According to the Bible authorised by God Himself, the physical world
was created by God just only around 6 thousands years ago. But
according to the "body of evidence" that was dug out by the Earthly
scientists, our universe is already around 14 billions years old. So
one out of these two ages of the world must be untrue. Considering the
role which God performs towards people, we should NOT be suspecting
that God would tell a lie in the holy book that He authorises - which
is the Bible. Even if this God is just a "God-youngster" just 6-
thousands years old who still likes to play jokes. But simultaneously
we should NOT suspect that this 6-thousands year old omnipotent God-
youngster is completely deprived a sense of humour. Thus, with an
equal easiness as around 6 thousands years ago this God created the
physical world and humans, He could additionally invent, create, and
implant to the world that He created, this "body of evidence" on the
basis of which scientists estimate the age of the universe to be
around 14 billions years. After all, if God was able to create every
living creature, He was also able to create e.g. petrified skeletons
of dinosaurs feigning them so that they look as if they were extinct
several millions years ago. Since this omnipotent God was able to
create atoms of all chemical elements, with an equal easiness He could
also create geological layers and provide them with such attributes
that they allow to carry out the "conventional dating" used by Earthly
scientists. Since this God needed to experiment on, and perfect,
humans that He created, with an equal easiness He could also feign the
existence of a "natural evolution" and inspire Darwin to publish the
theory of it. The web page named "evolution.htm" analyses items of
evidence for just such a possibility that was NOT verified, as yet, by
anyone. Means it analyses the possibility that omnipotent God for
important reasons firstly invented and then implanted into the
physical world that He created, this additional, untrue, "simulated
history of the universe and man" (in addition to the true history
which God described in the Bible). In turn present scientists on the
Earth are taking this additional history invented by God for the true
history.

If God does NOT exist, while time would pass irreversibly - as this is
described by the present science, then all past events would occur
just once only, while the universe and man would have just a single
history. In such a case everything that scientists determine in the
result of researching the existing evidence would be an objective
truth. For example, the truth could be that there is just a single
history of the universe, that the universe originates from the "big
bang", that in fact there was a past which to people is told e.g. by
petrified skeletons of dinosaurs, and that man originates from a
natural evolution. But if there is the omnipotent God while time has a
reversible software nature - as this is described by the theory of
everything called the Concept of Dipolar Gravity (while illustrates
the web page "immortality.htm" - about the access of people to
immortality and to the never-ending life), then all past events can be
changed by this God any number of times, until God accomplishes with
these changes such outcomes which He needs. In turn the universe and
man can have at least two histories - out of which only one is true,
while the remaining ones can be simulated by God in order to
accomplish some Godly goals. In such a case practically every "fact"
which scientists establish in the result of research on the body of
evidence present in the universe could be just a fantastic simulation
and illusion passed off upon people by God for some higher reasons.
For example, the history which is told by e.g. petrified skeletons of
dinosaurs would only be a kind of fantastic story which the omnipotent
God intentionally invented and for important reasons simulated into
the physical world that He was creating. In reality packs of dinosaurs
could never run over our planet - although God could create one or
several of them from each species just to check whether their bodies
and bones are realistic and work correctly in the physical world. The
web page named "evolution.htm" and indicated at the end of this post
is just about such second simulated (invented by God) history of the
universe and man, which in spite that it is confirmed by supposedly
"objective" evidence, in reality is the untrue history.

The previous paragraphs of this post explained to us the shocking fact
which most clearly NO-ONE considered before, and which to people was
revealed only by the most moral philosophy on the Earth called
totalizm (means the philosophy of discovering and stating truths - see
the web page named "totalizm.htm"). This fact reveals, that the
universe which surrounds us in fact has at least two different
histories. This true one is described in the Bible authorised by God
Himself - e.g. see the Biblical Book of Genesis (1:1 to 2:4). It
states that the physical world is just around 6000 years old, and that
together with humans it was created by God. But for important reasons,
independently from this "true history of the universe and mankind" God
clearly created also a completely different "simulated history of the
universe and man". This simulated history of the universe is a kind of
fantastic story which God intentionally invented and then "implanted"
into His final product that He created, means implanted into the Earth
and into the physical world. This story states approximately the same
that present scientists claim. In turn these scientists claim that
e.g. the universe is around 13.73 (with the accuracy +/-0.12) billion
years old, that the man originates from a "natural evolution" - NOT
from a creation by God, and that before people on the Earth horrifying
and barbaric "dinosaurs" used to live.

For some people the fact of the existence of two different histories
of the universe can seem to be a kind of "Godly cheating". After all,
these people do not understand that only people "cheat", while God
just creates new paths and opens for people increasingly wider
perspectives. Whatever God does, He always has for this extremely
important reasons. So let us now list most important reasons which
probably motivated God when He created this second, untrue, simulated
history of the universe and the man.
(1) Inspiring people to scientific searches. After all, if existed
just only one history of the universe and people, namely this true
one, then nothing would be for seeking and for researching. This is
because this history is described just in several sentences by the
Bible authorised by God Himself. As such, it does NOT inspire the
interest in people, neither it fascinates them. So no-one would wish
to research it. In turn without scientific research people would NOT
experience any progress. So in addition to this true history, God was
forced to invent and to implant into His creation, a kind of fabulous
history, which leads people from one discovery to another one,
stimulating their imagination and inspiring scientific research.

(2) Allowing the cultivation of atheistic view of the world by some
people. On several web pages of totalizm it was explained, that if the
humanity was composed of exclusively people who deeply believe in God,
then the humanity would live in caves until today and would NOT known
even a secret of fire. This is because people who deeply believe in
God are typically very passive, as their deep faith in God deprives
them the courage to carry out scientific research. The explanation of
this paradox the reader can find, amongst others, in item #F2 of the
web page "evil.htm" - about origins of all evil on the Earth, and in
item #A2 in the web page "will.htm" - about the impact of "free will"
at fate of the entire human civilisation. Therefore God is was forced
to give to people also another possibility of living according to the
atheistic view of the world. After all, such an atheistic view of the
world inspires people to research and to form a progress. So in order
to inspire amongst people such atheistic view of the world, God was
forced to create and to pass off upon people various encouragements
for creative scientific searches. In His superior wisdom God gave to
these encouragements a form of alternative history of the universe and
man, which present human science considers to be a "scientific
history".

(3) Illustrative demonstration to people the creative power of God. If
God does NOT introduce to the world that He created an invented
history of the kind which is being "discovered" by the present
science, then the history of the universe would be uninteresting and
deprived the ability to inspire. It would just reflect the fact that
God created planets, lands, seas, living creatures, and man. As such,
it would NOT demonstrate to people the creative power of God. In turn
people have tendencies to doubt and to negate the creative
capabilities of God. So in order to illustrate to people, how immense
is His creative power, into the world that He created, God implanted
this fantastic history of the universe that He make up. So when people
finally recognise the findings of the philosophy of totalizm and begin
to understand that this "simulated history of the universe and man"
which is discovered by the human science, is the untrue history, then
they simultaneously realise how huge is the power and capabilities of
God who was able to invent such a history and to implant it into the
fabric of the universe.

(4) Subjecting people to trials and to exams. For reasons explained
more extensively in item #F1 of the web page "evil.htm" - about
origins of all evil on the Earth, and in item #C6 of the web page
"god.htm" - about the secular and scientific understanding of God, God
continually subjects every inhabitant of the Earth to countless tests
and exams. Then, depending on outcomes of each such a ...

read more »

WHICH god is that?

I've always liked Huitzilopochtli.

Is it possible that you take your personal
brain based virtual reality model as reality?
That model comes from genetics, gestation,
development, senses, and practiced stories.
The joke is on you, and a very impersonal
joke it is.

On Dec 5, 12:59 am, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:

Is microbiology determistic?

On 5 Dec, 02:28, Tim_Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Bless you, here's a hankie to blow your nose on. :P

About as much as your typos (deterministic).

On Dec 5, 2:16 am, Sir Frederick <mmcne...@fuzzysys.com> wrote:

Freudian slips of the keystrokes (heh)

In answer to my question i guess we'd have to conclude that knowledge
is mystical aka interesting stories.

janpa...@gmail.com wrote in
news:e483f67d-ee85-4bc3-b6d1-e9713aae0545@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com:

You start your post with a couple of bizarre assumptions.  What makes you
think the Bible (in whichever form you prefer it) is authorized by God
Himself?  And what makes you think it actually teaches that the physical
universe was created only 6000 years ago?

Again with the assumption of divine authorization.  When and where did
this authorization occur?

So YOUR deity is a liar, who misrepresents itself in both the creation
and the book?  That's an unusual (or perhaps not so unusual these days)
and unorthodox (theologically) view.

[rest of long rant based on these errors deleted]

You're a troll, right?  I mean if a spiritual entity actually claimed to
DO the things you impute to God, I'd break out bell, book and candle!

--
Dave Oldridge+
ICQ 454777283

On Dec 5, 12:31 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

I'm a Coatlicue guy myself:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coatlicue

Makes YAWEH look like a candy ass.

On 5 Dec, 12:59, clamato <clam...@operamail.com> wrote:

I rather think any lady that wears a skirt of serpents is a bit odd.

But it makes me wonder, did she lose one when she went to play with
Elohim in the garden?

On Dec 5, 7:23 am, Devils Advocaat <mankyg...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:

Loosed one.

On Dec 5, 2:28 am, Tim_Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Nah, Ninkasi is the one.

Heretic. Huitzilopochtli could take Ninkasi with one arm
tied behind his back.

On 5 Dec, 15:06, Tim_Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

Most likely, unless Ninkasi got him drunk first, her being the Goddess
of Beer. ;-)

news:e483f67d-ee85-4bc3-b6d1-e9713aae0545@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
-reams of delusional crap snipped.

It is more than possible, it is a complete certainty, that you are a
complete and total loon.

On Dec 5, 5:53 pm, "Robert Weldon" <robo...@live.ca> wrote:

http://totalizm.nazwa.pl/god_proof.htm
absolutely proves it.  He has a picture of Disney's
"Tree of Life" exhibition at Epcot Center as his proof.
Look at the pics on his page, then Google for
"Tree of Life Epcot Center" and you'll find dozens
of pictures of the same exhibition.  After being
caught out by me, he has added the most
absolutely nutty excuse that goes on for pages,
but still uses the same image!

There are loons on the internet, but this guy
is about as far as you can go into lunacy before
being permanently committed to the hatch.

On Dec 4, 6:10 pm, janpa...@gmail.com wrote:

Excluded Middle (False Dichotomy, Faulty Dilemma, Bifurcation):
assuming there are only two alternatives when in fact there are more.
Here are some other options;

The omphalos hypothesis was named after the title of an 1857 book,
Omphalos by Philip Henry Gosse, in which Gosse argued that in order
for the world to be "functional", God must have created the Earth with
mountains and canyons, trees with growth rings, Adam and Eve with
hair, fingernails, and navels (omphalos is Greek for "navel"), and
that therefore no evidence that we can see of the presumed age of the
earth and universe can be taken as reliable.

The idea has seen some revival in the twentieth century by some modern
creationists, who have extended the argument to light that appears to
originate in far-off stars and galaxies, although many other
creationists reject this explanation (and also believe that Adam and
Eve had no navels.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

Russell ... made an influential analysis of the omphalos hypothesis
enunciated by Philip Henry Gosse - that any argument suggesting that
the world was created as if it were already in motion could just as
easily make it a few minutes old as a few thousand years:

"There is no logical impossibility in the hypothesis that the world
sprang into being five minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a
population that "remembered" a wholly unreal past. There is no
logically necessary connection between events at different times;
therefore nothing that is happening now or will happen in the future
can disprove the hypothesis that the world began five minutes ago."

— Bertrand Russell

The Omphalos hypothesis contains a powerful philosophic problem, one
that troubles even those who have applied it in recent times. Since
the hypothesis is based on the idea that apparent age is an illusion,
it is perfectly reasonable to suggest that world was created mere
minutes ago. Any memories you have of times before this were created
in situ, in exactly the same fashion that the fossils were. This idea
is sometimes called "Last Thursdayism" by its opponents, as in "the
world might as well have been created last Thursday."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bertrand_Russell

This view is not popular for various reasons:

1. It is unverifiable and unfalsifiable through any currently
available scientific method;

2. It can be interpreted as God having 'created a fake', which does
not sit well with most benevolent theistic theologies;

3. This philosophical approach, extended to other areas, has serious
negative implications for science as a whole.

This conception has therefore drawn harsh rebuke from some
theologians. Reverend Canon Brian Hebblethwaite, for example, preached
that Bertrand Russell's projection of Gosse's concept to such a recent
creation (discussed below), "like much of what Russell wrote and said,
is nonsense. 'Human beings', posited in being five minutes ago with
built-in 'memory' traces, would not be human beings. The suggestion is
logically incoherent."[3] The basis for Hebblethwaite's objection,
however, is the presumption of a God that would not deceive us about
our very humanity - an unprovable presumption that the omphalos
hypothesis rejects at the outset.

Many Jewish answers to the age of the Universe delve slightly into the
Omphalos hypothesis.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omphalos_hypothesis

On Dec 5, 3:28 pm, Tim_Miller <replytonewsgr...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:
...
...

Let us assume that you are correct and that there are numerous "gods".
Then (when there are more than on God) we would see wars between gods
- which for sure would be detectable or even visible for humans. These
wars between gods would persist until all gods, except for the
strogest one, were killed. So logic says that since there is NO wars,
this means that there is only ONE God left. In turn if there is just a
single God in the universe, then no matter what name you use to
indicate Him, still you are talking just about this ONE God. So it is
quite a funny way of dismissing my arguments which you used in this
thread, means by just making the use of fact that there are numerous
names used to describe the same God. It is as if you would try to
convince the reader that when someone uses different names like Ian,
Jan, John, Johan, Giovanno, or Juan, this someone belies that there
were different saints (not just a single St. John) who originally
introduced the name "John" to the Bible.

By thye way, on different threads that I wrote, a masked individual
who had your style of arguing, used to present your argument in a more
logical and elaborate way - for details check my threads listed in
item #M3 of the web page "immortality.htm" - which you can find at
addresses that are indicated in my original post from the beginning of
this thread.

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak

P.S. This only God that the philosophy of totalizm is describing, is
NOT like a powerful human. Actually this single God is a huge natural
program which resides in the liquid computer (called the "couter-
matter") from which all manifesatations are made - including human
bodies and all matter from the physical world. You can read how this
single God-program looks like and operates. Appropriate descriptions
are provided in "part #B" from the totaliztic web page "evolution.htm"
which I indicated in the original post of this thread.

On Dec 5, 6:46 pm, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Oh, it is so deeply dishonest to quote Russell out of context
in that way.

Russell was an enemy of Christianity and wrote "Why I Am Not
A Christian," which is still in print.  Nothing is a "logical"
impossibility
in the physical world, and Russell was very well aware of that, as
have been all philosophers since the time of Hume.
But he would not intend us to believe that the thing was at all
probable or that we should believe that it is so by _any_ stretch
of the imagination.

Why don't you cite the exact place you read this?  Why don't
you reproduce more of it in context?  You are clearly dishonest
and trying to bullshit people.

Go ahead, cite your source.

Of COURSE I'm correct. There are THOUSANDS. You need a list?

news:e483f67d-ee85-4bc3-b6d1-e9713aae0545@w1g2000prm.googlegroups.com...

That's the beauty of an "argument" such as yours. There's simply no way to
refute it.
I can just as easily state that my Lord FSM created us all just 4 minutes
ago with our memories intact.

That's why science doesn't deal with the supernatural. It's infantile, and
no way for an adult to explain what is observed.
However, it works for young children and the devout.

news:Xns9B6BC4462444doldridgsprintca@69.16.185.247...

God had a holy ghost writer.

On Dec 5, 5:03 pm, clamato <clam...@operamail.com> wrote:

Are you trying to say that Russell had a way to show how it is
impossible that the world just happened 5 minutes ago with all this
appearance of history? I have never seen any evidence he has provided
that would rule out this possibility.

More importantly though it looks as if you are fallaciously attempting
to attack a claim by asserting that the person making the claim is
making it simply out of self interest. In some cases, this fallacy
involves substituting an attack on a person's circumstances (such as
the person's religion, political affiliation, ethnic background,
etc.). This is not allowed in logic because a person's interests and
circumstances have no bearing on the truth or falsity of the claim
being made. While a person's interests will provide them with motives
to support certain claims, the claims stand or fall on their own. It
is also the case that a person's circumstances (religion, political
affiliation, etc.) do not affect the truth or falsity of the claim.
This is made quite clear by the following example: "Bill claims that
1+1=2. But he is a Republican, so his claim is false." ...the mere
fact that the person has a motivation to make the claim does not make
it false.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/circumstantial-ad-hominem.html

I provided a link to wikipoopia, didn't you see it?

On Dec 6, 12:37 am, Immortalist <reanimater_2...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Russell is saying that it is a minimal possibility, but _not_ saying
it is
something you should believe.  The possibility is infinitesimal, and
he very well knew it.

I am asserting that you are making a false claim by quoting out
of the context of what Russell intended.  This is dishonest.

No attack was made on your circumstances, etc.  I just said you
were being dishonest and lying.

That quote did not come from that article, which is noted
as neutrality desputed right inside itself.  Here is the
(supposed) quote from Russell in the article:

"Bertrand Russell wrote, in The Analysis of Mind: 'there is no logical
impossibility in the hypothesis that the world sprang into being five
minutes ago, exactly as it then was, with a population that
"remembered" a wholly unreal past', and leaves it there.  Where is the
rest that you
supposedly quoted coming from?  Further, anyone can edit a wiki
article.  Hell, I might
well have done so -- I have in the past edited wiki articles on
philosophy.

Now, stop quoting Russell out of context, since you clearly don't
understand
what he was getting at.

On Dec 6, 5:03 pm, "TimK" <timk...@cfl.rr.com> wrote:
...

The difference between me giving dates 6 thousand years and 14 billion
years, and you giving 4 minutes ago, is that dates 6 thousand and 14
billion are based on the reliable evidence and allow to be verified
how they were derrived. In turn your claim of 4 minutes is just taken
from the ceiling, cannot be verified, and actually can be replaced
with any other number (e.g. 10, 88, or 14 000 000) and be equally
untrue. So whatever I am stating it has a merit, because it is based
on evidence. In turn whatever you are stating is just rubbish because
you took it from a ceiling.

In turn your speach on the  behalf of science (that supposedly science
does NOT deal with supernatural) claims for you the rights which you
really DO NOT have. For example I am also a scientists (I believe that
a good one), and I object you speaking also on my behalf - stating
what I supposedly do or don't do. Actually I DO research
"supernatural" and this thread is a proof of it. I also have formally
proven that God does exist, using several different methods, amongst
others the method used in mathematical logic. Furthermore, so-far no-
one managed to undermine my proofs. (You can find my proof for the
existence of God also in Internet - e.g. see the totaliztic web page
"god. htm" or "god_proof.htm" at any address indicated in my original
post from the begining of this thread - e.g. at the address
http://members.fortunecity.com/timevehicle/god.htm .) I also believe
that other scientists would research supernatural as well - if they
get to know the "theory of everything" called the "Concept of Dipolar
Gravity" (also available at addresses indicated above, under the page-
name "dipolar_gravity.htm"). The reason why other scientists do NOT
investigate supernatural right now, is that until now there was NO
rational explanation for the existence of unexplaned phenomena. Only
the idea that there is another parallel "counter-world" which mirrors
our physical world and which is located at the other end of the
gravity dipole opens our window to rational investigations of
supernatural - for more details see this "theory of everything" called
the "Concept of Dipolar Gravity".

With the totaliztic salute,
Jan Pajak