Of course this now raises the interesting question as to …

Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Sean Pitman.

Of course this now raises the interesting question as to how you determine what features of the universe are designed and not designed. I am genuinely interested in your response here, not just playing cat and mouse. For example, how do you weigh the weak and strong anthropic principles, against intelligent design of certain features of the universe?

I am guessing, but not sure, that based on your theology, you think destructive aspects of the universe – eg. colliding galaxies- did not exist before the Fall of Man?

I think the universe and galaxies pre-existed the creation of life on this planet during the Genesis “creation week”. Also, I don’t view colliding galaxies as necessarily “destructive”. There is a whole lot of space between the stars in a galaxy you know. It is likely for two galaxies to “collide” without any of the stars hitting each other. And, just in case there were some danger to those living in such colliding galaxies, they could simply move elsewhere.

As far as the strong vs. weak forms of the anthropic principle, they are both based on the same basic argument. As Carter originally explained, the WAP argues that we exist at this particular point in time and place because no other point in time, at this particular place, would have allowed for our existence. The SAP, although it presents a similar argument, suggests that we could live in no other universe besides the one we’re in because only our universe is fine tuned enough, in its fundamental constants, to allow complex life to exist.

Of course, as with the WAP, the argument against the suggestion that our universe was therefore specifically designed, intelligently, for our specific existence, is that there must be multiple universes and ours just happened to get very lucky.

The problem with this “multiverse” hypothesis is that it isn’t scientific. In fact, it is anti-science. It isn’t testable or falsifiable and can be used to explain anything and everything – no matter how unlikely it may be. All one has to do is say, “Well, given enough universes this phenomenon is bound to have happened by random luck in at least one of them.” For example, if Arnold Schwarzenegger happened to win the California Lottery 10 times in a row – “Well, he just happened to be in the right universe.” You see, you’d never be able to accuse him of deliberate cheating by design because of this argument. In fact, you’d never be able to make any scientific conclusion because one could always argue that the odds against the null hypothesis could be explained by the multiverse hypothesis.

Therefore, the most empirically rational conclusion is that things that look designed, that are beyond any and all known mindless natural mechanisms, really are designed by deliberate intelligence. This is true regardless of if one is analyzing a highly symmetrical polished granite cube, a narrow-band radio signal from outer space, or the fundamental constants of the universe. All can be determined to be true artefacts of intelligent design according to the very same scientific arguments.

Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
What is interesting is that the older the creation/Flood stories (which are practically universal in cultures around the world), the closer they match the Biblical account. In other worlds, the evidence at hand strongly favors that the Biblical account in the original account from which all other accounts are derived. Also, the details of the Biblical account described in Genesis are supported by archaeological evidence that confirms various details long believed to be in question or even mythical – such as the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities that were catastrophically destroyed (mentioned in the same order in the Ebla Tablets).

In any case, you’re not mentioning anything new here. These attempts to challenge Biblical credibility have been around for a long time. However, the Bible keeps trumping all efforts to undermine its credibility. It has shown itself to be the most reliable historical text that we have. No other historical text or resource comes remotely close.

For a further discussion along these lines, to include a discussion of the origin of the 7-day weekly cycle in history, see: http://ssnet.org/blog/origin-of-sabbath-7-day-week/


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Thank you for your clarification Bob. I certainly agree.


Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith

Thanks Bob for your candour in recoznizing the likelihood of redaction in the Bible. What got left out, amended, embellished?

As already noted, the names of places were likely updated over time, but not the historical narrative – information which was lost outside of the Scriptural accounts. In fact, this is one of the best evidences that the authors cited by Scripture really did write these accounts in their own day.


Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

After the Flood
Thank you Ariel. Hope you are doing well these days. Miss seeing you down at Loma Linda. Hope you had a Great Thanksgiving!


The Flood
Thank you Colin. Just trying to save lives any way I can. Not everything that the government does or leaders do is “evil” BTW…


The Flood
Only someone who knows the future can make such decisions without being a monster…


Pacific Union College Encouraging Homosexual Marriage?
Where did I “gloss over it”?


Review of “The Naked Emperor” by Pastor Conrad Vine
I fail to see where you have convincingly supported your claim that the GC leadership contributed to the harm of anyone’s personal religious liberties? – given that the GC leadership does not and could not override personal religious liberties in this country, nor substantively change the outcome of those who lost their jobs over various vaccine mandates. That’s just not how it works here in this country. Religious liberties are personally derived. Again, they simply are not based on a corporate or church position, but rely solely upon individual convictions – regardless of what the church may or may not say or do.

Yet, you say, “Who cares if it is written into law”? You should care. Everyone should care. It’s a very important law in this country. The idea that the organized church could have changed vaccine mandates simply isn’t true – particularly given the nature of certain types of jobs dealing with the most vulnerable in society (such as health care workers for example).

Beyond this, the GC Leadership did, in fact, write in support of personal religious convictions on this topic – and there are GC lawyers who have and continue to write personal letters in support of personal religious convictions (even if these personal convictions are at odds with the position of the church on a given topic). Just because the GC leadership also supports the advances of modern medicine doesn’t mean that the GC leadership cannot support individual convictions at the same time. Both are possible. This is not an inconsistency.