Well if there is some compelling argument based on reason rather than evidence, that can be philosophically persuasive too.Sushan wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2021, 8:18 amI see your point, and that is the issue when it comes to philosophical arguments. One can suggest a point that neither be proved or disproved, and people can argue on that point for eternity. They are usually not based in any evidence, but solely on various speculations and suggestions. The question regarding presence or abscence of a god belongs to this too. So it is better to rely on scientific evidence rather than mere religious statements.Gertie wrote: ↑March 2nd, 2021, 7:58 amI'd want some compelling evidence or argument for the speculation that there is a god which made fossils, etc more recently than science suggests, to believe it. Just like if someone claimed the Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy mice really did create the earth as an experiment. Because you can make untestable claims about anything which can't be disproven. In which case the sensible thing to do is generally follow the evidence available - and that's what science does.Sushan wrote: ↑March 1st, 2021, 8:44 pm The author explains, quoting some of the historical scholars, that actually the earth is not old as the scientists claim. He suggests that the God has created it in several thousand years (a 'day' in God's creation is taken as a 'thousand years'), but has made it to look like billions of years old, with the old stones, fossils, rings on the tree trunks, etc. The author compares this with making a newly made Denim to look old by fading its colour.
Do you think this is true? If so, has the God deceived us? But why? On the other hand, has science got it all wrong despite hundreds of years of studies?
In this case (I've not read this book and won't be buying it) two different explanations are offered for the existence of fossils, tree rings, carbon dating, geological findings etc. One explanation is compatible with all our other empirical observations of the universe, and the entire physicalist model which has been constructed around our observations of what the world is made of and how it works. And the other contradicts it based on the possibly metaphorical beliefs one particular religion came up with prior to the availability of much of the knowledge we now have. And somebody then working out the numbers of generations (begottings) mentioned in different texts which occured since the setting of the Adam and Eve story. Throwing in ad hoc that a day = a thousand years to make it somehow more convincing.
That claim is untestable, just like the claim that white mice created the earth as a lab experiment. Neither can be disproven, but that doesn't mean such a claim has a 50/50 chance of being true. So when such a claim is made, the onus is on the maker of the claim to provide either evidence or some other compelling argument. The scientific claim is compelling because that's what all the evidence points to, and it is consistent with our overall model of how the world works. When anomalies arise, that model is adjusted, it is open to new evidence and interpretations. A faith based model is stuck with simply denying all the evidence and anomalies, and opposing arguments. It's not a philosophical argument, it's a theological interpretation of a text which many theologians themselves read as intended as metaphorical, rather than a divine revelation of an actual event. And belief in such is known as apologetics, because it's not part of philosophical practice.
There are some philosophical arguments for the existence of god, this isn't one.