Barbarian observes:
Sorry, not buying the idea that He wouldn’t realize that it would deceive us. I am puzzled. Since neither tradition nor the Bible says that He faked supernova explosions, why is it so hard for you to accept that He did it the way the evidence indicates?
He knows all, even whether we will be obstinate in our own conclusions because we think we know it all. It is foolish for one to presume to know why God did what He did.
Yes. This is your own conclusion, not supported by scripture or the teaching of the church, and contrary to plain evidence. It seems beyond obstinate to me.
Barbarian observes:
Again, it comes down to the facts. God doesn’t say that He created the radiation from supernovae that never existed.
And He doesn’t say that He didn’t.
That is no license to make up doctrines. And He gave you abundant evidence as to the actual causes of supernovae radiation, so no one has any excuse.
He could also just create radiation on its own accord having all the sames properties of radiation that comes from some supernova.
But that would require that He be deceptive. Hence that is not a realistic option.
Again, it comes down to the facts. God doesn’t say that He created the radiation from supernovae that never existed. So in the absence of anything like that, why not just accept that the evidence is what it is?
Accept the evidence, not your conclusion of what the evidence indicates.
Not mine. The conclusion of all scientists who have actually looked at it. The postmodern idea that reality is whatever we suppose it is, is not very convincing to me. And it’s contrary to the magesterium.
Barbarian, regarding the claim that God created all things out of nothing:
Nonsense. God says, for example, that living things were brought forth by the earth. As He says in Genesis, by natural means. That’s how He does most things in this world.
Forming the Earth out of nothing is hardly a naturally occuring phenomena.
Scripture does not say that the Earth was formed out of nothing. That’s a personal doctrine, not the teaching of the Church.
Barbarian observes:
Nope. Merely pointing out that producing the radiation of a supernova, where none ever existed, would be deceptive. No way to avoid that.
Belabored, but nevertheless, one cannot escape by using this angle of reasoning the insinuation that the creation of anything at all would be deception.
No. It is quite logical to assert (as the Pope has done) that God created the universe from nothing, and then used pre-existing things to create other things. You are a creature of God, are you not? And yet He used natural means to create you.
Your fallacy is to think that if God creates some things naturally, He must be constrained to create all things naturally.
Barbarian observes:
If He produced evidence such as light that had no source, appearing to be from a supernova that never existed, that would indeed be faked.
That is if you assume He produced evidence of light, or just produced light.
More specifically, if He produced light that clearly showed the characteristics of a supernova explosion, but no star to have produced it, that would be massively deceptive. In some cases, we actually observed the star millions of light-years away, before it exploded and produced the radiation. In this case, if you’re right God even faked the star, as well as the radiation.
Again, in the absence of any support from scripture, from the teaching of the church, or from physical evidence, why do you persist in this doctrine?
One should not try to limit God nor His wisdom.
It seems that is what you have done.
Barbarian on why it’s possible to learn about the universe:
God gave us an intellect and an ability to make accurate inferences even without being omniscient. It’s a talent, one you should use. He expects it.
You will have to accept the fact the your intellect and ability to make accurate inferences is extremely limited when compared to the Will of God.
I think He did a pretty good job of giving us the ability to use reason and observation to learn things. We’ll just have to disagree on that.
Barbarian observes:
I can merely go with the evidence, and His word, which does not contradict the evidence.
I can merely go with the evidence, and His word, which does not support your conclusion of what the evidence indicates.
Comes back to the same thing. Scripture doesn’t support your new doctrine. The magesterium doesn’t suipport your new doctrine. And the evidence rules it out. Why hang on to it?
Barbarian observes:
It’s always possible to be wrong. But I have evidence to support me.
And so if you ARE wrong, you have been deceived? Or did YOU make the error by presumption.
Given that your view is supported by nothing but your own wishes, you might think about that.
Barbarian, asked if we can understand how stars form:
Yes. It’s rather well understood. We can observe various stages in the process, and it works according to physical laws.
But that does not answer the question how can a star exist that if it did not form first.
We are quite familiar with the way star form. We can watch the process even now. God didn’t create stars ex nihilo. They form by natural laws He ordained and uses in this universe.
And how can the matter that it was formed from exist if said matter did not form first.
You’re assuming that God couldn’t create matter, which then formed into stars.
One has to accept that God can create something from nothing
That is a fact. What you aren’t willing to accept, is God’s word that there are things He did not create from nothing.
Further in discussing apparent age, ‘Accidents’ could also be substituted for ‘Apparency’. Just as in the Consecration, God becomes present as Body and Blood under the accidents of bread of and wine. Any scientific test or observation would indicate that it is only bread and wine. Is this deception?
I can’t believe you are serious here. God clearly tells us in Scripture that these are miraculously changed. The teaching of the Church says so. You are neither God nor the magesterium.
