Comment on The Creator of Time by george.
To Sean
” In other words, you shouldn’t be surprised by anything that you see in this universe because anything is not only possible but probable from the multiverse perspective. ”
That is not correct as humans through science and rational investigation have deduced physical, chemical and biological laws with predictive properties regarding this universe. That is why the supposed biblical miracles are not scientific,falsifiable, empirical, philosophical or rational in my opinion. Nor is biblical creation. They are theological based on faith, without corroborative scientific support, in the vast majority of scientists estimation.
Snowflakes and perfectly symmetrical granite cubes…. which are designed, which are not? Modern physics, chemistry and biology continues to provide answers to a cause and effect universe as to how physical reality including the emergence of organic life occurred. Intelligent design, a successor to Deism – which to be fair is not creationism per se – suggests that every time science cannot proof that cause and effect mechanisms resulted in observed phenomena there must have been design by default. There is no guarantee that what humans deduce as design is what a supernatural designer would have done at all.
Admittedly the metaverse is still a theory at present and might never be proven. That does make it unworthy of contemplation and outright rejection by those theologically opposed to the concepts. The difficulty creationists face – especially YEC proponents even within their own religious sects – is as science reveals more over time this viewpoint becomes anachronistic. Hard to see that reality within the YEC bubble but science will move forward independent of subjective theological shackies. Just look at all the religious sects that have come to accept the big bang and evolution as scientific facts.
The only way that science can be truly objective is to divorce it from religious belief. That is how it has made progress and will continue to do so in free minds. It will neither proof or disprove God but will continue to enlighten Man on the true nature of the universe, in my humble agnostic opinion.
Table of Contents
george Also Commented
The Creator of Time
Hi Sean
Your real problem of credibility is your double standard of proof. Put your biblical stories of reality to the same degree of circumspection as you put evolution. To really conclude that all the bio diversity that we see in the world today- apart from that that survived in the water- came off an Ark is probably the most unscientific fantastic claim that even all children see as allegory. There is a reason this is not taught as the source of biodiversity in schools Sean. Yet you as a scientist believe it and think it has an evidentiary basis.
Your arguments on design make much more sense because it is certainly arguable that there is a design to the universe based on the anthropiic principle. It is certainly arguable that a designer like God could have designed a universe like ours but also a designerlike God could have designed a cause and effect evolving universe as well. Like Deism I think ID is worthwhile exploring. But I also think science continues to demonstrate mindless cause and effect mechanisms that don’t require design.
You and Behe are focused on irreducible complexity as an underpinning for design – which for you then becomes the stepping stone to biblical creation. Your methodology is apparent to get ‘educated’ minds to buy into a biblically designer God.
You see I don’t mind admitting that there is still much to do when it comes to understanding how physics and biology work. The best minds in the world continue to work, theorize and experiment in these areas. But you dismiss these efforts with a wave of your hand because they fall outside the biblical narrative so they can’t be true. And it is THAT factor Sean that utterly shatters the rational credibilty of
of creation science as an objective endeavour. The boys at the Discovery Institute understood this and have tried to broaden their approach. Deists understood this as well to get away from cultural myth and move towards a more observational basis for understanding the universe. But sadly Sean l, I think you are so entrenched in your biblical paradigm that you cannot see how your double standard of scientific inquiry harms your credibilty as an objective scientist. If I was to cross examine you in a Court of Law I would have a field day on pointing this discrepancy. And believe me, having cross examined many medical experts in forensic matters I do speak from professional experience.
Yes I know I am stating the obvious as many of your fellow ‘progressive’ Adventist colleagues have stayed before, no doubt to no avail. But, without being smug, just as you have encouraged me to look for God, I encourage you to look very deeply within yourself and look for humbly for rational contradiction. Objective humility is the real start to seeking truth.
Cheers
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 Lindley
“Theology seems to go amiss whenever we try to rationalise God instead of seeking a relationship with God. Let us start with who God is, who we are and a little of our relationship
God is Love! God the Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit self-exist in a relationship of love. God has complete knowledge and power, but by His own will and sacred law God is Love.”
Are you not rationalizing God as soon as you opine that God is Love or of
any particular anthropomorphic quality? How do you know your own theology is not amiss in this regard?
To Sean
“Just keep searching honestly without your almost life-long effort to see yourself as above it all as you sit on your fence. ”
Good advice on the honest search. Hopefully I am not too myopic or narcissistic to self delude myself that I am not honestly searching for the truth. Then again, how could I know? Objectively someone else must judge my motives in order that I will not suffer from confirmation bias or worse: hubris, of my own veracity.
‘Above it all’ …. hmm that almost sounds heavenly which an agnostic would have to query 😉 It strikes me that in an objective search for God one should neither yearn too much to find God yet fear too much to do so. As a scientist does that seem like a rational approach to you?
One thing I try to teach young lawyers is not to fall in love nor outright reject their clients’ stories. Rather test the evidence for inconsistencies, look at the clients’ motives and consider how an independent judge would view the credibility of the client/witness. Also be prepared on the evidence presented to argue both sides of the case. One is only ‘above it all’, when one thinks one is indefatigably right! Often that is where lawyers lose cases because they do not see the weakness in their client’s position. Respectfully – although I don’t take offence to your opinion- I hope honest doubt does not make me above it all but rather perpetually questioning it all until it makes sense. I readily self confess to that.
Good night gentlemen
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
@Bob
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. 🙂
