Comment on A “Christian Agnostic”? by Nic Samojluk.
Sean PitmanNovember 23, 2011 at 8:57 am
“How do you know? You said that you considered God’s existence to be “likely”. Isn’t the word “likely” a statistical/scientific term based on at least some ability to actually demonstrate the odds of a hypothesis being correct?
This is my problem here. How can you say that something is “likely” when, at the same time, you say that you have no empirical evidence for what you say is “likely to exist”? – no more evidence than you have for mythological fairytales?
You see, it is your use of the phrase, “likely to exist” that doesn’t make sense to me since it appears, at least to me, that you’re being inconsistent with yourself.
If you have no positive evidence for God’s existence, and if everything that you do know appears to you to have a mindless natural cause, how then can you say, one way or the other, that the “first cause” was “likely” an intelligent God-like being vs. some other mindless natural process? Upon what basis do you make this claim?”
*********
Sean,
Thanks for this impeccable logic. I appreciate the clearness with which you demonstrate the role evidence plays in providing support for our faith.
Faith without evidence places us at risk of becoming victims of charlatans and those who have been deceived by the Devil.
Sure, there is evidence for and against a belief in God and Creation, but the weight of evidence favors the biblical teaching that God is the one who created everything that exists.
We do owe our existence to him alone and he is entitled to our worship. The moment we credit Nature for our existence, we fall prey to the artful deceptions of the one determined to destroy our faith.
Nic Samojluk Also Commented
A “Christian Agnostic”?
@Sean Pitman:
Sean PitmanNovember 15, 2011 at 7:01 am
“@Nic Samojluk:
I think that Bob’s answer was superb, yet ten bloggers voted his comments down. Is the voting system rigged somehow?
The voting is not rigged. It is just that people tend to vote from the hip for or against a comment, before actually reading it, based only on who wrote it – not what was actually said in the particular comment at hand.
This also happens on Talk.Origins – and pretty much all discussion forums. I did an experiment once where I re-posted a comment from a well-known evolutionist under my own name (on Talk.Origins). There was no end to the ridicule against the comment based simply on the assumption that I had actually written it. When I pointed out that I had not actually written the comment, that it was written by one of their own, the attempts at back-peddling were quite hilarious
I’m sure the same thing would happen here as well. That is why the allowance of “voting” for comments is really only a curiosity feature “just for fun” and really has little meaning aside, perhaps, from keeping track of how many people from opposing camps are actually following a particular thread.”
*********
Thanks, Sean. You are so right! Perhaps I should pay less attention to the number of votes posted next to bloggers’ comments!
A “Christian Agnostic”?
@BobRyan:
BobRyan November 11 2011 at 6:11 pm
In this case we are talking about complex houses not just a cube – complete with embedded nano-tech capable of self-repair – self-healing, auto-paint-updating etc.
Something like this…
v=GVqJdAqTD4Q&feature=related
When your fellow atheists and agnostics view that in a moment of objectivity – they respond something like ABC News did when it reported on it…
And in this case – those houses would be found all over Mars. And the observing agnostic friend might be tempted to claim “well then complex houses of that sort must occur naturally in the rocks and sand of Mars — err… umm… somehow, because there are sooo many of them”.
For the rest of us – it would be a sign of Martians – very smart ones.
*********
I think that Bob’s answer was superb, yet ten bloggers voted his comments down. Is the voting system rigged somehow?
A “Christian Agnostic”?
@Sean Pitman:
Sean Pitman November 6, 2011 at 12:52 am
“Part of the problem, of course, is that biologists are far better at telling just-so stories than they are at math. It is much much easier to come up with imagined just-so stories about how things may have morphed over time than it is to actually do the relevant math or to understanding the statistical odds involved with crossing the growing non-beneficial gaps between functional systems at higher and higher levels of functional complexity.”
*********
I am reading a little book authored by Robert Piccioni, a physicist who took the time to calculate the chance of life being the result of an accident, and he concluded that such a chance occurrence is for all practical purposes almost equal to zero. The title of his book is “Can Life be Merely an Accident?”
He is also the author of another book dealing with this issue. The title is “Everone’s Guide to Atoms Einstein and the Universe.” He is not an Adventist, but he is convinced that the universe was the result of the work of a designer.
Recent Comments by Nic Samojluk
Back to Square One…
What happened to all the postings dated November 9, 10 and 11?
Eddie,
I must be a prophet. As I predicted, my previous responses directed at you were deleted, probably before you had a chance to read them. It would be foolish for me to repost them.
Since you are already familiar with my own web site, you will find the same material I used to answer your comment there. Look for my most recent entries and let me know what you think. Use my own web page for answering instead of Educate Truth.
Back to Square One…
@Professor Kent:
Professor KentNovember 7, 2011 at 3:35 pm
Nic Samojluk: #2: There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons.
None! The doctrine of the Trinity was added in the third and fourth centuries and copied from pagan dogmas…The Trinity doctrine was invented by the Catholic Church.
“How can you be SDA, Nic, when you deny the Trinity?”
*********
I have a question for you: The Adventist pioneers were non-Trinitarians. This is a fact. Were they Adventists?
Back to Square One…
Eddie November 1, 2011 at 10:22 am
“Like most of you I happen to accept all 28 fundamental SDA beliefs (by faith, not by scientific evidence, in contrast with some of you), but if I had to choose one of you to be marooned with on a tiny island for the rest of my life, it would definitely be……Ken!”
*********
Notice that you did not say “a mixture of faith and evidence” but rather “faith, not by scientific evidence.” I believe this led me to conclude that for you evidence was not an integral component of faith.
You do accept all 28 FB’s. I don’t. I only accept those which can be defended by what we find in Scripture.
Eddi November 3, 2011 at 5:39 pm
“Nic, now that I have answered your questions, would you mind answering mine? What specific “scientific evidence” (which can be observed or measured by the human senses or technology) supports the following SDA fundamental beliefs (I’ve picked only a few):”
*********
Thanks for answering all my questions. I will try to answer yours. My answers will appear under your numbered questions.
#2: There is one God: Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, a unity of three co-eternal Persons.
None! The doctrine of the Trinity was added in the third and fourth centuries and copied from pagan dogmas.
#4: God the eternal Son became incarnate in Jesus Christ.
Hard, science based on verification and replication cannot be applied to historical evidence. You have to decide whether the recorded witness of those who for three years lived and saw the miracles performed by Jesus Christ are credible or not. Tradition tells us that all the original disciples of Jesus ended their lives as martyrs. Had they invented the story of Jesus’ resurrection, they would have caved in to the pressure placed on them to recant of their faith in the one who had claimed to be the Son of God.
#5: God the eternal Spirit was active with the Father and the Son in Creation, incarnation, and redemption.
None! The original term for Spirit we find in Genesis one can also be translated as “wind,” and even “presence.” The Trinity doctrine was invented by the Catholic Church.
#7: Man and woman were made in the image of God.
None, except the credible testimony of those who wrote the Bible under the divine inspiration of God.
#24: There is a sanctuary in heaven, the true tabernacle which the Lord set up and not man.
None, except the testimony of inspired writers whose credibility is beyond question. If Paul wrote the book of Hebrews, then we must remember that he claimed to have been under God’s teaching for three years prior to his extensive preaching tours.
#26: The wages of sin is death. But God, who alone is immortal, will grant eternal life to His redeemed.
None, except the promises by the one who did predict that he would come from the tomb alive and kept said promise to his followers.
#27: The millennium is the thousand-year reign of Christ with His saints in heaven between the first and second resurrections.
None, except the most logical interpretation of Scripture.
#28: On the new earth, in which righteousness dwells, God will provide an eternal home for the redeemed and a perfect environment for everlasting life, love, joy, and learning in His presence.
None, except of the testimony of all those who wrote under the inspiration of the Almighty.
“If you believe “scientific evidence” supports all of our beliefs, I’m very happy for you. My beliefs are based on a mixture of evidence and faith, but if you still want to believe my faith is blind or that I am in error because I am unable to find scientific evidence supporting my belief in a future new earth, that’s okay. You’re still my friend.”
It seems that we do share a common belief that our faith is solidly based on a “mixture of evidence and faith.” The question is:
What led me to conclude that your belief was based on blind faith? I need to go back to the original posting where you said something which made me conclude that this was the case.
