Comment on Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists” by Sean Pitman.
I just asked you what you would accept as valid empirical evidence, not absolute proof, for a Supernatural Signature?
I asked if you saw a man born blind given the ability to see would that not qualify as valid empirical evidence of Supernatural power? You said no. I asked you if you personally saw a dead man who’d already started decomposing brought back to life, would you conceded that such a demonstration was pretty good evidence of Supernatural power? You said no. I asked you if you saw a shiny being come down from the sky, flatten 100 Roman guards, flick away a stone weighing several tons as if it were made out of Styrofoam, call out the the dead man inside that God called Him back to life, and then saw the man who claimed to be the Son of God, who’d been stabbed in the side by a spear and was quite clearly dead, step out of the grave alive and well, would that be good evidence? You said no.
You’d really still have doubts, given your own eye-witness observations of such things, that perhaps these demonstrations were probably just some kind of trick being played on you? or that some kind of superior technology was being used to imitate angels and supernatural power? Really? That’s what you’d be thinking in the face of such evidence? I simply don’t believe that you still would not believe after having personally witnessed such demonstrations – based only on the potentiality that you might be wrong (as is true of any scientific hypothesis or theory). It just doesn’t get any better than this. What I have as the “weight of evidence” to offer you certainly doesn’t match what the disciples claim they saw with their own eyes. So, if you would not be convinced even if you saw what they saw, there’s certainly nothing that I can offer you that comes remotely close – except for biblical prophecy.
That being the case, I really don’t see the point of further discussion along these lines since you seem unwilling to accept what most would consider truly overwhelming evidence that goes well beyond the mere “weight of evidence”. You see, you could always argue, “This is just a trick,” or “This is maybe due to superior technology”. Come on now. At some point the superior technology is so superior to what you or any other human can achieve or has ever achieved that it is indistinguishable from what you’d expect to see from a real God. Right? Your very same arguments could have been, and no doubt where, used by Pharaoh to justify is continued course against the supposed requests of “God” to “let my people go”. Was Pharaoh really being rational, do you think, given the reality of what the Bible says he saw with his own eyes? Would you really have done the same thing given the same set of demonstrations? That’s just hard for me to believe.
Again, given your arguments, it seems like nothing could possibly be presented to you which you would accept as valid empirical evidence of Divine power, nothing, since there always exists the possibility of being wrong (as is always the case for any scientific hypothesis by the way – to include the hypothesis that winning the California lottery 10 times in a row, if it ever were to happen, would be the result of deliberate cheating). However, even given your argument of the possibility of modern technology being used in a third-world country, the evidence of intelligent design would still be quite overwhelming. You seem to be arguing that Divine power cannot be rationally detected by empirical means, yet even your own arguments invoke higher level intelligent design and technology as the most likely explanation for certain types of phenomena.
Sean Pitman Also Commented
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
I have no fear, thanks to God and His mercy, and no one is free of bias – not even you. You’ve simply traded one religion for another. It is still possible that your current bias blinds you to what would otherwise be obvious.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
No, I think science would have discredited them if their ideas were not supported by observation and experimentation.
Exactly, so why not at least try to do the same for my ideas, which are quite easily falsifiable?
I know, you can’t do it yourself, but you’re quite sure that if I publish my ideas in a mainstream science journal that someone out there will know how to shoot my theory all to shreds. Right? This sounds like a no-brainer! Why not just published my ideas and test them against the big boys? It must be that I’m afraid to get shot down! and that’s why I don’t publish… Don’t you think?
I guess that’s why I went on live radio to debate Jason Rosenhouse? – because I was afraid that he’d show me how silly my ideas are on public radio? – how the Darwinian mechanism is so clearly capable of creating all kinds of things regardless of their level of functional complexity? If I was so afraid of getting smashed to pieces by some of these Darwinian big shots, why take such public risks? – even in their own blogs and public forums? Why not just hide out in my own little ghetto?
Come on now. You have to know that I’d love to be able to publish my ideas on the statistical limits to the Darwinian mechanism in a science journal like Nature or Science or any mainstream science journal. I really would. The problem, as I’ve already explained, is that no one is going to publish, in any mainstream science journal, any argument for intelligent design or creative intelligence (even if the intelligence were a “natural” intelligence like some kind of intelligent alien life form) as the origin of various kinds of biological machines. It just doesn’t happen these days without someone getting fired over it. So, the next best thing is to take the argument directly to them and challenge them in their own blogs, on the radio, and on television, etc. There’s nothing else I can do. My hands are tied.
In any case, do let me know when you’re willing to reasonably define what it would take for you to recognize a phenomenon as a true “miracle” or when you’re able to present something, anything, that explains how the Darwinian mechanism of RM/NS can actually work beyond very low level of functional complexity.
Until then, what are you really contributing here? What are you trying to say? – that you don’t know but someone else probably does? That you’re skeptical about everything and nothing could possibly convince you of the existence of God or any other designer of life? – not even if you were to personally witness some of the most fantastic miracles described in the Bible? Good luck with that… but you’re just fooling yourself in your efforts never to be tricked by anything. You’re missing out on a great deal that life has to offer.
Still, I wish you all the best.
Dr. Jason Rosenhouse “Among the Creationists”
All the best to you… yet again 😉
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.
