Comment on The Creator of Time by george.
To Sean ( with a little magic show for Wes) and welcome back Erv
“Am I reading you correctly that you have no trouble believing in an intelligent designer God as being responsible for the origin of the universe and for life and its diversity on this planet? – that the empirical evidence that you are able to comprehend seems to reasonably support such a conclusion? – that your only real problem is with the particular God described in the Bible? If that is the case, you aren’t really the agnostic I’ve been led to believe you are… ”
You are not reading me correctly. I question whether this universe and evolving life on this planet is of intelligent design but rather happenstance or chance.
Let’s try a thought experiment to crudely demonstrate my point.
Let’s postulate that I want to throw a baseball 200 feet away through a hole in a vertical plywood sheet with the hole being only a millimeter larger in diameter than the baseball. I know that at the right trajectory the ball will fit through the hole as I have pre -measured it. I know that I can throw a baseball 200 feet and reach the plywood as I have taken experimental throws prior to the experiment. Each attempt will be separately witnessed by people of faith who are unaware of the prior attempts but film each attempt. Each time I throw the ball I prophesize that I will perform a miracle.
What are the chances that I can throw the ball through the hole? infinitesimally small I imagine. But not impossible.
For years I try to throw the ball through the hole, each separately witnessed. At first I miss the plywood all together. Then at last I start to hit the plywood but am no where near the hole. But as time goes on I start to get within 10 feet of the hole, then 5 feet and then I start to hit part of the hole but not cleanly so the ball caroms off the hole at oblique angles. Every time I miss, I thank the witnesses, pay them for their time and have them sign a confidentiality agreement stating that that they will never disclose they have participating in my failed attempt. For the sake of this experiment none of them break the agreement or are aware of or know any of the witnesses of prior or future attempts. ( of course being an idle billionaire with a good arm all of this is possible 🙂
Finally on my 10,000,000 attempt, after decades of trying, I throw the ball through the hole, duly recorded on the cell phones of my three folks of faith. And incredible as it might seem it happens just as the lunar eclipse is occurring. ( Wes’s borrowed klieg lights gleefully light up the scene for the miraculous event. So grateful am I for the loan that I cede him the movie rights so Disney can make an animated movie of the event – “Always let your artistic imagination be your guide”) …
Enjoying the show so far? Wes did you bring the popcorn?
… Now I turn to my folks of faith who have just seen me throw the ball through the hole on the very first try and say, “This was part of God’s design,” and walk away never to be seen by them again.
Lo and behold, my fine folks of faith began to proselytize that they have just seen the designed hand of God at work, duly recorded. No one is ever able to repeat the event and I have become a recluse and never found. The legend spreads and those of the intelligent design/prophecy school(s0 proclaim the event to be evidence of both.
Could this scenario occur under the right circumstances? Unlikely but not impossible given the laws of physics, time, money and staging.
Now I am no God or Devil.. well my wife may not concur with the latter. Oh I know I’m a bit of an ontological rascal – as Wes likes to affectionately call me- but I do have a point with this little thought experiment. On a grand scale let’s replace me with God as the infinite baseball chucker. Each ball represents a potential anthropic universe allowing for intelligent, organic life to develop, albeit under tumultuous circumstances ( watch out for those black holes they can cause a detour in a feller’s cosmic perambulation!). Most times the balls ( potential universes) never make it through the anthropic hole but just bounce off the cosmic plywood. But after eons – Sean and I agree that by definition an omnipotent God/Creator would not be bound by time, space or the physical laws of this universe – our ball on the umpteenth gazillion try comes through the hole (singularity) and begins to expand in Big Bang fashion on the other side of the plywood. Bingo there’s our universe 😉
Of course we as anthropic witnesses after the fact, through the application of scientific reasoning, can only deduce the nature of our universe. The metaverse at this time is only theoretical speculation. But that does not make a fairy tale, rather a concept to explore. The fact that we exist in a finely tuned universe, which is all we can know seems to suggest a pre – ordained design. But what about all the other potential balls and holes in pieces of plywood where life may not be so hospitable and design not intelligible. Does not an omnipotent, omnipresent God have the capacity to create these randomly as well just for his sheer creative joy? Don’t most of us parent more than one child?
Yes Sean, I ponder the theory of the metaverse just as I do the nature of a God that might have created same. Is our unraveling, entropic universe designed or does it just appear to us to be so because we have nothing else to yet compare it to? So many events of Nature in the past were attributed to God(s) due to scientific ignorance. How many more of apparent design will dispelled as we learn more and more about Nature’s cause and effect. For me the cosmic jury remains out and the verdict inconclusive as to a particular, pre-ordained design to this universe. If it was me I would have designed Disney rides all over the cosmos but that’s just me 🙂
Happy Sabbath tomorrow.
Table of Contents
george Also Commented
The Creator of Time
Hello Sean
In fairness to you and your readers I feel like we are being redundant on many points and issues. I need to be respectful that this is an Adventist forum that believes and supports YEC not a platform for my agnosticism.
I do appreciate and thank you for the opportunity to lively debate issues.
Respectfully
The Creator of Time
To Sean
“ A hypothesis about the supernatural world cannot be tested, so it is not scientific. The concept of God, Allah, or other supernatural designer(s), capable of designing the whole Universe, can neither be proved nor disproved. Hence, any claims that any supernatural being or force cause some event is not able to be scientifically validated (however, whether that event really occurred can be scientifically investigated).”
And back to you
The Creator of Time
To Sean
“Remember also that the assumption that future discoveries will one day be able to explain everything via mindless naturalistic mechanisms is not science, but a philosophy of naturalism that is very similar to a blind faith religion.”
How does this compare to the assumption that the Bible will be able to predict the end of the world? Scientific in your estimation or perhaps I really don’t understand how science versus religion works
Recent Comments by george
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
Sean,
Thank you for your response.
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur? Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims? For me the value of science is to take us out of the dark ages and look for cause and effect laws and forces to explain reality. Frankly I do not see God’s hand as an intervening force in our universe.
Cheers
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
To Sean
Dictionary definition of a miracle:
“mir·a·cle
ˈmirək(ə)l/Submit
noun
a surprising and welcome event that is not explicable by natural or scientific laws and is therefore considered to be the work of a divine agency.
“the miracle of rising from the grave”
synonyms: wonder, marvel, sensation, phenomenon, supernatural phenomenon, mystery
“his recovery was a blessed miracle”
a highly improbable or extraordinary event, development, or accomplishment that brings very welcome consequences.
“it was a miracle that more people hadn’t been killed or injured”
an amazing product or achievement, or an outstanding example of something.
“a machine which was a miracle of design”
synonyms: wonder, marvel, sensation, phenomenon, supernatural phenomenon, mystery
“his recovery was a blessed miracle”
As I said science cannot detect miracles, by the very definition of same. Ergo, if the resurrection of Christ is considered an event of divine agency then science cannot detect it or falsify it.
When it comes to historical evidence of the event, outside of the gospels which are likely self serving to the audience they are meant to convert, is there independent corroboration of the event? Are all the versions in the gospels the same or are there differences in the various accounts. Why are there similarities with other resurrection stories from other religions?
If the matter was litigated these are the types of questions that would be asked. Biased eyewitnessed accounts not subject to cross examination under oath in Court are not really of much persuasive value in my experience.
In sum, a biased biblical account of a miraculous resurrection is not scientific and not proof on the balance of probabilities that it occured. The evidence that you have cited is unreliable and not corroborated by unbiased accounts.
I haven’t seen a resurrection or a perfect granite cube, Santa Claus, ghosts, demons, fairies, haunted houses, prophets or anything of a miraculous nature that I am aware of. So it is specious for you to ask me hypotheticals in this regard. It’s like me asking you if your head could swivel 360 degrees could you see the world better.
Onwards….
Also is it possible Jesus did not die on the cross but removed before he was medically dead? Did some of his followers remove his body from the cave to make it appear he was resurrected? If a multitude of people saw him resurrected why are there only biblical accounts?
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
To Sean
“Of course, if the disciples of Jesus had not been given such evidence, they weren’t about to offer themselves up like sheep for the slaughter. Until the actually resurrection of Jesus, three days after His death on the cross, they had given up all hope of Him as the actual Messiah, much less any belief in Him as “God”, and were hiding themselves from the Romans and Jewish leaders of the day.”
Now that is most interesting. So the disciples who had first hand experience of the miracles that Jesus performed during his life had doubts as to his divinity. So much for empirical observations eh? Why should we who were not there then belief in the redacted stories of the Bible?
As I have pointed out many martyrs have died for their faith or convictions. Joan of Arc for example who never witnessed Christ’s resurrection, believed she was a messenger from God, recanted her faith under duress, but then chose it again and was burnt at the stake as a result. Is that proof she was a messenger of God or would you distinguish her case from the disciples who did not belief in Christ’s divinity based on the first hand witnessing of miracles? The fact the disciples did so is not proof of Jesus’s resurrection. Perhaps in guilt and remorse they collaborated the resurrection story to launch mythic Christianity? How many times was the story amended or embellished before being recorded in the many different gospels? And who were the actual scribes? The witnesses themselves or others? Who ‘really’ knows?
The problem with the resurrection miracle is it is not science, not falsifiable thus it comes down to faith. That’s fine as long as one understands that.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
To Sean and Wes
“Now, if you still think otherwise, then please do explain why you believe that human reason supersedes the concept of selfless love for one’s neighbor? – as the basis for morality and the definition of moral goodness?”
Because, as I have alluded before, I think the concept of selfless love stems from human reason and sentiments, like many other concepts of good or bad. Just like I think the concept of an anthropomorphic, intervening God stems from human reason, not empirically from scientific observations.
You don’t have to be Christian or of any religion stripe to be a good person. Atheists and agnostics as well as may fine religious folks can be good. Conversely many secular and religious people can be bad ( think of the Spanish Inquisition.) The issue- as I have previously argued – is not so much what influences us but what we choose to do. I can choose to use Jesus, the Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa, Jiminy Cricket, you, Wes, or conversely Hitler, Stalin, the leaders of USA or North Korea, etc. as my moral role models … or not. If I am narcissistic I can select myself. If I believe in the Koran i can select Mohammed. If I am Buddhist I select the Dalai Lama… etc.
Who makes that choice for me? God? Jesus? You? Wes? Political or religious leaders? Cult figures? No, I make it based on my own conscience, sentiments and reason. And epistemologically and existentially there is my proof ( I think therefore I am: I choose therefore I am: if I do bad therefore I am: if I do good therefore I am).
If I am not free to reason and make moral choices based on a variety of influences then i am no better than a robot. But you believe in free will and choice don’t you Sean? Don’t we choose to believe of not in God, Jesus, Ellen White as a prophet? Didn’t you choose to do so based on your empirical investigations or are you blindly following your faith based on your upbringing? Charitably, after observing your laudatory efforts on this site over the years – for which I commend you and hold you in high respect – I think you freely chose to adopt the Royal Law of Love as your moral basis.
And that respectfully my fine friend, as you have respectfully requested, is my existential argument.
And to my dear friend Wes I say Yes, emphatically Yes! as to what is the source of morality and conscience: Human choice, black and white, pure and simple.
And now gentlemen, I choose to bid you well and sign off for the night.
Fondly
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
To Sean and Wes, and hopefully our morally interested audience
“Beyond this, why should we, “Let our conscience be our guide”?
Because conscience by definition connotes individual moral choice. We may be influenced by culture, religion, upbringing, sentiment, education, literature, moral theories and law but there is no objective, uniform test for one’s own conscience. Everyone is unique in that regard and must make their own moral choices. As Sean aptly pointed out, individuals can live selflessly for the benefit of others while not necessarily believing in or having doubts about God. Surely they do so according to their conscience.
Obviously an ole rascal that uses a cricket and a Catholic nun as moral role models would strain the credulity of an objective standard for a conscience. Notwithstanding, the example of Jesus depicted in the Bible leaves one speechless in awe. Obviously his impact upon believers and non believers alike has had a profound salutary effect upon the world. I would be disingenuous to submit otherwise, notwithstanding that I do not think any human beings are prophetic or divine. ( other than in some sort of pantheistic notion of which we cannot know).
By the way, Wes. I wouldn’t kiss Mother Teresa’s feet. I’d give her a big hug though as a fine human being. 😉
Chirp, chirp… 🙂
