To Bill “No one is born with free will.” If this is …

Comment on Academic Freedom Strikes Again! by george.

To Bill

“No one is born with free will.”

If this is the case how can anyone freely choose Christ as his/her saviour? Irrespective of faith, don’t we all make choices during our lives to do good or bad? Are you saying that non Christians cannot do good because they have no free will to do so?

george Also Commented

Academic Freedom Strikes Again!

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.


Academic Freedom Strikes Again!
To Sean

Dictionary definition of a miracle:

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.


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.

Recent Comments by george

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.


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

The Creator of Time
Hello Sean

“I began my investigation with genetic evolution since that is my own personal field of expertise. ”

So have you published papers in scientific peer reviewed journals in this regard? Have you done experiments in this regard? Have you published statistical analysis to demonstrate your theory that macro evolution is mathematically possible?

You are always stating that others have to proof you wrong? Really? If you we’re trying to prove Newton or Einstein wrong would you not have to do so before your scientific peers?

Come on now, as you like to say, do you really scientically think all the biodiversity we witness today cane off a floating Ark some 4000 years ago! Is that really a scientific proposition that is provable or just some just so story?

You see I get the design argument but miracles, prophets, Santa Claus, fairies, ghosts, goblins, arks and the like are not proper subjects for science in my opinion. This is why you are seeing religions, including the progressive side of Adventistism moving more towards acceptance of science as reality, because they understand the modern educated mind will reject them if the stories are too fanciful or don’t make sense.

You see I don’t mind you calling ideas of the meta verse just so stories or not currently scientific as being non falsifiable. You have a point there. I don’t mind you advancing design arguments, especially as it relates to the fine tuned mechanisms of physics and organic life. You have good points there. But please, try to objectively use use that same scientific circumspection to the fantastic claims of the Bible and EGW prophecies or even the age of life on earth. Then perhaps I’ll see a bit of rational sense to your overall position.


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.