Comment on The Creator of Time by Sean Pitman.
Agreed. But is it hubristic to bring down any level of understanding of God to our level? Will we always face the rationalization of theodicy to do so? ( God allowed Lucifer to fall, influence Adam and Eve’s free choice to disobey and omnisciently knew this would cause Man to suffer!) Do we simply say we cannot judge God but rather because God’s ways are mysterious so we must accept them? Is that not an abrogation of the very freedom that God supposedly granted us not to challenge God’s goodness or for that matter God’s existence?
God has given us to understand certain features of Him and His existence – to include an understanding of morality and the difference between right and wrong. It is on this basis that God opens Himself up for judgment and it is for this reason that the universe is witnessing the “Great Controversy” between God and Satan. Satan has accused God, before the universe of intelligent beings, that He is unjust and selfish – that God expects others to be loving and unselfish while He Himself is just the opposite.
Now, in response, God could have simply snapped His fingers and Satan would have simply vanished from existence. But, God didn’t do that. Instead, He actually responded to Satan’s charges by putting Himself in the position of a servant – by becoming a human being and suffering extreme anguish for the salvation of humanity.
All of God’s angels and all of the other intelligent beings on untold millions of unfallen worlds are looking on and taking note of God’s actions in comparison to Satan’s charges against God. And, they are determining who is right and who is wrong in this controversy. We too have been given the ability to judge God in this same way – to see if His own actions are in line with His own Laws of Freedom and Love…
It is arguable that all Man’s varied attempts through many religious iterations was and is an attempt to explain nature and anthropomorphize God(s) in a manner that the evolving human mind can understand. Man cannot conceive of the Creator being bad so generations of humans invent an evolving narrative where we have caused our own demise.
On the contrary, I can easily conceive of a Creator being evil. God has to prove Himself, to me, for me to believe that He is not evil. Otherwise, if God were in fact the one behind all of the evil things that exist in this world, and He was not able to explain how He was not personally responsible, I would most certainly accuse Him of being evil…
But what if the Creator is truly mysterious and is not involved in Man’s affairs at all? A distinct possibility is it not? This viewpoint does not negate the existence of God but rather emphasizes the mystery of creation, the first cause.
That would be a possibility if it were not for all of the very strong empirical evidence that we have that God is in fact very much involved with the affairs of mankind. Have you watched the videos on biblical prophecy that I recommended for you yet? Have you studied the life of Christ and all the miracles of divine power associated with His life? Miracles of Divine power confirmed by both biblical and extra-biblical historical documents and evidences?
I am certainly not sure and in no position to judge any vestige of goodness in myself. Such would be hubristic folly. One should try to do the right thing and display empathy and love for one’s fellow human beings (and dogs 😉 And, of course, try to seek the truth wherever that takes one without promise or favour.
How do you know what is “the right thing” or that “love for one’s fellow human beings” is the right thing? – if you are not sure that such things are in fact good things?
You see, you have been given to know, by God Himself, the difference between right and wrong. You are in fact in a position to judge yourself – to see if you are in fact in line with the Royal Law of love or not. Your conscience is God-given and all will be judged according to what they themselves know is true about themselves according to their own consciences (Romans 2:15).
Sean Pitman Also Commented
The Creator of Time
It’s been enjoyable having you. I wish you all the best. Someday, if I’m right, everything will be made clear and you will see your Maker face-to-face. Of course, if I’m wrong, neither one of us will be the wiser…
By the way, I am not a “young Earth creationist” or “YEC”, but something a bit different – a young life creationist (YLC). Of course, from your perspective it makes little difference. 😉
The Creator of Time
A “Rational Wiki” quote? – about proof and disproof? 😉
First off, science isn’t about absolute proof, but the weight of evidence. Nothing can be absolutely proved in science – only disproved. The power of science is in the ability for the hypothesis in question to resist disproof, thereby gaining predictive value. This means, of course, that a valid scientific hypothesis must be testable in a potentially falsifiable manner.
Now, as far as the particular claim that ID hypotheses are not and cannot be falsifiable (and by extension any notion or hypothesis of God-like activity isn’t falsifiable either), it’s clearly not true or modern sciences that actually detect ID wouldn’t be possible – like forensics, anthropology, and SETI. As previously noted for you, the ID-only hypothesis can be tested in a potentially falsifiable manner – quite easily. All you have to do to falsify the ID-only hypothesis is show how something else could more reasonably explain the phenomenon in question – and the ID-only hypothesis is neatly falsified.
For example, if you can find a mindless naturalistic mechanism that can reasonably explain the origin of a highly symmetrical granite cube, you would neatly falsify the hypothesis that only ID can explain the origin of the cube. Short of this, however, the ID-only hypothesis gains a great deal of predictive value based on the strong weight of evidence that is currently in hand. That is why it is possible to tell the difference between the most likely origin of such a granite cube vs. a snowflake or the like.
The same is true for the God-only hypothesis. As I’ve explained for you multiple times now, there are various levels of phenomena that require various levels of intelligence to explain. As higher and higher level phenomena require higher and higher levels of intelligence and creative power to explain, one eventually comes to a point where the level of required intelligence and creative power is so high that it cannot be readily distinguished from what one would normally attribute to a God or God-like being. It is for this reason that if you yourself saw someone you knew was dead and decaying in the grave, raised to life at the word of someone claiming to be God, even you would tend to believe this claim – and rightly so. That means, of course, that the detection of God-like creative power is rationally detectable, at least in theory, given the presentation of such evidence.
Philosophical naturalism, on the other hand, is not at all testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. It is not even theoretically possible to falsify a theory that is dependent upon evidence that you have yourself proposed will show up at some undetermined time in the future. It is therefore not a science or otherwise rational, but is on the same level as wishful thinking – just not helpful.
_______
-
As an aside, I have to also point out that the claims for the creative potential of the evolutionary mechanism presented on this particular “Rational Wiki” webpage are not backed up by demonstration or reasonable statistical analysis or workable genetic theories – at least not beyond very low levels of functional complexity. They’re nothing but just-so stories. I mean, why hasn’t James Tour been convinced by this stuff? Because, there’s simply no science here… as you would know if you did your own independent research into the potential and limits of the evolutionary mechanism. Their claims regarding “flagellar evolution” are a case in point when it comes to glossing over the details and not understanding the exponentially growing problem of finding novel beneficial sequences in the vastness of sequence space with each step up the ladder of functional complexity: Link
The Creator of Time
How long should you look for a mindless naturalistic mechanism to explain a highly symmetrical granite cube before it becomes obvious that such a mechanism will most likely never be discovered? – that intelligent design is by far the most likely reason for its existence regardless of when or where such a cube might be found? – even if found on an alien planet like Mars?
Suggesting, at this point, that a mindless mechanism must be the answer for the origin of our granite cube, and that one day such a mechanism will be discovered, is not science – but faith that is deliberately blind to the strong weight of evidence that is currently in hand which puts a clear statistical limit on what all known mindless mechanisms are able to achieve, or are ever likely to achieve this side of eternity, with the material of granite.
Likewise, any religion that is based on the same blind faith, faith that is directly opposed to the weight of empirical evidence that is currently in hand, is no more helpful or trustworthy than the religion of philosophical naturalism. Such a religion would be “effectively indistinguishable from atheism” (William Provine, 1987).
As with science and any helpful hypothesis or theory, any useful religion which aims to establish a solid hope in rational people must be based on the weight of evidence which establishes the credibility and predictive power of the religion. If God exists, He is the creator of rational thought and scientific investigation and would not give these reasoning powers to us if He expected us to “forgo their use” (Galileo, 1615) – particularly when searching for Him and His signature in the works of nature or the inspiration of texts claiming to be derived from Him.
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.
