Good Online Site for Creationist Proof

[heretic888]

Well, first off, it might help if you actually cite your sources when claiming that you "looked this up".

I believe the group of people you are referring to are the Chaldeans, who are closely associated with early forms of Babylonian astrology. The comment of "phallus worshipping" is probably a bit off, and my guess is that the source in question isn't too keen on the nature of totemism and/or fetishism.

Just my thoughts. Laterz.

 

[Ronald R. Harbers]

I looked in my bible about the phrase "Ur of the Chaldees". I'm not at home right now so I can't tell you the exact book I found it in. I think it was Genisis. Your right, I should state the sources. I have them at home. Will do that tonight. I'm not so sure about this. That is why I asked! Thanks!

 

[Feisty Mouse]

heretic - what do you mean by

Let's not even bring up wantonly ascetic religions like Mithraism, Theravada Buddhism, or Zoroasterianism.

wantonly ascetic?

Thanks, FM

 

[heretic888]

Feisty Mouse,

The religions I mentioned are extremely ascetic in nature --- which means, that there is a large emphasis on self-denial and self-discipline, sort of the antithesis of hedonism.

Thus, the claim that "pagan religions" as a whole are "permissive" is simply laughable and untrue. In fact, most of the ethical theology emphasized in Christianity (especially from the Pauline texts) stems from Platonism and Mithraism. The notion of "giving up friends, family, and possession for the Way" is certainly not a Jewish belief --- but would be very akin to Cynicism, Stoicism, Pythagoreanism, and Platonism. That goes for the vows of celibacy, as well, and the archetype of the wandering preacher.

Laterz.

 

[Mathusula2]

Yeah, I'm very late replying here.. sorry

So what do I do with this? Well, first of all, although the Bible is indeed a holy book, in general (in general!) the Orthodox, and I think Catholics (someone jump in here if they'd like) do not tend to take a single line or verse of the Bible and make it the most important part. Some things are repeated over and over - those are big messages, obviously. But I have no problem with reading Genesis, and seeing a beautiful metaphor for the creation of the Earth, the "rise of Man", and the development of our self-consciousness and complex language, and thus more complex knowledge of ourselves, and of the world. It's not that I think it's not true, I think it's not literal - that the Earth was created in a week (as we know weeks).

Feisty, as a Catholic I can agree with you entirely on this matter. Back in the 80s Pope John Paul II even stated the evidence for evolution is irrefutable; it doesn't mean there wasn't a great deal of symbolism involved in the creation story. When they talk about a 7 day creation, one has to ask, "what was your definition of a day?" If the Earth was not yet created, then the concept of limiting a day to 24 hours is premature. To look at the story itself, it is beautiful and it does in a very simplistic way follow a similar order to the evolution of the Earth.

OK, another bias as a scientist. I think all species are really amazing miracles. This may sound trite or sappy, but they are to me. (Another reason, aside from the scientific, why I feel the great extinction period we are triggering is a crime and a sin.) Because we were created from a different ancestor - so what? We are still these AMAZING animals! Look at us, communicating in a complex symbolic language, from all over the Earth! (as an example)

I've been in school going on my 6th year to study to be a pharmacist; I've taken way more science classes than I care to discuss. I must say, I remember sitting through physiology, listening to the professor speak of ion transporters, homeostasis, and the brilliance of our makeup and couldn't help but think to myself, "this is so tremendously complex, I can't figure out how athiests honestly believe all this was to happen by some sort of accident.

I mentioned the piece-of-the-Bible idea because, in my experience, I've had Protestants (of various sects) do the "Well, what about this line here?!? Are you saying you don't believe in God?!?!?" a lot more than I've seen Orthodox or Catholics do - although i'm sure some do.

My experiences, exactly.

 

[rmcrobertson]

Just so's you know, evolutionary theory has never said that evolution was an accident. Otherwise, I agree.

Personally, I suspect that a lot of the problems some people have always had with evolution lies in the fact that evolutionary theory has always said that the human race--of which there is only one--originated in Africa. And you know what that means....the Aryan churchgoers are all related to...to...THEM; and the Nation of Islam types are all related to...to...to THEM.

 

[Mathusula2]

hmmm I wasn't even thinking about the racist issue... My "accident" would have refered to everything... the formation of the first amino acids in such a hostile environment, yet the only environment suitable for such a task... on through the evolution of individual cells, to the brilliance of how the millions (probably billions) of cells that make up us work in uncanny coordination...

I was saying that the development of life as we know it is way to complex to have happened as an accident... at least that's what I believe. So therefore, that's my justification (proof as it were) to myself that there is a higher power who created us. As for believing it happened in 1 week (as in 169 hours), well that's a bit far fetched. But there are parallels b/t the creationist story and the scientific theory as to the creation of the earth.

 

[michaeledward]

... the formation of the first amino acids in such a hostile environment, yet the only environment suitable for such a task... on through the evolution of individual cells, to the brilliance of how the millions (probably billions) of cells that make up us work in uncanny coordination...

I was saying that the development of life as we know it is way to complex to have happened as an accident... at least that's what I believe. So therefore, that's my justification (proof as it were) to myself that there is a higher power who created us.

This, certainly, is perhaps the best argument for belief in a higher power, at least to my rational mind. To think that the universe was created in such a way as the aquatic insects live for months, or years, clinging to the underside of a rock in a fast moving stream, so at the very moment of their life cycle metamorphasis, they will rise up through the current, enticing the North American Char (Square Tail or Brook Trout) to feed; or if this caddis fly is able to complete its life cycle and drift atop the water while its wings dry, again offering a tasty morsel to the cold-blooded fish below; all for the very purpose of allowing me to present a peacock hurl wrapped hook, with elk fur tied atop in the shape of a wing to fool the fish into tasting my imitation. And when I net the fish, I release the animal back into the stream to be caught again. All of creation brought together for that one purpose.

Of course, this all looks at the universe through the constraints of the human mind, and the human time frame. When we expand the incredibly long odds of those protein combinations into amino acids against the life span of the Earth (4 to 6 Billion years) the odds don't seem that long. Of course, my brain has a difficult time concieving of 5 Billion years .. really how long is that.

Given enough time (and a typewriter), a monkey will type out the 'complete works of William Shakespeare'.

The Athiest.

 

[qizmoduis]

Of course, this all looks at the universe through the constraints of the human mind, and the human time frame. When we expand the incredibly long odds of those protein combinations into amino acids against the life span of the Earth (4 to 6 Billion years) the odds don't seem that long. Of course, my brain has a difficult time concieving of 5 Billion years .. really how long is that.

Given enough time (and a typewriter), a monkey will type out the 'complete works of William Shakespeare'.

The Athiest.

I always liked the monkey quote, but a more appropriate version would be:

Given enough time, a billion monkeys typing on a billion typewriters will eventually type out the works of Shakespeare, given that monkeys whose results are less like Shakespeare are killed off and replaced with more Shakespeare-esque monkeys.

Or something like that.

People often fail to grasp the idea that evolution and even abiogenesis is anything but random as a process.

 

[heretic888]

People often fail to grasp the idea that evolution and even abiogenesis is anything but random as a process.

I attribute it to the attempts of certain circles to "hijack" the scientific method in hopes of ratifying various philosophical worldviews. And, then, to pass off their philosophies as "scientific".

These are usually various forms of atheism, positivism, materialism, reductionism, and so forth... this is why you usually get the silliness that "scientific proof" has to be sensorimotor in nature to be valid. The criteria scientific proof has to satisfy to be valid is the scientific method itself.

Laterz.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

Personally, I suspect that a lot of the problems some people have always had with evolution lies in the fact that evolutionary theory has always said that the human race--of which there is only one--originated in Africa. And you know what that means....the Aryan churchgoers are all related to...to...THEM; and the Nation of Islam types are all related to...to...to THEM.

I think that is there. I think, also, that the mere fact that evolutionary theory (and the concept of natural selection) does not by necessity rely on the explanatory power of God as its mechanism for change, is worrying to people.

 

[Mark Weiser]

Now I am not sure but I have heard that the use of the Scientific Method can actually help one discover facts in regards to proving or disapproving the Prescence of a Higher Being aka God. So if we are to come to a conclusion of any fact(s) we have to start off in the same way. We would have to use a common way of researching materials.

So if we are all serious about finding what the facts are we have to establish the rules of discovery and research.

Just some FYI.

 

[Feisty Mouse]

At least when I'm teaching my Intro to Scientific Research Methods class, I address the idea of the scientific method, and what it can and can't tell us. It cannot address belief-based explanations, in part because the scientific method is limited to testing things empirically.

I know others on the boards here feel differently, but in general, I think it's an odd thing to do. Can we ask specific questions that are testable? Sure. But faith and belief encompass a wide range of possible events, and belief can usually accommodate.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

The scientific method can be useful in showing how realistic faith-based explanations can or can't be. But I do agree that, generally, science can say nothing about the subjective validity of faith-based beliefs.

 

[heretic888]

I addressed this issue on another thread ("Proof of a Higher Power?"), and my basic answer remains the same.

Yes, there are ways of testing the validity claims of certain wisdom traditions. But, the entire basis for it is that the tradition bases itself on an experiential practice of some sort (i.e., meditative or contemplative practice). Outside of that, there is no way to "test" for the Divine.

There are also empirical and hermeunetic means of testing the various religious claims. Empirically, one can observe the physiological and psychological changes of an individual as he/she goes through religious practice. Hermeunetically, one can check any cross-cultural commonalities between various religious claims. Both are very useful methods.

But, ultimately, to see if the Divine is there, you have to take up the practice. There is no other way.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

But, ultimately, to see if the Divine is there, you have to take up the practice. There is no other way.

Call me a cynic, but I have to ask, which practice? Because if it's a specific one, I think this sounds too much like an all-too-well known quote of "Nobody gets to the Father but through ME".

Think about it in terms of certainty from an individual's perspective. My own, for the sake of argument: an agnostic who believes in scientific study. Now, I could decide to try out various religious practices (Christian prayer and fasting, Buddhist meditations, Yanomamo pot-smoking, you name it) to try and "see if the Divine is there". What happens if, with any one of these practices, the answer turns out to be no? Well, a follower's response would obviously be something such as "you haven't done it long enough" (meditation) or "your heart isn't truly with the Lord" (Christian prayer). As for the pot-smoking, they'd probably tell me I didn't put enough in, which I'd probably gladly try again at :lol:.

On the flip-side, what if I do experience the Divine, as many born-agains claim to have done. Just as there's no way for me to know that my non-experience is or isn't a sign that the Divine is there, how can I know that the experience I have isn't a placebo affect (originating simply from my desire to find the Divine) or just a really kick-*** headtrip?

The only answer I can think of is that I arbitrarily decide (i.e. on faith, not reason) which signs indicate the Divine (or lack thereof) or not. No matter which result emerges from such experiments, there's no standard to say whether the results are valid.

Damn, I hope that made sense. Later.

 

[heretic888]

Call me a cynic, but I have to ask, which practice? Because if it's a specific one, I think this sounds too much like an all-too-well known quote of "Nobody gets to the Father but through ME".

It depends on your specific goals. Different meditative and contemplative practices have different purposes in mind. Some are meant to awaken savikalpa samadhi or disclose interior illuminations, some are meant to heighten one's physical awareness, and some are meant to merely contact the Witness or disclose nirvikalpa samadhi. There are different practices in different traditions (with each tradition having its fair diversity of methodologies).

So, no, there is no "one right one".

Think about it in terms of certainty from an individual's perspective. My own, for the sake of argument: an agnostic who believes in scientific study. Now, I could decide to try out various religious practices (Christian prayer and fasting, Buddhist meditations, Yanomamo pot-smoking, you name it) to try and "see if the Divine is there". What happens if, with any one of these practices, the answer turns out to be no? Well, a follower's response would obviously be something such as "you haven't done it long enough" (meditation) or "your heart isn't truly with the Lord" (Christian prayer). As for the pot-smoking, they'd probably tell me I didn't put enough in, which I'd probably gladly try again at .

You clearly don't "believe in" the scientific method as much as you thought, then. You are forgetting the scientific principle of falsifiability --- namely, testing and comparing your results against those that have also completed the "experiment". It may indeed be quite possible that you're "doing it wrong". This also happens in laboraties, mathematic formulations, logical arguments, etcetera ad infinitum.

Remember, the first of the three major principles of good science is to adequately complete the injunction. If you're doing it wrong, then you'll come back with distorted data.

And, as a sidenote, the Yanomami do not smoke pot.

On the flip-side, what if I do experience the Divine, as many born-agains claim to have done. Just as there's no way for me to know that my non-experience is or isn't a sign that the Divine is there, how can I know that the experience I have isn't a placebo affect (originating simply from my desire to find the Divine) or just a really kick-*** headtrip?

The same way you know whether the experience you are having now is such. The problem that a lot of these "meditation is just imbalanced brain chemistry" arguments rely on, is that their claims could equally apply to the "brain chemistry" of eating an apple, talking a walk, or watching a dog.

In any event, temporary experiences are not the same thing as permanent adaptations.

The only answer I can think of is that I arbitrarily decide (i.e. on faith, not reason) which signs indicate the Divine (or lack thereof) or not. No matter which result emerges from such experiments, there's no standard to say whether the results are valid.

I refer you again to the principle of falsifiability. Your problem in this speculation (which, I'm sorry, is all it is) is that you are treating your lone observations/datum as if they satisfy the scientific method in and of themselves. That's certainly not how other scientists go about ratifying their proofs.

Hope this cleared things up. Laterz.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

It depends on your specific goals. Different meditative and contemplative practices have different purposes in mind. Some are meant to awaken savikalpa samadhi or disclose interior illuminations, some are meant to heighten one's physical awareness, and some are meant to merely contact the Witness or disclose nirvikalpa samadhi. There are different practices in different traditions (with each tradition having its fair diversity of methodologies).

So, no, there is no "one right one".

Well, specifically then, I was referring to the goal of "finding the Divine", as you put it.

You are forgetting the scientific principle of falsifiability --- namely, testing and comparing your results against those that have also completed the "experiment".

So, if there are enough others who've had the same experience of being born again, or of making themselves one with everything, then that makes it obviously the truth about the Divine? It seems that a scientific experiment should have some internal consistency (i.e. logical conclusions, etc.) as well as external consistency (i.e. having the same results as others). Because if we only go by the second standard, then hell, I can verify just about any religious/spiritual practice. And I suppose that, on second thought, what I'm more curious about is how any internal consistency can be made in determining which subjective experiences are truly divine or aren't.

It may indeed be quite possible that you're "doing it wrong". This also happens in laboraties, mathematic formulations, logical arguments, etcetera ad infinitum.

Again, I think it's easier to determine that something was done wrong in a lab setting then in finding truth in religious practice. It's much easier to say "No, you did it wrong, combining hydrogen and oxygen will not produce oak" (silly example) then saying "No, that experience of yours was just a psych-out, to be one with the Divine, you really have to do this!"

And, as a sidenote, the Yanomami do not smoke pot.

Well maybe it was another tribe, because I damn sure remember some group from Anthro. class smoking something to take in the spirits, or some such junk. Or maybe they were smoking something other than pot.

 

[heretic888]

Well, specifically then, I was referring to the goal of "finding the Divine", as you put it.

And, as I previously indicated, there are different methodologies for doing that --- depending on which "level" or "quality" of the "Divine" you are searching for. Interior luminations, for example, are not quite the same thing as formless Witnessing.

So, if there are enough others who've had the same experience of being born again, or of making themselves one with everything, then that makes it obviously the truth about the Divine?

No. I suggest actually reading what I typed out.

I stated that the "spiritual" sciences, like all sciences, are based on communally-generated and communally-validated data. This is the principle of falsifiability. The very same principle you seem to perpetually be ignoring in your "faith" in science, as you put it.

The whole point of the scientific method is simply this: if I do this, then I will discover or observe this; and, furthermore, if others likewise do this, then they too will discover or observe the very same this that I have. If there is a discrepancy among any of those steps, then there is a problem --- which does not necessarily mean the claims are false, but that the steps may need to be re-evaluated.

Seriously, this is really, really basic stuff.

It seems that a scientific experiment should have some internal consistency (i.e. logical conclusions, etc.) as well as external consistency (i.e. having the same results as others). Because if we only go by the second standard, then hell, I can verify just about any religious/spiritual practice. And I suppose that, on second thought, what I'm more curious about is how any internal consistency can be made in determining which subjective experiences are truly divine or aren't.

I have no idea by what you mean with "internal consistency". Falsifiability rests on communally-checked data --- meaning, that others who have also adequately performed the injunction or practice in question compare your data with their own. This is the purpose of peer review (such as our culture's peer-reviewed journals).

This all strikes me as what you called "external consistency", the principle you continually seem to ignore. I have no idea about what this "internal consistency" is supposed to mean --- even logical arguments and mathematical equations (which exist only in the mind) have to be communally validated by others that have performed them.

It sounds to me that you have a very warped and distorted notion as to what the "scientific method" is in the first place, and are trying to pledge allegiance to some rigid duality of "objectivism" and "subjectivism". As it were.

Again, I think it's easier to determine that something was done wrong in a lab setting then in finding truth in religious practice. It's much easier to say "No, you did it wrong, combining hydrogen and oxygen will not produce oak" (silly example) then saying "No, that experience of yours was just a psych-out, to be one with the Divine, you really have to do this!"

Of course its easier. That doesn't make my point any less valid.

Its much easier to solve a mathematical equation than it is to spiritually transform for a very simple reason: mathematical equations (if you've developed the logical capacity to use them) involve using tools you already have, as it were. Spiritual transformations involve developing new tools you don't really have yet. That is why it takes years and years of hard work to just begin spiritual development.... gee, kinda like martial arts, huh?

Using mathematical equations is like rearranging furniture on one floor. Spiritual transformation is like changing floors altogether --- except you're the one building the ladder.

Well maybe it was another tribe, because I damn sure remember some group from Anthro. class smoking something to take in the spirits, or some such junk. Or maybe they were smoking something other than pot.

"Some such junk", eh?? Be careful, Random, your ethnocentrism is leaking.

And, to note, the Yanomami sniff hallucinogens in their religious practices. They do not smoke anything.

Laterz.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

I have no idea by what you mean with "internal consistency". Falsifiability rests on communally-checked data --- meaning, that others who have also adequately performed the injunction or practice in question compare your data with their own. This is the purpose of peer review (such as our culture's peer-reviewed journals).

Remember how you once described both the internal and external inconsistencies of the Bible? You described the internal ones as the contradictions contained within the Bible itself, while you described the external inconsistencies as the ways in which the Bible didn't conform with real world evidence.

I am using (or attempting to use) these phrases in the same way here. THe external consistency would be how well it conforms with other people's results (the falsifiability which you seem to think I know nothing about); the internal consistency would be whether the experimenter's spiritual experience makes sense in and of itself as a true proof of the Divine. And that's just my point: I cannot see any way in which we can say that, in and of itself, someone's experience is or isn't truly "proof of God". We can judge it according to other's results, but that doesn't mean the experience they share makes any sense in and of itself. I'm not trying to say that internal consistency is all that's needed, peer validation is necessary. But what I am trying to say is that the only measure I can see being used in spiritual studies is the external alone, and I don't think that's enough to be a proof.

It sounds to me that you have a very warped and distorted notion as to what the "scientific method" is in the first place, and are trying to pledge allegiance to some rigid duality of "objectivism" and "subjectivism". As it were.

Yes, I understand that objective and subjective are not mutually exclusive. Contrary to what you seem to believe, I am not a character from Dickens' "Hard Times".

Of course its easier. That doesn't make my point any less valid.

No, but it better explains my point, or at least I was hoping it would.

"Some such junk", eh?? Be careful, Random, your ethnocentrism is leaking.

I readily admit that I have a few things I'm close minded about. But then again, I believe everyone has something in that manner.

And, to note, the Yanomami sniff hallucinogens in their religious practices. They do not smoke anything.

You really know how to kill an example, don't ya?