Good Online Site for Creationist Proof

[heretic888]

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.

Yes, I do. And, they have no applicability in situations like this. We are not analyzing the historical consistency of a literary text, we are talking about living practices and injunctions.

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)

You have yet to demonstrate any knowledge for it --- and, furthermore, seemed to carelessly "ignore" it in discussing the "reliability" of scientific experiments.

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".

Alas, I'm afraid you have no point here. Just what could be called "blind skepticism" (a disguised form of blind faith).

The arguments you are using are ontological and epistemological problems, they have nothing to do with any problems with the "experiment" in question. Basically, I could use your arguments to say how "watching a dog" is not true proof that the dog in question exists.

Or, to rephrase you, "in and of itself, someone's experience is or isn't truly 'proof of dog'." Heh.

In other words, your arguments have to do with the limitations of human ways of knowing, and can be applied to virtually any experiment conducted to acquire knowledge of any kind. They are by no means specific (or even exemplary) to this particular example.

Of course, I've never really been a fan of this baseless and nihilistic speculation. I generally prefer theorizing of any sort to have a basis in either empirical observation or logical premise (which is kind of what makes it a "theory" in the first place). This has neither. Its just saying "we can't really know" for the very sake of saying so.

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.

Hate to burst your bubble, random, but whether an experience "makes any sense in and of itself" has little to do with the scientific method. That's the realm of speculation and the really detached philosophizing we find in some existentialist circles --- basically logical arguments that lack a premise to start off with. But it certainly isn't something the scientific method applies itself to (because it lacks any means of testability, whether empirical or logical).

C'mon, now, you are making this far more complicated than it has to be. Its pretty straightforward stuff: 1) If I do this in this way, 2) I observe this in this particular way, and 3) if others do exactly what I did, they should observe exactly what I did; 4) if they do not, then we have a problem.

Direct observation of phenomena, whether physical or logical or otherwise, is the stuff of science. Whether it internally "makes sense" or not.

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".

*raises eyebrow* Uh-huh.

Coulda fooled me. The "arguments" you are making are standard lines of rigid objectivists that generally conclude only "natural" sciences like physics, chemistry, and biology are "really scientific".

Of course, once again, they are baseless speculations that go around in circles... so, they don't particularly concern me much.

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

Nope, sorry. Complaining that "its too hard!!" is not a sound basis for debunking something. Remember, random, you're in the company of martial artists here... we are all well aware that the very best discoveries in life take lots and lots of hard work.

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.

Be that as it may, that does no excuse ridiculing the spiritual practices of another culture just because they use substances out culture has deemed unworthy. That, my friend, is ethnocentrism at its worst.

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

It wasn't an "example", it was a not-so-veiled ridiculing of another culture.

Laterz all.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

We are not analyzing the historical consistency of a literary text, we are talking about living practices and injunctions.

No ****, Sherlock. I was just using that to illustrate the idea of something making sense on its own merits, or in and of itself, as opposed to making sense when compared to outside sources.

You have yet to demonstrate any knowledge for it

For what, exactly?

The arguments you are using are ontological and epistemological problems, they have nothing to do with any problems with the "experiment" in question. Basically, I could use your arguments to say how "watching a dog" is not true proof that the dog in question exists.

So questioning the claim to validity of a personal experience that one claims to be of divine origin has nothing to do with whether we can prove God? Musta missed something.

I generally prefer theorizing of any sort to have a basis in either empirical observation or logical premise (which is kind of what makes it a "theory" in the first place). This has neither. Its just saying "we can't really know" for the very sake of saying so.

No, it's just saying that empirical observation is not all that's needed to prove a certain claim. Millions of born-agains may all verify the feelings of revival after having their heads dunked in a river. Hundreds of long-time meditators may all claim to have reached divine oneness after some certain meditational acheivement. If you look at things purely empirically, it seems to me that which practices actually prove the divine will only come down to which ones have more followers. What I'm trying to ask is, given the number of reports of this experience or that experience while praying or meditating or imbibing WHATEVER form of drugs that supposedly prove the divine, what standard are we to use to judge the practices themselves, so that we can actually decide which are ore aren't proofs of the divine (or more or less proofs of the Divine, if you prefer). Basically, the number of similar experiences does great for establishing patterns, but what does it actually tell you as far as how it works? That's what I've been trying to get at with this entire internal consistency idea.

Hate to burst your bubble, random

No you don't.

Remember, random, you're in the company of martial artists here... we are all well aware that the very best discoveries in life take lots and lots of hard work.

Such as yours? If a certain belt or a certain number of years experience is required before I can try and speak on a subject, please inform me.

Be that as it may, that does no excuse ridiculing the spiritual practices of another culture just because they use substances out culture has deemed unworthy. That, my friend, is ethnocentrism at its worst.

I'm not saying it's an excuse, nor is an excuse really that necessary.

It wasn't an "example", it was a not-so-veiled ridiculing of another culture.

It was an example of a means of supposedly connecting with the divine, as compared to Buddhist meditation or Christian prayer. My apologies for not remembering the exact method of drug inducement they used that I learned in an excuse for an anthropology class back in high-school.

 

[heretic888]

Okay, a few points:

1) "Internal consistency", when applied to literary or historical texts like the "Bible", is made specifically in regards to its logical and/or empirical contradictions (or lack thereof). This cannot be scrupulously applied to a scientific experiment, whereupon the direct observations and experiences of the experimenter are the actual datum in question.

In other words, the only thing that could "contradict" the experimenter's observations (or prove them "inconsistent") would be the observations of others that have adequately engaged the experiment themselves. The experimenter's observations are not, in and of themselves, contradictory or inconsistent.

This is the difference between phenomenology and hermeneutics.

2) Claiming that any experience, even those validated countless times by the principle of Popperian falsifiability, is somehow not "proof" of what is observed is the definition of absurdity. This, again, is like claiming that just because you see a dog, doesn't mean its "really there". Unless valid counterevidence can be provided by the critic to contradict the observer's evidence, then there is no grounds for such a claim. This, of course, falls back to the Popperian falsifiability I mentioned before.

As I have told a certain sojobow on another forum, "what if", "could be", and "may be" are not the basis for a sound argument. Actual evidence is required.

3) I am afraid you are misinterpeting and/or misrepresenting what I meant before in regards to "spiritual science". I was making reference to specific injunctions, paragidms, or practices yielding specific datum or observations --- and, furthermore, that the injunctions and correlative datum have been validated countless times by the principle of falsifiability or testability (in other words, others have gone through the process and gotten the same thing, virtually without exception).

In no way did I mean to apply this notion of "spiritual science" to ALL claimed religious experiences. Most of which, frankly speaking, are anecdotal, completely random, and often vague. In other words, untestable. I was referring to specific "experiments" disclosing specific "data".

4) The rest, honestly, are points that need not be discussed.

Have a good 'un.

 

[Marginal]

The other gods you mentioned that we should worship (Zeus, Kronos, Shiva, Kali, Amun-Ra) has profound poof that they were actually made up by the leaders of those places. Some archeologists have even found texts supporting this. Even practices of Buddhism and Hinduism only really call their religion a way of life more than a religion. Where as Christianity, Judaism, or Islam have no proof supporting it was made up. The only thing one can do is be skeptical about the super-natural "miracles" of the texts.

The Bible has very traceable roots. The early Judaic religion had no concept of hell, it has a version of ancestor worship not unlike what the Babylonians practiced etc. Evidence uncovered by archaeologists suggests that in the early days of the Temple, there was a Mrs. God. There was also an acknowledgement of other competing dieties watching over other nations and so on in the early books. The concept of Hell, and the angles were largely borrowed from the Greeks. The apocalypse was a concept origionally of Zoroastrianism, and so on. If you bother to research the subject at all, you find that the Bible's a hodge podge of borrowing from other religions. Sometimes borrowing to the point ouf outright plagarism. All very traceable and provable unless you're simply unwilling to see what's plain as day.

 

[heretic888]

Evidence uncovered by archaeologists suggests that in the early days of the Temple, there was a Mrs. God.

Yeppers. Who do you guys think the "Wisdom" (Hokhmah) of Proverbs is?? She is continually identified as a female entity, claims to have been with God "in the beginning", and is most definately addressed in personal terms...

Not to mention, it was fairly obvious --- even in the Bible --- that the Hebrews took up goddess worship (not necessarily exclusively, mind you) at some point. So much so that later, more-patriarchal books of the Old Testament feel the need to refer to the goddess in question as "the Abomination" and went about destroying all her temples.

Ah, religious purges. Gotta love 'em.

The concept of Hell, and the angles were largely borrowed from the Greeks. The apocalypse was a concept origionally of Zoroastrianism, and so on. If you bother to research the subject at all, you find that the Bible's a hodge podge of borrowing from other religions. Sometimes borrowing to the point ouf outright plagarism. All very traceable and provable unless you're simply unwilling to see what's plain as day.

Well said. Laterz.

 

[loki09789]

Does anyone else catch the irony of an "online proof of Creationism"...

A technology developed from Scientific theories being used by folks who are advocating that scientific explanations of the origins of life/creation are false.....

Pick and choose.....

 

[heretic888]

Oh, it gets even better, loki.

One time, I was in a chatroom with a person of the fundamentalist/literalist persuasion, who kindly informed me that "science" is an unreliable way of acquiring truth --- and then proceeded to tell me I should read the Bible.

I did find it interesting this person was telling me how unreliable science was while talking to me though an international dataweb via his computer.

Yes, very interesting indeed. :idunno:

 

[loki09789]

Oh, it gets even better, loki.

One time, I was in a chatroom with a person of the fundamentalist/literalist persuasion, who kindly informed me that "science" is an unreliable way of acquiring truth --- and then proceeded to tell me I should read the Bible.

I did find it interesting this person was telling me how unreliable science was while talking to me though an international dataweb via his computer.

Yes, very interesting indeed. :idunno:

Yup,

People who can't reconcile 'faith' with 'fact' who:

eat processed food that was preserved, transported, grown using industrial techniques based on scientific methods of discovery and improvement.

Accept the money in their paychecks with the "Idol" of the president on it.

Recieve medical treatments....that one slays me (get it, medical treatment/slays me....sorry)

Were clothing woven and designed/created by technological synthetics....

If you even believe in God, you have to recognize that the gift of intelligence and resourcefulness was not meant to be wasted. How we use that 'tool' is going to be an indication of our 'faith' more than whether we kneel/pray/sing... all the same way.

I have faith, so I am not a 'humanist' I guess you would say, but I do think that the sense of civic responsibility and 'humanity' in that ideology has a place. It is also in 'faith' if you just are willing to be 'humane' and remember that we are all 'human' and deserve to be treated with dignity and respect....

 

[Feisty Mouse]

I understand what you guys are saying about faith and science, but I think it's easy for people to want to use technology (which they may perceive as being divinely inspired? I'm not sure) versus the practice of science, which is more of a way of investigation.

Interesting.

 

[heretic888]

I understand what you guys are saying about faith and science, but I think it's easy for people to want to use technology (which they may perceive as being divinely inspired? I'm not sure) versus the practice of science, which is more of a way of investigation.

Yeah, but the whole point is that the "practice of science" is why we have all that neat stuff in the first place. Then again, being disingenous is pretty much a prerequisite for fundamentalists these days, so....

 

[Marginal]

These days? Fundimentalists have always been fanatic fringe elements.

 

[heretic888]

These days? Fundimentalists have always been fanatic fringe elements.

Actually, historically speaking, fundamentalism has been the norm for the Big Three --- not the exception. At least as soon as they became established as state religions and rigidly institutionalized (and subsequently purged anyone who disagreed with them).

Fundamentalism is now increasingly being treated as a fringe movement due to the influence of humanism, rationalism, science, and certain varieties of "deism". It pretty much all started when people started trying to separate Church and State (i.e., the Renaissance).

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Big Three? Is that referring to the whole science/arts/religion trio or somethin' else?

 

[heretic888]

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam.

 

[RandomPhantom700]

Oh, of course. *smacks forehead for stupdity, then returns to beer*

On a side note, it seems that, at least in the political world, fundamentalism isn't such a fringe element anymore. For an example, see the new thread about the Legislature's barring of the Supreme Court!

 

[Marginal]

Heretic888: Yep, you're right. I was thinking of a much more constrained timespan. (Last 50 years or so) Which doesn't make much sense in retrospect. Ah well.

That aside, that empty attempt to place a law limiting the supreme court to rule on constitutionally illegal forced indoctrination to the Christian faith just makes Christainity as a whole look bad. I applaud this fanatic for giving Christianity yet another black eye in a cheesy motion designed exclusively to sway voters on an empty issue.

Is this really supposed to make anyone glad to be an American? "Religious freedom, as long as you're Christian." Yay I suppose.

 

[heretic888]

That aside, that empty attempt to place a law limiting the supreme court to rule on constitutionally illegal forced indoctrination to the Christian faith just makes Christainity as a whole look bad. I applaud this fanatic for giving Christianity yet another black eye in a cheesy motion designed exclusively to sway voters on an empty issue.

Indeed.