Hypothetical postulates are very interesting as philosophical questions. The problem …

Comment on IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID by George.

Hypothetical postulates are very interesting as philosophical questions.

The problem is you cannot present any evidence such non man made granite cubes exist, thus your question is not scientific, but speculative. This is the same as me asking you that if one witnessed Santa Claus squeezing down chimneys every Christmas would this provide proof that Santa Claus exists. First there has to be evidence. What you are attempting to do is construct a rhetorical hypothetical to which the only answer is that there must be design. It is circular reasoning. Ask yourself: what non human designed artifacts in the universe equate to your hypothetical polished granite cubes? Are there any such artifacts that cannot be explained or potentially by cause and effects of the natural laws of the universe? If so, please name those artifacts and we will examine them for design or another possible explanation thereof.

On the other hand there is plenty of evidence of mindless evolution. It is the degree to which it occurs that you debate, not that it occurs. That seems a bit more palpable to me than fictive objects. Then again, Einstein did do a lot of thought experiments to understand general relatively and space/ time. He also did the math 🙂

George Also Commented

“If you limit the free will agent to only hurting him or herself, you haven’t provided true freedom of will.”

Naturally, by how do you let that free human will change the perfect laws of the universe? Where does that human power come from? Doesn’t that require a wee bit of divine intervention to let the perfect universe unwind? Or did Adam and Eve have a different type of free will with magical powers that extant humans do not have?

“What are you afraid of?”

Not of my mortality or any promise of heaven, my friend. And not of compromising my intellectual freedom thorough religious or atheist bias. I don’t need certainty or hope. Those are temporal pablum.

Very glad that you agree there are imperfections in the universe. So does that mean an imperfect creator. an imperfect designer, ergo an imperfect God? What empirical evidence is there that the universe was once perfect and Adam esting a forbidden apple caused imperfection to occur? None is the only rational, non mythical answer – but saying so I don’t begrudge any there faith to the contrary, especially if it gives them hope in their daily lives. My mirror is most severe and the abyss most deep. And in facing that I am peace with myself. But I will fight ignorance tooth and nail, my friend, especially if religion disguises itself as reason or science.

That being said there may or may not be a design to this universe. In answer to your question what would convince me, I would have to be convinced that our universe is in fact not part of a metaverse where other possible universes with different properties are possible. I would also to understand if this universe is designed, why such a design if intelligently designed? If God marvels life why not design it on every planet? I would also need to see majority scientific peer reviewed support that macro evolution is not viable. You raise some interesting points but I don’t think you are an evolutionary biologist and have done little experimentation or research in the area. I appreciate this an appeal to authority, but at least it is an appeal to scientific authority as oppossed to holy books written by men 🙂

Hope that helps explain my position a bit more.

By the way, Dr. Kime’s diatribe on the relative, changing landscape of Adventism is outstanding. It is a microcosm of what happens to all religions over time and how they schism based on the wiles of Man to rest authority away from exisitng tenets or persons wielding power with orthodoxy. It’s why I say all religion is relative cultural phenomena, even the various iterations of the Bible. It will continue to change as new prophets and power brokers come along. Do you think EGW would hold court in today’s modern society? She was a anachronism of her time and that age’s credulity. There will be more prophets and rational cynics will be there to hobble their celestial ankles.

I wish you and my pard Wes a happy Sabbath,

This Adventist pastor had the courage to question things for himself.


Recent Comments by George

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Dr. Pitman

How did you make the segue from the creation story to Alexander the Great as historical science? What am I missing here – did someone actually witness the creation story and write about it?

Let’s try to stay inside the ball park on analogies shall we?

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
“Again, why do you believe that Alexander the Great really did the various things that historians claim he did.”

Who said I did?

History is often recorded by the victors who may well gild the lily. Different historians may say different things about him. Some may have been eye witnesses, some may have not relying on hearsay. Some may have had a bias. Take all history with a grain of salt by considering the sources and margin for error I say.

However you’re not just talking about claims of the Bible, you’re talking about the claims of EGW. Do you have some empirical proof that she actually visited those worlds she described? If so where is your corroborating evidence of any sort? In short is your belief about EGW’s vision of extra terrestial based on any science whatsoever?

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith

Have you ever read how much resistance Darwin faced when Origin of Species was first published? Many of the scientific establishment opposed him. In fact I have read that natural selection did not become a centerpiece of modern evolutionary biology until the 1930’s and 1940’s.

Darwin, like Pasteur has stood the test of time, notwithstanding the lack of initial scientific consensus. Who knows, perhaps one day YEC or YLC may ascend to the scientific pantheon? Have to find evidence for 6 day creation and how biodiversity emanated from the Ark though 🙂
Until then, I’m afraid they are just so stories.

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Did you notice that you have unilaterally used the analogy of Alexander the Great of which I have never studied or alluded to?

Are you equating EGW’s vision of extra terrestrial life to a battle on earth? Proverbial apples and oranges, but your silence and evasion of the science behind EGW’s vision is deafening.

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
@ Bob and Sean

Is EGW’s vision scientific? Is it corroborated or falsifiable?

Ask yourselves honestly why you believe in it. If it is because of your faith that is fine, but if it has some scientific, empirical basis, as Dr. Pitman likes to tote, you need to establish that basis. Otherwise it is a ‘just so’ theological story.

Also, I think a couple of my previous comments on this topic never made it out of the cyber editing room. I didn’t think they were offensive so I’m not sure why they were not posted. 🙂