You talk about the theoretical existence of multiple universe (which …

Comment on IT’S THE CULTURE, STUPID by Sean Pitman.

You talk about the theoretical existence of multiple universe (which is actually beyond the realm of real scientific methodologies or even the potential for falsification) like this somehow eliminates the ability to detect anything that goes beyond natural law or that requires intelligent design to explain. However, you yourself should know that this notion of yours is clearly false because even you can recognize the need to invoke intelligent design to explain something as simple as a highly symmetrical granite cube or some of the rock formations pictured in the photographs I’ve already presented to you. The argument that the potential existence of large numbers or even infinite universes would have the power to explain how these things could happen outside of intelligent design by chance alone undermines the very power and logic of science itself – the very concept of “predictive value” is shot to pieces with this argument of yours. And, it would in fact undermine your ability to detect intelligent design behind anything – to include the rock formations in the photographs I’ve presented to you. So, the fact that you can clearly recognize the need to invoke ID to explain some of these rock formations and patterns is very good evidence that your multiverse argument is simply wrong. How do you not see that?

But, your final argument seals it. You’re not really open to thinking for yourself outside of your chosen source(s) of authority – i.e., the popular opinion of modern scientists. You need not have a personal understanding of the potential and/or limits of what natural mechanisms can or cannot do. You simply trust the claims of your chosen “experts” with a kind of blind faith that is equivalent to that of any religious fundamentalist. Given such a position, there really is nothing that anyone outside of your chosen sources of authority can say or present to you that would change your mind – nothing. If it doesn’t convince your scientists, it won’t convince you – no matter what.

What then do you have to contribute to a discussion like this since you really have no arguments of your own? What is the basis then of further conversation between us? You clearly don’t understand the arguments in play for yourself. You’re just going on blind faith that your chosen sources of authority must be right. And, what can I possibly present to you that would change your mind? Nothing. You will not present any particular hypothetical situation that would convince you that an intelligent designer, much less a God, exists – unless it also convinces your scientists.

As far as your attempts to counter the design implications of the various examples I’ve given, you have to know that your examples of snowflakes and various other patterns within nature do not explain away the evident design behind the clear artificial situations that I’ve presented to you (highly symmetrical granite cubes or the balanced rock formations pictures above). Also, for you, if there are imperfections within the universe, a God cannot exist because you cannot fathom that a perfect God would create anyone with a free will that would deliberately choose contrary to the perfect will of a perfect God? Do you truly not understand the nature of free will?

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Logic and our God-given reasoning abilities are what help us make sense of pictures like these and the world around us in general. And, that is why detecting the Divine Signature isn’t based on mere intestinal “gestalt” or indigestion after eating too many burritos at Taco Bell…

I’m not sure why you feel the need to repetitively inform me, over and over again, with these very same pejorative observations of yours? You keep “leaving for good” and then coming back again and again with nothing new. I’m just not interested anymore. If you want to be interesting beyond your intestinal “gestalt” feelings of faith or truth, present some actually evidence, a rational argument of some kind, that goes beyond your personal subjective fideistic feelings and arguments from authority for why I, or anyone else for that matter, should listen to much less favor your perspective above the church’s perspective or even my own personal perspective. Now that would be interesting for a change…

Of which I am fairly well informed, having read the available scientific literature extensively, and with a great deal of effort to honestly consider and understand it, over the past 20 years or so. I dare say I’ve read a bit more about the science and debates surrounding the topic of origins than you have – from authors arguing from both sides of the issue. In fact, I read far more from the mainstream evolutionary literature than I do from the ID or creationist literature. Of course, that doesn’t mean I’m necessarily right in my thinking. However, it does mean that at least I’m very well informed on the topic. In other words, I’ll know when you’re just blowing smoke. However, if you see some specific error in anything I’ve said on this topic, beyond your various forms of “gestalt” sensations or bald appeals to arguments from authority, by all means present a real argument. I will honestly consider it to the best of my ability. Otherwise, I’m just not interested in talking about your subjective fideistic “feelings of truth” on science or religion any further…

Recent Comments by Sean Pitman

Science and Methodological Naturalism
Very interesting passage. After all, if scientists are honest with themselves, scientific methodologies are well-able to detect the existence of intelligent design behind various artifacts found in nature. It’s just the personal philosophy of scientists that makes them put living things and the origin of the fine-tuned universe “out of bounds” when it comes to the detection of intelligent design. This conclusion simply isn’t dictated by science itself, but by a philosophical position, a type of religion actually, that strives to block the Divine Foot from getting into the door…

Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull

Why is it that creationists are afraid to acknowledge the validity of Darwinism in these settings? I don’t see that these threaten a belief in God in any way whatsoever.

The threat is when you see no limitations to natural mindless mechanisms – where you attribute everything to the creative power of nature instead of to the God of nature.

God has created natural laws that can do some pretty amazing things. However, these natural laws are not infinite in creative potential. Their abilities are finite while only God is truly infinite.

The detection of these limitations allows us to recognize the need for the input of higher-level intelligence and creative power that goes well beyond what nature alone can achieve. It is here that the Signature of God is detectable.

For those who only hold a naturalistic view of the universe, everything is attributed to the mindless laws of nature… so that the Signature of God is obscured. Nothing is left that tells them, “Only God or some God-like intelligent mind could have done this.”

That’s the problem when you do not recognize any specific limitations to the tools that God has created – when you do not recognize the limits of nature and what natural laws can achieve all by themselves.

Sean Pitman

Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull
@Bill Sorensen:

Since the fall of Adam, Sean, all babies are born in sin and they are sinners. God created them. Even if it was by way of cooperation of natural law as human beings also participated in the creation process.

God did not create the broken condition of any human baby – neither the physical or moral brokenness of any human being. God is responsible for every good thing, to include the spark or breath of life within each one of us. However, He did not and does not create those things within us that are broken or bad.

“The owner’s servants came to him and said, ‘Sir, didn’t you sow good seed in your field? Where then did the weeds come from?’ ‘An enemy did this,’ he replied. “The servants asked him, ‘Do you want us to go and pull them up?'” Matthew 13:27-28

Of course, all humans are indeed born broken and are in a natural state of rebellion against God. However, God is not the one who created this condition nor is God responsible for any baby being born with any kind of defect in character, personality, moral tendency, or physical or genetic abnormality. God did not create anyone with such brokenness. Such were the natural result of rebellion against God and heading the temptations of the “enemy”… the natural result of a separation from God with the inevitable decay in physical, mental, and moral strength.

Of course, the ones who are born broken are not responsible for their broken condition either. However, all of us are morally responsible for choosing to reject the gift of Divine Grace once it is appreciated… and for choosing to go against what we all have been given to know, internally, of moral truth. In other words, we are responsible for rebelling against the Royal Law written on the hearts of all mankind.

This is because God has maintained in us the power to be truly free moral agents in that we maintain the Power to choose, as a gift of God (Genesis 3:15). We can choose to accept or reject the call of the Royal Law, as the Holy Spirit speaks to all of our hearts…

Remember the statement by Mrs. White that God is in no wise responsible for sin in anyone at any time. God is working to fix our broken condition. He did not and does not create our broken condition. Just as He does not cause Babies to be born with painful and lethal genetic defects, such as those that result in childhood leukemia, He does not cause Babies to be born with defects of moral character either. God is only directly responsible for the good, never the evil, of this life.

Sean Pitman

Revisiting God, Sky & Land by Fritz Guy and Brian Bull

Again, your all-or-nothing approach to the claims of scientists isn’t very scientific. Even the best and most famous of scientists has had numerous hair-brained ideas that were completely off base. This fact does not undermine the good discoveries and inventions that were produced.

Scientific credibility isn’t based on the person making the argument, but upon the merits of the argument itself – the ability of the hypothesis to gain predictive value when tested. That’s it.

Sean Pitman

Gary Gilbert, Spectrum, and Pseudogenes
Don’t be so obtuse here. We’re not talking about publishing just anything in mainstream journals. I’ve published several articles myself. We’re talking about publishing the conclusion that intelligent design was clearly involved with the origin of various artifactual features of living things on this planet. Try getting a paper that mentions such a conclusion published…

Sean Pitman