Comment on Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation by Sean Pitman.
You’ve tried to slip this disingenious explanation past us before. You just can’t bring yourself to admit that YOUR gold criterion of truth–science–fails to explain at the most elemental level what God can do.
The science of detecting the need for intelligent design behind certain phenomena holds for floating axeheads and the like. If you saw an axehead floating, as described in the Biblical story, even you would immediately know that high level deliberate intelligence was required to explain what you’re seeing. It is for this reason that such things are recognizable as “miracles” of design and creative power rather than simply another “natural” phenomenon.
The other question, of course, is, “Did this fantastic story really happen as described?” Again, one can only rationally answer “Yes” to this question if one can establish a very high level of credibility for the story teller. This is also based on scientific methodologies which are subject to testing and potential falsification… not just non-testable empirically-blind faith.
Admit it: metal is denser than water, and therefore it sinks. Can you not grasp simple physics?
Your point?
It is because I can and do grasp simple physics that I would recognize the design behind a floating axehead if I were to ever see such a demonstration… as described by the Bible storyteller. I would recognize it as non-natural outside of deliberate design and creative power.
You would no doubt come to the same conclusion if you saw something similar happen in front of your own eyes. For example, say you do your experiment with your own axehead. You throw your various kinds of sticks in your pool and nothing happens – the axehead stays at the bottom of your pool. Then, say, I happen to walk up and toss a stick of my own in your pool and, surprise surprise, the axehead starts “floating” up to the surface. What would you think? You may not know how I did this “trick”, but you’d know one thing – it was done by deliberate design which required high-level intelligence and creative power…
And, by the way, just watch a few hidden video shows on TV and you’ll see deliberately designed set-ups very similar to this done all the time. This is not saying that all of God’s miracles can be copied (not remotely true). However, I can certainly visualize how the floating axehead scenario might be produced by human-level design…
God’s existence–His power, His might, and His spoken word–goes far beyond your insistence that we can put God to the test of human reason and understanding.
We wouldn’t be able to detect the fact that God’s power, might, intelligence, or spoken word go far beyond human capabilities if we were not able to reason empirically/scientifically from cause to effect or from effect to likely cause – if we were not able to detect a need to invoke such high-level intelligence and creative power that cannot be distinguished, from our perspective, from that belonging to a God or God-like entity.
Therefore, it is precisely science, or a form of scientific reasoning based on empirical evidence, that allows us to detect the amazing signature of God in all of His works – to include nature and the Bible.
How is this not an intuitive concept? How is it that anyone can argue that the signature of a Designer cannot be rationally detected from the study of His own handiwork? How is it rational to claim that empirically-blind faith alone is able to detect God? – via a form of faith that is not easily distinguished from wishful thinking?
You’re also being inconsistent. You’re claiming that you recognize that the Bible is the Word of God by faith alone, yet you reject what the Bible says about our God-given ability to recognize God’s signature through the study of nature and in empirical evidences supporting the validity of the written Word (such as historically-fulfilled prophecies and other empirically-testable claims)…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Bill Sorensen:
The Bible makes claims about the future. It does not cause the future. It therefore is not “self-validating”. It’s just a book after all. It can be read, but it cannot itself act to perform any tasks. Therefore, it’s claims, if they are to be rationally understood to be “true” must obviously be supported by external evidence based on the historical sciences. In other words, its own claims regarding history are validated by external sources – based on independent evidence that comes from outside of itself. How is this concept not self-evident?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Professor Kent:
Let’s get a few things straight. I have not attacked the claims of scripture regarding the “the recent origin of all life on this planet, created within just six literal days, and the worldwide nature of the Noachian Flood.” All I did was point out that the physical evidence supporting flood geology has serious problems.
That is an attack on Scripture. When you attempt to undermine the empirical claims of Scripture as being contrary to the weight of empirical evidence, you are in fact undermining the rational basis for Scriptural credibility.
Don’t you recognize that in claiming that the weight of scientific evidence clearly favors the neo-Darwinian perspective, a perspective which is diametrically opposed to the Biblical perspective, you do in fact undermine the credibility of the Biblical account? Your faith-only approach, regardless of the evidence, simply doesn’t do it for many people. For many many people such arguments as you are presenting do in fact undermine the rational basis for their faith despite your own ability to be able to have faith despite the weight evidence. Many people see this as irrational – and for good reason.
Faith, without a need for a basis in the weight of evidence, is irrational by definition. It is blind-faith in that it cannot be rationally distinguished from a form of wishful thinking.
And you were the one, not me, who has asserted that the flood did not create all of the layers of the geological column.
Of course. I fail to see why this might be a problem?
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
Changing the Wording of Adventist Fundamental Belief #6 on Creation
@Eddie:
By implication Nebuchadnezzar won the battle with Egypt – just as Ezekiel prophesied. Otherwise, it is unlikely that the Babylonians would have recorded the event…
Sean Pitman
www.DetectingDesign.com
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.
