Comment on Science, Methodological Naturalism, and Faith by Sean Pitman.
If A created B and B created C, then A is not required to explain C? Right.
That’s right. The totality of “A” is not required to explain “C” if “B” does not represent all of what A can do. For example: Let’s say that it’s actually possible for God to make robots that are not themselves omnipotent, but finite. For example, let’s say that these robots can create certain things, but the things these finite robots can create do not require omnipotence to directly explain their origin. The same is true of things humans create. I can create a simple computer program that can in turn draw a square on the computer screen. However, this program does not require high level programming skills or any kind of genius to achieve. Yet, it does require “intelligent design” on at least some level.
Along these same lines, surely you can tell the difference between a highly symmetrical polished granite cube vs. a natural granite rock. Why keep avoiding this question?
Oh really? So if scientists show there are “tens of billions of earth-like planets,” I am being unscientific in my use of their statistics? How does my argument differ from your use of someone else’s statistics to conjure the “trillions upon trillions of years” impossibility that you insist is the only valid scientific conclusion regarding the probability of life’s origin on this planet?
I’m not arguing against the concept of tens of billions of Earth-like planets that may have liquid water on their surfaces. I personally believe that many such planets exist within the universe. What I’m arguing against is the concept that this makes the statistics for life existing on other planets, outside of intelligent design, any better. It doesn’t. All it does is highlight the ignorance of most scientists when it comes to understanding what is required to produce even the most simple of living things – even under the most ideal conditions. It just doesn’t happen without very high level intelligent design. The same thing is true of arguments for multiple universes as an effort to explain the extreme fine tuning of the fundamental constants of our universe.
Again, I don’t think we should rely on statistics, logic, and human reason to convince others that God created us, that Jesus was real, and that God has a plan to restore us to his original creation. The Holy Spirit does not depend on human argumentation to accomplish His purpose.
The Holy Spirit doesn’t not replace or supersede our God-given minds and our abilities to think and reason from cause to effect or from effect to likely cause. The Holy Spirit guides the mind, but He does not provide answers without personal effort, investigation, and research. God does not require blind faith, but wishes us to base our faith on the weight of evidence – evidence that he has provided.
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.
