Comment on A “Christian Agnostic”? by BobRyan.
Ken –
Again critical thinking is needed. You merely “assume” that the enzyme was not produced beyond the point of birth for the children of Adam and Eve – even though it is clear that as adults – Adam and Eve were producing it.
You “assume” that the children were instantly translated to our same point of biological decline at birth. A very unlikely assumption on your part.
It is more likely that the effects wore off gradually – given that the Bible record shows the longevity effect wearing off gradually over time.
So the Bible “claim” is that once access to the nutrients in the fruit of the tree of life was removed – not only did mankind not “live forever” but that mankind gradually declined until death at around 900 years of age.
The Bible also states that this decline accelerated after the flood over a 500 year period time – down to 120 years of life.
So when you leap to your conclusion that the children must not have been able to produce the enzyme at the point of birth – rather than at ever decreasing ages – you do so without much warrant.
in Christ,
Bob
Table of Contents
BobRyan Also Commented
A “Christian Agnostic”?
Your response is very consistent with the agnostic and atheist world view my friend.
But you have to admit – my statement is very consistent with the “trust and believe the Bible” world view by comparison.
Surely we can both agree that these are not “the same world view”.
in Christ,
Bob
Ken: That’s a good question my friend, upon which I can only speculate as I can’t read minds. But from the answers I have seen I think Hawking’s view would be that Adventism is a faith construct trying to justify itself with pseudo science. That the Advenitist biblical concept of God cannot accord with the observable laws of empirical science.
But this is only my guess based on the obvious bias of creation science versus objective scientific inquiry.
Clearly that is your view – and as you point out – other atheists may agree with you on that point – some of them may even do it after having the benefit of some of the information you have reviewed during your Q&A sessions here.
But in Romans 1 God says this is not what they are actually experiencing. He says that in fact “they are without excuse” because the real truth is that the “invisible attributes of God are clearly seen in the things that have been made”.
Everything else is simply facade to one level or another.
in Christ,
Bob
ken: Excerpt from a Time interview with Stephen Hawkings:
“If God doesn’t exist, why did the concept of his existence become almost universal? —Basanta Borah, BASEL, SWITZERLAND
I don’t claim that God doesn’t exist. God is the name people give to the reason we are here. But I think that reason is the laws of physics rather than someone with whom one can have a personal relationship. An impersonal God.”Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2029483,00.html#ixzz1f7Ch1uti
Hello Sean
I thought would find the above comments by Hawkings interesting apropos our discussion over the nature of my agnosticism. Based on Hawkings comments I consider him an agnostic not an atheist. He does not deny God but rather challenges the nature of God. Interesting stuff
Ken – you are missing the real question here.
The question is … given the number of Q&A sessions you (as an agnostic) have actually had on this board – what would Hawking’s understanding have been by now having had access to those same answers?
It gives one pause for thought.
And as for your idea it is not “pure atheism” to claim that “God is nothing more than the laws of physics and that is the real and only reason we are here” — well that is a good one left as an “exercise for the reader”.
in Christ,
Bob
Recent Comments by BobRyan
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
By definition, I don’t believe in miracles or apocryphal, anthropomorphic stories about same.Why aren’t scientists observing them today if they occur?
Circular argument. If they were naturally occurring we would expect scientists to see that they are still occurring today. If they are singular events caused by an intelligent being – that being would be under no obligation to “keep causing world wide floods” as if “to do it once you must continually do it”. Armstrong went to the moon.. shall we argue that unless he keeps going to the moon so each new generation can see it … then it did not happen?
Your argument is of the form “all eye witness evidence to some event in the past is no evidence at all unless that event keeps repeating itself so we too can witness it”. Seems less than compelling.
“Could it be that science is better able to detect hoaxes and false claims?” As a rule for dismissing every eye witness account in the past – it is less than compelling. (even when that event cannot be repeated)
Evolutionists “claim” that dust, rocks and gas (in sufficient quantity and over sufficient time and a lot of luck) self organized into rabbits via prokaryote-then-eukaryote-then-more-complexity. But such self-organization cannot be “observed” today.
(What is worse – such a sequence cannot even be intelligently manipulated to occur in the lab)
By your own argument then you should not believe in evolution.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
@Sean Pitman:
Suppose you were at a crime scene … there is a tree limb on the ground and a bullet hole in the victim — “all natural causes”? or is one ‘not natural’? Those who say that nothing can be detected as “not naturally occurring in nature” – because all results, all observations make it appear that every result “naturally occurred without intelligent design” seem to be missing a very big part of “the obvious”.
Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
george:
Gentlemen,What just God would allow an innocent child to be born guilty for the sins of a distant ancestor? …What if there was only One Commandment? Do Good. ‘Kant’ see a problem with that.
An atheist point of view is not often found here – but this is interesting.
1. God does not punish babies for what someone else did – but I suppose that is a reductionist option that is not so uncommon among atheists. The “details” of the subject you are commenting on – yet according to you “not reading” – is that humans are born with sinful natures. A “bent” toward evil. That is the first gap right out of the gate between atheism and God’s Word..
2. But still God supernaturally enables “free will” even in that bent scenario, the one that mankind lives in – ever since the free-will choice of the first humans on planet earth – was to cast their lot in with Satan and rebellion..(apparently they wanted to see what a wonderful result that poor choice would create). John 16 “the Holy Spirit convicts the world of sin and righteousness and judgment”. And of course “I will draw ALL mankind unto Me” John 12:32. (not “just Christians”). Thus supernatural agency promotes free will in a world that would otherwise be unrestrained in its bent to evil.
3.God says “The wages of sin is death” — so then your “complaint” is essentially “that you exist”. A just and loving God created planet Earth – no death or disease or suffering – a perfect paradise where mankind could live forever … and only one tiny restriction… yet Adam and Eve allowed themselves to be duped by Satan… tossing it all away. The “Just God” scenario could easily just have let them suffer the death sentence they chose. He did not do that… hence “you exist” – to then “complain about it”.
4. Of course you might also complain that Satan exists – and Satan might complain that “you exist”. There is no shortage on planet earth of avenues for complaint. But God steps in – offers salvation to mankind at infinite cost to himself – – and the “Few” of Matthew 7 eventually end up accepting that offer of eternal life. The rest seem to prefer the lake of fire option… sort of like Adam and Eve choosing disease and death over eternal life (without fully appreciating the massive fail in that short-sighted choice).
In any case – this thread is about the logic/reason that should be taken into account when a Christian owned and operated institution chooses to stay faithful to its Christian mission — rather then getting blown about by every wind of doctrine. Why let the alchemy of “wild guessing” be the ‘source of truth’ when we have the Bible?? We really have no excuse for that. As for science – we can be thankful that it has come as far along as it has – but no matter how far back you rewind the clock of our science history – we should always have chosen the Bible over wild guessing.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Perhaps Dr. Pitman would enlighten his readers what on earth “the neo-Darwinian story of origins” might be. Darwin did not address origins.
Origins of what?? the first eukaryote??
Or “origins of mankind”??
Darwin himself claimed that his own false doctrine on origins was totally incompatible with Genesis and that because of this – Genesis must be tossed under a bus.
hint: Genesis is an account of “Origins” as we all know — even though “bacteria” and “amoeba” are terms that don’t show up in the text.
The point remains – Darwin was promoting his own religion on origins totally counter to the Bible doctrine on origins. He himself addresses this point of the two views.
Newly Discovered Human Footprints Undermine Evolutionary Assumptions
Ervin Taylor:
Here we go again.If the footprints upon close examination, are determined not to be from a hominim/hominid, I wonder if Educate Truth (sic) will announce that determination.Or if the date of the surface is determined to be much younger, will there be a notice placed on fundamentalist web-sites.If you believe the answer to these questions are yes, I have a big bridge that I would like to sell you for pennies on the dollar.
Here we go again … hope piled upon hope…no matter the “observations in nature” that disconfirm the classic evolutionary hypothesis
Reminds me of “What we still don’t know” by Martin Reese and Leonard Suskind
