible" or
                undetectable. In the simple scenario of the "parent" and "child" and not
                being able to determine which was which, nothing implies that the
                "cloning" process should have no observable effects. It simply means
                that if you are in one of these "cloned" universes and are observing the
                effects of a "cloning" process having occurred some time in that past,
                realizing by this empirical discovery that your universe was "cloned"
                does not tell you whether you are in a "parent" or a "child" universe.
                That is what I granted as seeming reasonable. I do not grant that the
                "cloning" process would have absolutely no detectable effects and would
                thus be completely "invisible" to any and all objective examination.
                Indeed, we could just as well say that the Big Bang is one such
                "cloning" event, and that we have thus have evidence of a "cloning"
                event having occurred roughly 14 billion years ago.

                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                From Paul's polemic against the Athenian philosophers, I have for many
                years thought that he must have found the discussion experience there
                (described in Acts) quite frustrating.

                I believe Paul is referring to the gospel, and not to science and
                cosmology in any sense related to the apparent age concept.

                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                > ***Todd G wrote:
                > If God, as some people portray them in their minds today, really
                > existed, then I am genuinely absolutely astounded that He allows
                > the shoddy practices resulting from what is call "divine
                > inspiration" today rather than the real thing. Why indeed does God
                > need human intermediaries of any kind to communicate to me, or to
                > anyone else? The answer to that one is pretty obvious.
                >
                > ***Mike H responds:
                > You are absolutely right. God does not need human intermediaries.
                > He doesn't need anything that man can supply, although he wants our
                > love and obedience. However, he gave us the freedom to choose
                > whether to follow his teachings. If he prevented any evil that man
                > chooses to do, he would by that very action have eliminated the
                > freedom of choice which he had given man.

                I'm sorry I expressed poorly my thought poorly what I wrote. What I mean
                is that God does not need Moses, Solomon, Isaiah, Luke, Paul, or any of
                these others to communicate to us. It seems suspiciously convenient
                to me that God's communication to me must be through some human
                intermediary. Since the agency of human middlemen is notoriously (and
                inherently) subject to fallacy and corruption, don't you find it quite
                incredible that God would choose such an agency?

                Let me give an analogical example: I'm a computer programmer by
                profession. I am certainly no God. But if I was consulted about
                communication hardware and software to be installed for a computer
                network, and I purposely selected obsolete technology that was
                incredibly slow and far more susceptible to "line noise" (corruption)
                that was is currently available, then I would rightfully be fired. Yet
                this is just what God is alleged to have done. I don't buy it.

                The most obvious solution to determining the proper interpretation of
                Genesis vis-a-vis details regarding creation events from an objective
                perspective would be for God Himself to clearly and unequivocally
                explain it to us. We could ask Him whatever we needed to ask, and He
                would fill in all of the necessary details. This is so obvious to me, I
                can't understand why other people don't see this.

                Oh, is the answer that God really does only work through human
                intermediaries? Hmmm... I wonder why. Sounds real fishy to me. Like
                Joseph Smith having translated (by divine inspiration) golden plates
                that have conviently been taken back to heaven by an angel.

                If the response is that this all other claimed human middlemen, such
                as the Koran, are merely false, while the Bible shows the power of God
                in displaying His ability to communicate to us anyway through human
                agency, I would simply reply that God would unequivocally display His
                power and ability, completely independent of questions of legitimacy of
                claims for divine inspiration by simply directly communicating to us
                Himself. Why is this such a big problem? I really don't think that
                theists are going to claim that this is somehow beyond God's power. I
                think it is a big problem for theists who claim divine inspirations for
                particular documents because of the very fact that such direct
                communication does not in fact exist.

                = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                > ***Todd G wrote:
                > A relevant example in the present general context is that I know
                > that the universe is ancient, just as certainly as I know that the
                > earth revolves around the sun. Whether you agree with me or not is
                > irrelevant *to me*, since what I know is based on the relevant
                > information that I am already quite well aware of. The stellar
                > explosion SN1987A occurred 168,000 years ago. This is a simple
                > objective fact about the real world. Mike, I honestly tell you
                > that no young earth creationist has ever presented to me even one
                > piece of relevant correct information about the real world that
                > would even begin to make me wonder if it was possible that SN1987A
                > did not actually occur about 168,000 years ago. That kind of data
                > just does not exist. We see by all of the extensive relevant data
                > that we possess that the world is ancient. Whether it's geometric
                > calculations of the distance of astronomical entities, magnitude
                > measurements of distant stars and galaxies, or geological
                > considerations such as impact craters on the earth, it all shows
                > us the very same thing: The world is ancient. Yet time and again I
                > meet with young earth creationists who seem to almost gleefully
                > indulge in obfuscating such simple facts as these with barns full
                > of empty rhetoric and careless errors. That approach is just not
                > right.
                >
                > ***Mike H responds:
                > Unfortunately, I don't think this represents a problem for what I
                > have postulated. We read:
                >
                > Gen. 1:3-5 (KJV)
                > 3 And God said, Let there be light: and there was light.
                > 4 And God saw the light, that it was good: and God
                > divided the light from the darkness.
                > 5 And God called the light Day, and the darkness he
                > called Night.
                >
                > From this we see that the very first thing created was light. Not
                > stars, the sun, and the moon. Just light. Only after He saw that
                > it was good did he divide the light from the darkness. Since light
                > is electromagnetic radiation, I don't think words written to the
                > ancients about light excludes other forms of radiation that was
                > unknown and unobservable to them. From what I understand about
                > astronomy, our knowledge of the universe is based on observation
                > of radiation in its many forms, not direct observation. Therefore,
                > we know nothing about SN1987A except the observations made on
                > radiation arriving from that specific direction.
                >
                > From this, my creation postulate would only require that the
                > stream of radiation that we are observing to have been created in
                > the beginning. Whether there really was a star that exploded would
                > actually be unknown, but presumed to have happened because of the
                > radiation we are observing.

                What caused the impact craters?

                What is the difference between the stream from a stellar explosion that
                never occurred (is illusory) and the stream from a star only 300
                light-years from Earth? If we interpret God's creation of light in
                Genesis 1 to be referring to electromagnetic radiation, there is nothing
                there about creating "light in transit" from a stellar explosion that
                never really happened. That concept is clearly not taught in Genesis
                1:3-5.

                Additionally, I must point out that your statement that "our knowledge
                of the universe is based on observation of radiation in its many forms,
                not direct observation" makes no sense. Direct observation of the
                universe *means* observation of the matter and energy that reaches
                Earth from various places in the universe. Be aware that neutrinos
                (particles of matter) were detected from SN1987A. And keep in mind that
                E = mc^2.

                Regards,
                Todd S. Greene
                http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
              • Todd S. Greene
                Hi, everyone. I wrote: I m sorry I expressed poorly my thought poorly what I wrote. Did I express that poorly, or what? ;-) ;-) Bad editing. It should be:
                Message 7 of 15 , Jun 3, 2001
                  Hi, everyone.

                  I wrote:

                  "I'm sorry I expressed poorly my thought poorly what I wrote."

                  Did I express that poorly, or what? ;-) ;-)

                  Bad editing. It should be:

                  "I'm sorry I expressed my thought poorly with what I wrote."

                  Thanks,
                  Todd
                • Mike Hewlett
                  See interjections as Mike H third ... Astronomers are still watching the aftermath of this stellar explosion. As far as I see it, there re no two ways around
                  Message 8 of 15 , Jun 3, 2001
                    See interjections as "Mike H third"

                    --- In creationism@y..., "Todd S. Greene" <tgreene@u...wrote:

                    Astronomers are still watching the aftermath of this stellar
                    explosion. As far as I see it, there're no two ways around it. If
                    that stellar explosion never actually occurred, but this - and
                    everything else we observe in the universe - is merely a great cosmic
                    illusion, then that is truly deceit on a God-like scale.

                    ***Mike H third:
                    Let me see if I understand the point you are making. You might grant
                    that God can crate the entire universe, but he can't create the
                    remnants of a stellar explosion, for that, instead of being another
                    example of his awesome power, would be a cosmic illusion. Todd, you
                    seem to a have a great insight into the thinking of God. I truly wish
                    I could understand how he thinks. Then I might know why he did a lot
                    of things.

                    From the viewpoint I have been expressing, if would be far greater
                    illusion if He chose to create the universe, including the remnant of
                    a stellar explosion, and not provide interim radiation that supported
                    the creation he had just completed. You see, I understand that today
                    scientists believe they have truth, but I dare say that over the next
                    hundred years, some of today's well-accepted theories will have been
                    disproved. I also understand that astronomers at one time were
                    seeking to determine just how the planets rotated around the earth so
                    that they could have a reliable calendar. Just because they believed
                    geocentric theories did not make them true.

                    *** Todd G wrote:
                    Also, I do not grant that God has "told us" anything unequivocal
                    other than the very objective reality that anyone and everyone can
                    directly observe. Moreover, I know by real-life experience that
                    objective information from the real world is far, far more reliable
                    than equivocal interpretations of ancient texts that some humans
                    promote as having come from the gods. I note that you aren't
                    promoting any Hindu scriptures. I claim that the empirical data from
                    the real world that you and I and anyone else can acquire and examine
                    is far superior in epistemological value to claims of divine
                    knowledge.

                    ***Mike H third:
                    Here I only partially agree with you, depending on the field of
                    knowledge being addressed. If cosmology or astronomy, I agree with
                    the exception that, as I have shown above, I believe that creation
                    could have been at any point in our apparent history, and that
                    scientific observation cannot detect such a creation effort. (Note
                    that I said "could" – I've never intended to refute the events of
                    creation in the apparent universe, only to show that I believe
                    another view is possible.) If, however, you are addressing the issues
                    of human relations and value systems, I am absolutely convinced that
                    scripture is and will remain the superior source. If you believe that
                    today's ethics are an improvement to that found in scripture, call me
                    privately – I've got some outstanding options on a bridge in Brooklyn.

                    (snip)
                    ***Todd G wrote:
                    You state that, "A necessary inference from our above discussion is
                    that an omnipotent, omniscient force, by knowing the complete
                    boundary conditions of the 'state vector', could create a universe
                    having apparent age far in excess of its actual age." I'm sorry, but
                    I just don't see the necessity of the "could" in that proposition.
                    Additionally, as I've intimated, I don't see that such an event is
                    necessarily completely "invisible" to the possibility of being
                    empirically examined (tested).

                    ***Mike H responds:
                    You are absolutely correct. There is no necessity that this
                    proposition be correct. However, the assertion that this creation
                    might be subject to examination contradicts the omniscience of God,
                    since to be detectable, God would have been unable to make it
                    undetectable, since I had originally postulated that he did make it
                    identical even down to the sub-atomic level.

                    *** Todd G wrote:
                    But in order to do this with a "creative" universe, which is what
                    ours is, God at least needs a "parent" universe, and then we are back
                    where we started.

                    ***Mike H third:
                    Todd, I see no foundation for this statement. Help me understand what
                    your words mean. If God is able to understand the full `state vector'
                    and recreate another universe to match, why is he not able to know
                    the necessary information to create the same universe from nothing?

                    *** Todd G wrote:
                    I know that my comments would appear to contradict the traditional
                    notion of omniscience, but the presence of evil has been interpreted
                    by theists to not contradict the notion of omnibenevolence, so who
                    knows what might be possible by further conceptual investigation? ;-
                    ) ;-)

                    = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                    An additional point which I have touched on but have not made clear
                    is that the idea of the "cloning" process (or the "instantaneous
                    creation of a particular state vector" process) does not in any way
                    imply that the "cloning" process event itself is supposed to
                    be "invisible" or undetectable. In the simple scenario of
                    the "parent" and "child" and not being able to determine which was
                    which, nothing implies that the "cloning" process should have no
                    observable effects. It simply means that if you are in one of
                    these "cloned" universes and are observing the effects of a "cloning"
                    process having occurred some time in that past, realizing by this
                    empirical discovery that your universe was "cloned" does not tell you
                    whether you are in a "parent" or a "child" universe. That is what I
                    granted as seeming reasonable. I do not grant that the "cloning"
                    process would have absolutely no detectable effects and would thus be
                    completely "invisible" to any and all objective examination. Indeed,
                    we could just as well say that the Big Bang is one such "cloning"
                    event, and that we have thus have evidence of a "cloning" event
                    having occurred roughly 14 billion years ago.

                    ***Mike H third:
                    An excellent point, and one I do not believe that is ruled out by our
                    entire discussion.

                    Todd, thanks for some stimulating discussion. Unless you have some
                    really urgent additional info, I'm going to drop out of this
                    discussion. You have given me food for thought. Thanks for the time
                    you have spent on it – I'm sure you had other things needed your
                    time.
                  • Todd S. Greene
                    Hi, Mike. ... Well, we all have an odd hobby. That s all right. Some guys watch football, and some guys dig up mineralized bones in the Sahara desert! Okay,
                    Message 9 of 15 , Jun 4, 2001
                      Hi, Mike.

                      You wrote:

                      > Todd, thanks for some stimulating discussion. Unless you have some
                      > really urgent additional info, I'm going to drop out of this
                      > discussion. You have given me food for thought. Thanks for the time
                      > you have spent on it - I'm sure you had other things needed your
                      > time.

                      Well, we all have an odd hobby. That's all right. Some guys watch
                      football, and some guys dig up mineralized bones in the Sahara desert!

                      Okay, I'll try to wrap up my comments. I will introduce only one new
                      idea (for my comments in this thread) based on a new idea you
                      introduced, but everything else will be just a couple of additional
                      points that I will restate just for the purpose of providing a bit of
                      additional clarification to comments I've already made.

                      Thank you for a thought-provoking discussion. I have received a personal
                      contact from a representative of a group that publishes a journal
                      distributed nationwide, and they are interested in my "Where Does
                      Apparent Age Appear?" discussion. In light of that, I'll be working on
                      further editing of it. This discussion has helped focus me on some
                      details in that essay that I think need to be fleshed out some.

                      = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                      ###### Mike Hewlett, 6/3/01 3:50 PM ######
                      > See interjections as "Mike H third"
                      >
                      > --- In creationism@y..., "Todd S. Greene" <tgreene@u...wrote:
                      > Astronomers are still watching the aftermath of this stellar
                      > explosion. As far as I see it, there're no two ways around it. If
                      > that stellar explosion never actually occurred, but this - and
                      > everything else we observe in the universe - is merely a great
                      > cosmic illusion, then that is truly deceit on a God-like scale.
                      >
                      > ***Mike H third:
                      > Let me see if I understand the point you are making. You might
                      > grant that God can crate the entire universe, but he can't create
                      > the remnants of a stellar explosion, for that, instead of being
                      > another example of his awesome power, would be a cosmic illusion.
                      > Todd, you seem to a have a great insight into the thinking of God.
                      > I truly wish I could understand how he thinks. Then I might know
                      > why he did a lot of things.
                      >
                      > From the viewpoint I have been expressing, if would be far greater
                      > illusion if He chose to create the universe, including the remnant
                      > of a stellar explosion, and not provide interim radiation that
                      > supported the creation he had just completed. You see, I understand
                      > that today scientists believe they have truth, but I dare say that
                      > over the next hundred years, some of today's well-accepted theories
                      > will have been disproved. I also understand that astronomers at one
                      > time were seeking to determine just how the planets rotated around
                      > the earth so that they could have a reliable calendar. Just because
                      > they believed geocentric theories did not make them true.

                      Did you take a look at any of the online references I provided last
                      time? We literally observed the star Sk -69 202 explode! Along with the
                      electromagnetic radiation, neutrinos from that explosion hit the earth.
                      Also, there are two sheets of dust in the Large Magellanic Cloud that
                      the light from the explosion traversed on its way from the explosion to
                      the earth (the "light echo"). This example can be multiplied millions of
                      times, for all the astronomical entities that we observed beyond a 6,000
                      light-year sphere around the earth (which is, indeed, virtually the
                      entire universe). If what we are observing now as having occurred in the
                      past (due to the time lapse involved in the information getting to the
                      earth from wherever it originated) did not in fact occur, if this past
                      which we are literally observing right now is not real, then what we are
                      observing is incredibly deceiving. I'm simply stating a fact.

                      I'm not the one who claims to have insight into the thinking of God.
                      This is what young earth creationists claim. I'm simply pointing out the
                      fact that when we observe His creation (assuming the real world is God's
                      creation), we observe antiquity, such as a stellar explosion that
                      occurred approximately 168,000 years ago (as observed by both
                      electromagnetic radiation and by the particles of matter called
                      neutrinos); impact craters on earth left by the impacts of asteroids and
                      comets up to hundreds of millions of years ago (the Barringer Crater
                      near Winslow, Arizona occurred about 50,000 years ago); and fossils,
                      incidentally, by which we see a history of living organisms going back
                      a few billion years (completely regardless of even considering the issue
                      of biological evolution).

                      I note that you did not address my question regarding impact craters.
                      But Henry Morris, an apparent age advocate, did, in referring to fossils:

                      (b) Appearance of Age

                      ...The whole universe had an "appearance of age" right from
                      the start. It could not have been otherwise for true creation
                      to have taken place....

                      This fact means that the light from the sun, moon and stars
                      was shining upon the earth as soon as they were created....

                      Note that this concept does not in any way suggest that
                      fossils were created in the rocks, nor were any other
                      evidences of death or decay so created. This would be the
                      creation, not of an appearance of age, but of an appearance
                      of evil, and would be contrary to God's nature.

                      (*Scientific Creationism*, copyright 1974, ps. 209-210)

                      (Now, I realize that the particular idea you proposed for discussion
                      actually contradicts Morris on this point, since that idea *does* posit
                      that impact craters and fossils are an "appearance of age" but that the
                      age is not genuine, being simply what *would* have been genuine only if
                      the "state vector" had been instantiated at an "earlier" point.)

                      With regard to the issue of antiquity and the apparent age concept,
                      impact craters tell us the same thing that SN1987A tells us: The world
                      is ancient.

                      Whether or not the Bible teaches a young creation, the world is ancient.
                      If young earth creationists are correct that the Bible genuinely teaches
                      a young creation, then so much the worse for the biblical story. To say
                      that objective aspects of the world are supposed to be disregarded in
                      order to retain our personal beliefs in a text that we happen to believe
                      is inspired is to get epistemology completely backwards. Faith in
                      religious doctrine that absolutely refuses to accept falsification of
                      any kind, in complete disregard of the objective evidence, is a false
                      faith, and I have no qualms in stating this because this is a truth.
                      We have learned about the aspect of the world being ancient just as
                      certainly as we have learned that the earth revolves about the sun
                      instead of the other way around.

                      Now here is the newly introduced idea I wanted to comment on:

                      You state that our ideas about the real world change over time. I grant
                      this point to completely. I fully agree.

                      But in its application in this discussion to this particular topic, your
                      claim extends further, by implication, to the idea that the antiquity of
                      the world will be falsified. I completely disagree with this, and I
                      challenge you: Will scientific examination of the world show that the
                      sun really does revolve around the earth after all? Will further
                      investigation show that there really aren't any planets beyond Saturn
                      like we thought? Will additional astronomical exploration indicated that
                      Jupiter really doesn't have any moons like we've thought since Galileo?

                      I could belabor this (as it deserves belaboring since YEC rhetoric so
                      typically ignores this very point), but I believe you will acknowledge
                      the point, because it is true. Acknowledging the general nature of
                      "progressive knowledge" in our objective examinations of the world we
                      live in does not change the fact that there *are* facts about the world
                      which we know with utmost certainty. Clearly, there are degrees of
                      certainty and uncertainty. What we have to deal with in a discussion
                      like this is not with the false idea that "nothing can be known about
                      the real world" which many YECs typically use in such a discussion as
                      this, but with looking at the specific information that is relevant to
                      the particular examples we are considering and determining where on the
                      scale of "the degrees of certainty and uncertainty" the particular
                      examples are.

                      I have claimed that "SN1987A occurred approximately 168,000 years ago"
                      is as certain as the fact that the earth revolves around the sun. The
                      relevant data substantiates my claim, and if anyone wishes to dispute
                      this then we should certainly discuss the relevant data.

                      However, I note here - and I'm pretty sure you already know this and
                      agree with me - that the "apparent age" position *grants* that the
                      relevant data shows that "SN1987A occurred approximately 168,000 years
                      ago," so that is not the point at issue when discussing the apparent age
                      concept. Apparent age advocates claim - with no objective substantiation
                      whatsoever - that the relevant data itself is not real.

                      = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =

                      > ***Todd G wrote:
                      > You state that, "A necessary inference from our above discussion is
                      > that an omnipotent, omniscient force, by knowing the complete
                      > boundary conditions of the 'state vector', could create a universe
                      > having apparent age far in excess of its actual age." I'm sorry,
                      > but I just don't see the necessity of the "could" in that
                      > proposition. Additionally, as I've intimated, I don't see that such
                      > an event is necessarily completely "invisible" to the possibility
                      > of being empirically examined (tested).
                      >
                      > ***Mike H responds:
                      > You are absolutely correct. There is no necessity that this
                      > proposition be correct. However, the assertion that this creation
                      > might be subject to examination contradicts the omniscience of God,
                      > since to be detectable, God would have been unable to make it
                      > undetectable, since I had originally postulated that he did make it
                      > identical even down to the sub-atomic level.

                      (Of course, as I previously pointed out (such as with the example idea
                      that the Big Bang itself was a divine act of cloning)"making a copy"
                      does not in any way imply that this "cloning" process should be
                      undetectable,. All I granted as reasonable was that you could not by
                      internal observation of a universe determine which was the "original"
                      and which the "copy." None of that implies anything about the "copying"
                      process itself being completely invisible to objective investigation.


                      > *** Todd G wrote:
                      > But in order to do this with a "creative" universe, which is what
                      > ours is, God at least needs a "parent" universe, and then we are
                      > back where we started.
                      >
                      > ***Mike H third:
                      > Todd, I see no foundation for this statement. Help me understand
                      > what your words mean. If God is able to understand the full 'state
                      > vector' and recreate another universe to match, why is he not able
                      > to know the necessary information to create the same universe from
                      > nothing?
                      >
                      > *** Todd G wrote:
                      > I know that my comments would appear to contradict the traditional
                      > notion of omniscience, but the presence of evil has been
                      > interpreted by theists to not contradict the notion of
                      > omnibenevolence, so who knows what might be possible by further
                      > conceptual investigation? ;-) ;-)

                      In my previous post on this, I wrote:

                      Does God have the power and the intelligence, *and the
                      motivation of doing it for the purpose of being fascinated by
                      "surprise"*, to create a universe that has random chance
                      embedded into its fabric such that He does not know how it
                      will develop? If God does have that power and intelligence
                      and motivation, then He could also not do what you describe
                      with that kind of universe. (Does the concept of omniscience
                      imply that God cannot create "surprise" for himself? If He
                      cannot, then does this imply a contradiction of omnipotence?)

                      The point I was trying to make with this is that since our universe is
                      a QM (quantum mechanics) universe, random chance is part of the very
                      fabric of reality. It seems that if God created this universe, then He
                      apparently was interested in building "surprise" into the universe,
                      perhaps because He wanted to create a universe that would be more
                      interesting to Him than a Newtonian clockwork universe which simply
                      "unwinds" according to a predetermined scheme. The rest of my comment
                      was simply a short response to what I anticipated might be an objection
                      to this, based on the "omni-" stuff.

                      Regards,
                      Todd S. Greene
                      http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/
                    • Mike Hewlett
                      Todd, Once again you made some interesting points. I m going to snip most ... (snip) ... the ... earth. ... that ... explosion to ... millions of ... 6,000 ...
                      Message 10 of 15 , Jun 4, 2001
                        Todd,

                        Once again you made some interesting points. I'm going to snip most
                        of your words and reply to a few points. See Mike H 4th below:

                        --- In creationism@y..., "Todd S. Greene" <tgreene@u...> wrote:
                        (snip)
                        >
                        > Did you take a look at any of the online references I provided last
                        > time? We literally observed the star Sk -69 202 explode! Along with
                        the
                        > electromagnetic radiation, neutrinos from that explosion hit the
                        earth.
                        > Also, there are two sheets of dust in the Large Magellanic Cloud
                        that
                        > the light from the explosion traversed on its way from the
                        explosion to
                        > the earth (the "light echo"). This example can be multiplied
                        millions of
                        > times, for all the astronomical entities that we observed beyond a
                        6,000
                        > light-year sphere around the earth (which is, indeed, virtually the
                        > entire universe). If what we are observing now as having occurred
                        in the
                        > past (due to the time lapse involved in the information getting to
                        the
                        > earth from wherever it originated) did not in fact occur, if this
                        past
                        > which we are literally observing right now is not real, then what
                        we are
                        > observing is incredibly deceiving. I'm simply stating a fact.
                        >
                        *** Mike H 4th below:
                        Todd, although I probably agree with you on this point personally,
                        you have once again underrated the power of God that I believe He
                        has. If He so chose to create the universe with apparent age, I
                        believe that EVERYthing in that universe would be completely self-
                        consistent. I understand that you and many intelligent and well-
                        educated scholars believe that would be a great deception. That does
                        not make it truth. You see, I believe that he created this universe
                        for the enjoyment of man. I believe that he understands that man was
                        going to search everything from the outer reaches of the universe to
                        the smallest sub-atomic particle. Since, for example, a stellar
                        explosion can help man understand his universe, it is not beyond my
                        comprehension that he could have created all conditions so that man
                        in the late 20th century could observe that explosion. There are two
                        general classes of conditions that could have prepared for the
                        stellar explosion 160,000 years ago. The first class is that he
                        created the universe at some indeterminate time before the explosion,
                        including the presently accepted big bang. The second class is that
                        he created the universe at some later time, but with ALL the
                        ingredients of age. As we have discussed, I believe that, in the
                        latter case, no observation from within the system would contradict
                        the apparent age.

                        Todd, the only reason I am responding again to this issue is your
                        claim that " if this past which we are literally observing right now
                        is not real, then what we are observing is incredibly deceiving"
                        is "a fact". Instead, it is the opinion of you and others with whom
                        you agree. From my viewpoint of believing in an all-powerful creator,
                        a self-consistent universe is truth – even if created with apparent
                        age – and your opinion about that truth does not alter that truth.

                        (snip)
                        >
                        > The point I was trying to make with this is that since our universe
                        is
                        > a QM (quantum mechanics) universe, random chance is part of the very
                        > fabric of reality. It seems that if God created this universe, then
                        He
                        > apparently was interested in building "surprise" into the universe,
                        > perhaps because He wanted to create a universe that would be more
                        > interesting to Him than a Newtonian clockwork universe which simply
                        > "unwinds" according to a predetermined scheme. The rest of my
                        comment
                        > was simply a short response to what I anticipated might be an
                        objection
                        > to this, based on the "omni-" stuff.
                        >
                        ***Mike H 3rd:

                        Todd,

                        Although I agree with you about God's desire to build uncertainty
                        into the universe, I believe that it was done for mankind, not for
                        God. Since I believe that God, as a spirit, is not bound to this
                        space-time continuum, I believe he does not live in time as does the
                        universe. Just as many believe that He is everywhere, I believe he is
                        also everywhen. I believe that Noah, Adam, and the apostles are just
                        as real for him as is our world even as I right, and I believe the
                        end time is just as real for him as is today. So, if he
                        can 'simultaneously' experience the creation, today, and the end
                        time, I do not believe He can surprise Himself.
                        Obviously 'simultaneously' is the wrong word, but, like the
                        flatlander when faced with a creature from the 3rd dimension, I can
                        neither understand this concept nor have terminology to express it.

                        Also, please do not lose sight of the fact that I have not once
                        claimed that my view represents truth as revealed in scripture.
                        Instead, I wanted to express the possibility of a university that has
                        apparent age.

                        As an aside, when 'Where Does Apparent Age Appear', I hope to get
                        to read it. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to pull back from some
                        mail list activity and catch up on a lot of personal matters that I
                        have been ignoring.

                        --Mike H
                      • Paul Andrew King
                        ... As I pointed out earlier, Todd is absolutely correct. ... Since you yourself suggest that the appearance of age is completely perfect it would seem to be
                        Message 11 of 15 , Jun 4, 2001
                          >Todd, the only reason I am responding again to this issue is your
                          >claim that " if this past which we are literally observing right now
                          >is not real, then what we are observing is incredibly deceiving"
                          >is "a fact".

                          As I pointed out earlier, Todd is absolutely correct.

                          > Instead, it is the opinion of you and others with whom
                          >you agree.

                          Since you yourself suggest that the appearance of age is completely
                          perfect it would seem to be more than an opinion. A completely
                          perfect appearance of age *is* deceptive and may be reasonably
                          regarded as an *intentional* deception since there is no need to do
                          so (unless you wish to propose limits on what the creator is capable
                          of).

                          > From my viewpoint of believing in an all-powerful creator,
                          >a self-consistent universe is truth – even if created with apparent
                          >age – and your opinion about that truth does not alter that truth.

                          Just because it's consistent with your views doesn't mean that it
                          isn't deceptive. It's quite consistent with my views that Jeffrey
                          Archer could have had a fake diary made - and the allegation that he
                          did is one of the reasons he's on trial for perjury and conspiracy to
                          pervert the course of justice. Or perhaps we should consider
                          another appearance of age - fake antiques. Is it your opinion that
                          these are not deceptive either ?
                          --
                          --
                          "The T'ang emperors were strong believers in the pills of
                          immortality. More emperors died of poisoning from ingesting minerals
                          in the T'ang than in any other dynasty" - Eva Wong _The Shambhala
                          Guide to Taoism_

                          Paul K.
                        • Todd S. Greene
                          Hi, Mike. In case you haven t noticed, I try to get creationists to think outside of the box. ;-) ;-) I claim that I have not underrated the power of God
                          Message 12 of 15 , Jun 5, 2001
                            Hi, Mike.

                            In case you haven't noticed, I try to get creationists to "think outside
                            of the box." ;-) ;-)

                            I claim that I have not underrated the power of God to create a
                            self-consistent universe. I have claimed that an instantaneously created
                            self-consistent universe would be the universe that we do in fact have
                            and observe, and that one aspect of this consistency that we observe
                            demonstrates to us that it has been around for billions of years and
                            that if it is in fact different then it is an incredible deception of
                            the finest order. Further, I do not deny that a being with omnipotence
                            can create a deceptive universe, which not only is not what it appears
                            to be but which is not what it actually is down to every - and I do mean
                            every - smallest or largest detail. ("...no observation from within the
                            system would contradict the apparent age.)

                            What I have tried to do is point at that there is a distinction between
                            a "fully functional" universe and a universe that is both "fully
                            functional" and more than this also bears the genuine marks of
                            "historical events" having occurred. In other words, more than merely
                            having an "appearance" of having been around longer entailed by the
                            simple act of an instantaneous creation in a "fully functional" state,
                            our world has a truly determinate "history of events," such as stars
                            exploding, organisms on earth having lived and died for billions of
                            years, and asteroids slamming into the earth.

                            A functional earth does not *require* fossils of organisms that never
                            existed.

                            Any god-like being who creates an earth that bears fossils of organisms
                            having lived and died for billions of years even though there was no
                            actual billions of years of history has created a deception of an actual
                            determinate history where none in fact existed.

                            So more than talking about simply God's omnipotence, we are considering
                            other aspects of God's nature, such that deception is not part of His
                            nature, so that creating a universe with a deceptive history is
                            something that God cannot do because it is contrary to His nature.

                            So let me grant, for the sake of argument, that God *could* have
                            instantiated a fully functional universe with a fully functioning earth.
                            Such a fully-functioning earth would not have a false fossil history of
                            billions of years. That fully functional earth would not have false
                            craters from false impacts that falsely occurred an apparent millions
                            of years ago. A planet does not require these features of a false
                            history in order to be fully functional. That universe does not require
                            false stars and false explosions and false neutrinos. I can't say that I
                            have a wonderfully complete picture of all of the details of what a
                            universe like that would look like or what all it would entail. But it
                            is obvious to me that our universe is not that kind of universe, because
                            we observe a history in our universe and not just an "apparent age."

                            Furthermore, "apparent age" has, in fact, the genuine meaning that the
                            "age" is only "apparent," but that by the results of additional, more
                            detailed examination we would discover that this is only a superficial
                            appearance. For the universe to be young, and yet have simply "apparent
                            age" and not genuine age, then we should be able to investigate the
                            universe and observe that what we had thought was age (by assuming that
                            the mere existence of something meant it had existed previously, like
                            the water in a river having had to come from upstream if the river had
                            existed at a previous time) was really only an "apparent age" but that
                            deeper investigation would show a plethora of details which would show
                            that our assumption of age was only superficial.

                            So we can say that God *can* create a universe with apparent age but not
                            genuine age. However, our universe is not that kind of universe.

                            Indeed, let's take the argument further. Since, assuming God, God *can*
                            create a dynamic universe which develops over a great deal of time, and
                            since God would not create a universe which deceived observers about
                            what it was down to every intimate detail, and since we observe of our
                            universe that it possesses not only apparent age but also the features
                            of a determinate history showing genuine age, then what seems to be a
                            most necessary inference is that God did indeed create our universe
                            billions of years ago.

                            How would you know which kind of universe God created? I claim that you
                            discover the nature of the universe that exists by carefully objectively
                            examining it, and that this careful objective examination will provide
                            you with far more accurate and unequivocal information about the nature
                            of the universe than will equivocal interpretations of metaphorical
                            language written down in another language used by people of a very
                            different culture thousands of years ago. And I have the information to
                            substantiate this claim.

                            Regarding your last comment about God being outside of the spacetime of
                            our universe, I'm very familiar with the concept as taught my many
                            Christians who refer to this that God thus in a sense is aware of all of
                            our spacetime at once, so to speak. I do not agree that that view is
                            correct, and I don't think it is a reasonable assumption nor that it is
                            entailed by the nature of God. It might appear I'm quibbling on a point
                            that has minor relevance, but I don't think any philosopher of any
                            theological stripe has truly pondered the genuine details of what
                            "outside of the spacetime continuum of our universe" really means, let
                            alone what it might mean in the context of God's nature. Again, I refer
                            anyone interested to start with something like "Lee Smolin's" book *The
                            Life of the Cosmos*, which is just as speculative since no one, of
                            course, has observed conditions outside of our universe, but Smolin's
                            discussion is grounded in a good understanding of the physics and
                            cosmology of the universe that we do observe and know something about.

                            Gotta go...

                            Regards,
                            Todd S. Greene
                            http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Thebes/7755/



                            ###### Mike Hewlett, 6/5/01 12:05 AM ######
                            Todd,

                            Once again you made some interesting points. I'm going to snip most
                            of your words and reply to a few points. See Mike H 4th below:

                            --- In creationism@y..., "Todd S. Greene" <tgreene@u...> wrote:
                            (snip)
                            >
                            > Did you take a look at any of the online references I provided last
                            > time? We literally observed the star Sk -69 202 explode! Along with
                            the
                            > electromagnetic radiation, neutrinos from that explosion hit the
                            earth.
                            > Also, there are two sheets of dust in the Large Magellanic Cloud
                            that
                            > the light from the explosion traversed on its way from the
                            explosion to
                            > the earth (the "light echo"). This example can be multiplied
                            millions of
                            > times, for all the astronomical entities that we observed beyond a
                            6,000
                            > light-year sphere around the earth (which is, indeed, virtually the
                            > entire universe). If what we are observing now as having occurred
                            in the
                            > past (due to the time lapse involved in the information getting to
                            the
                            > earth from wherever it originated) did not in fact occur, if this
                            past
                            > which we are literally observing right now is not real, then what
                            we are
                            > observing is incredibly deceiving. I'm simply stating a fact.
                            >
                            *** Mike H 4th below:
                            Todd, although I probably agree with you on this point personally,
                            you have once again underrated the power of God that I believe He
                            has. If He so chose to create the universe with apparent age, I
                            believe that EVERYthing in that universe would be completely self-
                            consistent. I understand that you and many intelligent and well-
                            educated scholars believe that would be a great deception. That does
                            not make it truth. You see, I believe that he created this universe
                            for the enjoyment of man. I believe that he understands that man was
                            going to search everything from the outer reaches of the universe to
                            the smallest sub-atomic particle. Since, for example, a stellar
                            explosion can help man understand his universe, it is not beyond my
                            comprehension that he could have created all conditions so that man
                            in the late 20th century could observe that explosion. There are two
                            general classes of conditions that could have prepared for the
                            stellar explosion 160,000 years ago. The first class is that he
                            created the universe at some indeterminate time before the explosion,
                            including the presently accepted big bang. The second class is that
                            he created the universe at some later time, but with ALL the
                            ingredients of age. As we have discussed, I believe that, in the
                            latter case, no observation from within the system would contradict
                            the apparent age.

                            Todd, the only reason I am responding again to this issue is your
                            claim that " if this past which we are literally observing right now
                            is not real, then what we are observing is incredibly deceiving"
                            is "a fact". Instead, it is the opinion of you and others with whom
                            you agree. From my viewpoint of believing in an all-powerful creator,
                            a self-consistent universe is truth - even if created with apparent
                            age - and your opinion about that truth does not alter that truth.

                            (snip)
                            >
                            > The point I was trying to make with this is that since our universe
                            is
                            > a QM (quantum mechanics) universe, random chance is part of the very
                            > fabric of reality. It seems that if God created this universe, then
                            He
                            > apparently was interested in building "surprise" into the universe,
                            > perhaps because He wanted to create a universe that would be more
                            > interesting to Him than a Newtonian clockwork universe which simply
                            > "unwinds" according to a predetermined scheme. The rest of my
                            comment
                            > was simply a short response to what I anticipated might be an
                            objection
                            > to this, based on the "omni-" stuff.
                            >
                            ***Mike H 3rd:

                            Todd,

                            Although I agree with you about God's desire to build uncertainty
                            into the universe, I believe that it was done for mankind, not for
                            God. Since I believe that God, as a spirit, is not bound to this
                            space-time continuum, I believe he does not live in time as does the
                            universe. Just as many believe that He is everywhere, I believe he is
                            also everywhen. I believe that Noah, Adam, and the apostles are just
                            as real for him as is our world even as I right, and I believe the
                            end time is just as real for him as is today. So, if he
                            can 'simultaneously' experience the creation, today, and the end
                            time, I do not believe He can surprise Himself.
                            Obviously 'simultaneously' is the wrong word, but, like the
                            flatlander when faced with a creature from the 3rd dimension, I can
                            neither understand this concept nor have terminology to express it.

                            Also, please do not lose sight of the fact that I have not once
                            claimed that my view represents truth as revealed in scripture.
                            Instead, I wanted to express the possibility of a universe that has
                            apparent age.

                            As an aside, when 'Where Does Apparent Age Appear', I hope to get
                            to read it. Unfortunately, I'm going to have to pull back from some
                            mail list activity and catch up on a lot of personal matters that I
                            have been ignoring.

                            --Mike H
                          Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.