Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Sean Pitman.
You’ve trotted out this silly argument several times now. Yet you insist that God created everything, which of course can explain everything–every single bit of evidence–and therefore undermines all of science (according to you) and explains nothing.
I’ve never argued that God created everything or that God is required to explain all phenomena. That’s simply not true. God did not create the computer I’m typing on nor what I’m typing. These are the result of human design and therefore do not require omnipotence to explain their origin. Also, God is not required to explain natural phenomena like tornadoes or hurricanes that destroy lives and property around the world every year on this planet. These are the result of apparently mindless laws of nature, not the direct result of deliberate intelligent design on the part of God or anyone else. It is therefore possible to detect a difference between phenomena that require intelligence to directly explain their existence vs. phenomena that can be explain by various mindless natural mechanisms. That is why there is a difference between a highly symmetrical polished granite cube and a chunk of granite carved by wind and rain. Yet, according to your argument, given enough universes, one should actually expect to see a highly symmetrical polished granite cube produced by mindless natural mechanisms.
Again, your argument removes the statistical basis for making such determinations – from using science itself. Your argument is not testable or even theoretically falsifiable. In comparison, the argument that intelligent design is required to explain a given phenomenon is testable and potentially falsifiable – and therefore scientific.
Beyond this, I suppose its Ok for you to argue that the thoughts of others are “silly”? I personally don’t mind, but it does seem rather inconsistent of you…
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
What is interesting is that the older the creation/Flood stories (which are practically universal in cultures around the world), the closer they match the Biblical account. In other worlds, the evidence at hand strongly favors that the Biblical account in the original account from which all other accounts are derived. Also, the details of the Biblical account described in Genesis are supported by archaeological evidence that confirms various details long believed to be in question or even mythical – such as the existence of Sodom and Gomorrah and the other cities that were catastrophically destroyed (mentioned in the same order in the Ebla Tablets).
In any case, you’re not mentioning anything new here. These attempts to challenge Biblical credibility have been around for a long time. However, the Bible keeps trumping all efforts to undermine its credibility. It has shown itself to be the most reliable historical text that we have. No other historical text or resource comes remotely close.
For a further discussion along these lines, to include a discussion of the origin of the 7-day weekly cycle in history, see: http://ssnet.org/blog/origin-of-sabbath-7-day-week/
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Thank you for your clarification Bob. I certainly agree.
Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith
Thanks Bob for your candour in recoznizing the likelihood of redaction in the Bible. What got left out, amended, embellished?
As already noted, the names of places were likely updated over time, but not the historical narrative – information which was lost outside of the Scriptural accounts. In fact, this is one of the best evidences that the authors cited by Scripture really did write these accounts in their own day.
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.
