How many times can I say it. There is not …

Comment on Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science by Sean Pitman.

How many times can I say it. There is not now and never can be any empirical evidence (ie scientific evidence) to support these events no matter how many times you can claim there is with some hand waving.

There’s a difference between an empirical claim (like “the moon is made out of blue cheese”) vs. empirical evidence upon which to actually believe that the empirical claim is literally true (like sending some astronauts to the moon to get a piece of it – see Link).

Upon what basis do you believe that at least some of the empirical claims that the Bible makes about real history and real future places and events, claims which are not directly testable, are literally true? How does this basis of your belief in the reality of these specific empirical claims of the Bible go beyond wishful thinking? Remember, you’re no longer talking about a mere belief in the ethics of the Bible. You’re talking about a belief in empirically real physical events and places. This goes way beyond comparing the Bible to a moral fable like “Moby-Dick” you understand.

Now, I’ve already explained why I believe the claims of the Bible (not just the moral claims, but the empirical claims as well) – based on the established credibility of the Bible when it comes to those empirical claims that are actually testable in a potentially falsifiable manner. It is not enough to believe the empirical claims of the Bible because the ethical claims are good. In order for the empirical claims of the Bible to be reasonably viewed as credible, to include those claims that are not directly testable, the Bible must prove itself credible regarding its empirical claims that are actually testable. This is the basis for my position.

You, on the other hand, have yet to explain why you believe that certain non-testable empirical claims of the Bible about history and the future are literally true – beyond an appeal to your “gestalt” feelings (compared to my appeal to Biblical credibility based on its testable empirical claims). How are these subjective feelings of yours fundamentally different from wishful thinking?

You and I both accept these aspects of Christian belief as just that Christian beliefs based on faith. It is only you that claims they are directly supported by empirical evidence.

I never said any such thing. It’s pretty obvious that empirical claims like the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, and the existence of Heaven cannot be directly evaluated or directly supported by empirical evidence. That’s why I picked these particular claims as examples – because these biblical claims, in particular, are not directly testable. Again, an empirical claim isn’t the same thing as an empirical demonstration or empirical evidence in support of the claim. One can make all the empirical claims one wants – like “the moon is made out of blue cheese.” That doesn’t make them true.

So, why do you believe these particular non-testable empirical claims of the Bible? – beyond an appeal to wishful thinking? And, why do you cherry-pick these particular empirical claims of the Bible to believe as true? – when you reject so many other less fantastic empirical claims of the Bible as false? Are you not being inconsistent in your belief in something as fantastic as the Resurrection of Jesus while rejecting the less fantastic story of the Noachian Flood? How do you know what to pick and choose as “true” and “false” when it comes to statements from the same source? How do you know that you’re correct in your inconsistency? Does your “gestalt” tell you which empirical claims coming from the same source are true and which ones are false? If the Bible claimed that the moon was made out of blue cheese, upon what basis would you accept or reject this claim? How are the Bible’s claims for the Virgin Birth, the Resurrection, or the literal existence of Heaven any different?

Sean Pitman Also Commented

Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science

God given gifts are not what we receive from Adam after his sin. The work of the Holy Spirit comes by way of the atonement and if there was no atonement, there would be no “God given gifts.”

The promise of atonement was in existence from the foundation of our world and “from eternity past”. That is why Jesus could tell Adam and Eve that He would immediately step in and provide the necessary “enmity” between us and evil that would enable them and all of their offspring to resist evil and cling to God. Jesus’ sacrifice on the crossed reached into the future as well as the past and took in the entire human race…

No parent would agree with this statement. Children have no feelings of guilt until and unless they are taught right and wrong. And this process begins immeadiately at birth as mother’s begin the process of instruction.

I am the father of two small boys (5 and 3) and I can tell you by my own experience that you’re wrong. Very young children do inherently know right from wrong on a very basic level without having to be taught about what to think or believe and do experience guilt without having to be taught about it. Beyond this, you are ignoring the scientific studies in this regard. It’s been established experimentally as I’ve already pointed out to you. You also ignore what Paul said in Romans about the heathen having the law written on their hearts so that it is “natural” to them even without having ever read or ever hearing the written law. According to Paul they instinctively know right from wrong…


Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
Again, the basic ability to recognize love and exhibit love does not “have to be taught” by parents. A child will also naturally feel guilty for doing harm to another – without the need to be taught about feeling guilty for doing wrong. On the other hand, if you were correct, those who did not have good parents, or had no parents at all, would have an perfect excuse before God for why they didn’t choose to act lovingly toward their neighbors. They would feel no guilt or remorse for anything wrong that they did. After all, according to your argument, no one is born with a conscience – or an inherent knowledge of any kind of moral right or wrong to any degree. You claim that the conscience does not exist at all before one is taught, by one’s parents. You claim that there is no way to know right from wrong unless one is taught by some outside source of information. However, in reality, no one has such an excuse because all are in fact born with an internally-derived conscience regardless of the goodness or training, or lack thereof, of one’s parents.

It is a studied fact that a very young child naturally knows what is right regarding the Royal Law of Love on at least a very basic level… and is naturally attracted to it. This knowledge is hardwired – by God. That is why, yet again, Paul described this ability among the heathen as “natural” – not something that they had to learn from their parents, but understood by having the Law written on their hearts by God (Romans 2:13-15). This Biblical claim is actually backed up by modern research that shows that very young babies do in fact have an innate sense of right and wrong (Link).

And, Ellen White also speaks of children having a God-given conscience that must be considered in their training. They are not like animals that are born without a conscience:

The training of children must be conducted on a different principle from that which governs the training of irrational animals. The brute has only to be accustomed to submit to its master; but the child must be taught to control himself. The will must be trained to obey the dictates of reason and conscience. – Ellen White, January 10, 1882

So, here we have a child being born with inherent God-given gifts of both reason and conscience. Such gifts are created as internally-derived gifts by God. Call it “hocus pocus” of you want, but God is in fact a Divine creator who is well able to create such gifts with no less ability than He is able to create the universe or the complexities of the living human body. Therefore, it is not the parents who create the original ability for “enmity” against evil within their children. Parents do not get the credit for this basic ability to judge right from wrong. After all, it is God who said that He is the one who would create this enmity against sin within the human race (Genesis 3:15). He did not leave this up to us to create within our children. It is God and only God who creates the conscience in each one of us. Our responsibility toward our children is to train them on how to apply, maintain, grow, and guard their God-given gifts of reason and conscience. We nurture the plant that God has made, so to speak, but we did not create the original seed from which the plant was made able to grow.


Believing the Disproven – An Adventure in Science
You’re confusing different concepts. I’ve already pointed out that it is a miraculous act on the part of God that we are able to recognize the beauty of holiness and be truly free moral agents – despite being born with fallen sinful natures. Your problem is that you believe that this information, the knowledge of the goodness of love, is taught and must be learned over time. This just isn’t true. It is given by God as internally-derived information that is indeed “written on the hearts” of all mankind – from birth.

It is only because of this that Paul argues that the heathen “naturally know” right from wrong (Romans 2:13-15). Paul specifically claims here that God has made this knowledge part of everyone’s inherent nature – an internally derived truth that is completely natural or internally derived and need not be learned over time. And, this “natural” gift of God isn’t “hocus pocus” any more than any other miraculous act of God. Your argument that the heathen are taught various truths that have been handed down over time (such as the truth of marriage for example) doesn’t hold water. For example, there are many non-Biblical forms of marriage observed by various heathen cultures. What the heathen do naturally recognize, however, is the goodness of the Golden Rule to do unto others as you would have them do unto you… the Royal Law of selfless love for one’s fellow man.

Consider, in summary, that it would be impossible to even recognize “objective truth” without a pre-existing internal moral compass by which to determine truth from error. How do you know “the truth” when you see it? How do you know how to judge right from wrong? You only know because you’re given a conscience from birth that guides you toward the moral truth when you see it. It is this compass, this enmity against Satan, that has been supernaturally implanted by God, from birth, in every single human being.


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.