Jump to content


Can You Distinguish Between Different Supernatural Origins?


  • Please log in to reply
92 replies to this topic

#41 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 03:51 PM

Well, I guess you don't get what I'm saying. I remember you saying how important it is to have proper communication. Now I see that you really didn't mean it.

I was giving you too much credit, Shpongle. You’re just here to waste time.

View Post


Ouch, you're going to hurt my feelings with that kind of talk. ;)

Let me ask a different question and it might become clearer what I am trying to get at here: How would distinguish a universe created by Brahma versus a universe created by Jehovah?

#42 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 05 December 2008 - 03:59 PM

Ouch, you're going to hurt my feelings with that kind of talk. ;)

Let me ask a different question and it might become clearer what I am trying to get at here:  How would distinguish a universe created by Brahma versus a universe created by Jehovah?

View Post


…the one that lines up with the evidence. That's scientific, historical, and subjective evidence.

Shpongle, a lot of people die with their hand on the door knob because turning it and opening it goes against a worldview of skepticism.

#43 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 05 December 2008 - 04:06 PM

…the one that lines up with the evidence. That's scientific, historical, and subjective evidence.


Okay. What evidence do you have that Jehovah made the universe and not Brahma?

#44 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:13 PM

Okay.  What evidence do you have that Jehovah made the universe and not Brahma?

View Post


If Brahma made the universe, then I eat someones grandmother for lunch everyday.

#45 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:49 PM

There are no conflicting accounts.  Any perceived conflicts can be easily explained by the divine will of Brahma.

View Post

If you actually believed this to be the case, you wouldn't be here arguing that the evolution myth is better than others; you'd be pointing out that it's "really the same thing."

#46 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 December 2008 - 06:02 AM

Okay.  What evidence do you have that Jehovah made the universe and not Brahma?

View Post


Hi Shpongle,

I’m going to write this for the other Christians here so they recognize something even if you don’t. I’m going to let you in on why I’m after your philosophy.

First, I haven’t seen anyone here say: “Oh, just ignore the evidence, trust in Jesus anyway.” The way you are trying to outline your Brahma experiment. We anxiously want people to actually look at our philosophy, as well as the evidence.

If you had philosophical blinders on, would you want to know about it?

In some ways, when someone has a claim to meta-physical truth, it’s similar (not the same, but similar) to when someone says they can demonstrate a discovery. The individuals who say they can demonstrate something, through the scientific method, should be able to repeat it over and over again (for instance; objects falling at the same rate in a vacuum) and disclose the assumptions, facts and inferences for what they essentially are.

On a side note:

This is really human nature at its best; when someone sees a magic trick and asks; how did you do that? The person who simply says “that's impossible” is the intellectually lazy one. Does that sound familiar? It's kind of like; "I'll use evolution to explain everything because God is impossible." Don't get mad when we want to see your evolution magic trick whether we're scientists or not.

Now you want to say; "Wait a minute, wait a minute, God is the magic trick." That’s simply not true, tricks need deception and cover ups. God has disclosed Himself to us, primarily by His Word (this is Jesus, He is the Word made flesh), and also consistently by the natural world (Psalm 19:1, 50:6, 97:6). Also, those of us who believe have the essential personal relationship through the Holy Spirit of Truth to testify to the truth of Jesus Christ.

Back to the subject at hand:

If someone wants to talk about something as rational, hypothetical or otherwise, (like determining if Brahma or Jehovah is the right creator) they need a method. Now this is where the necessary gear shift must be recognized away from the scientific method. This isn’t about the scientific method anymore, it’s about epistemology. I know at this point, you want to scream foul because how dare I think I can determine truth without the scientific method. Epistemological philosophy actually trumps the scientific method because it is foundational to science not the other way around.

A lot of people avoid epistemology because it can be a deeper subject than the sciences with profound ramifications (like having to deal with pride, sin and deception). With that said, there isn’t a person on this earth that doesn’t have a personal epistemology but they may wish to avoid discussing it because of the foolishness that may get revealed through inconsistencies and self-contradictions (to cover up pride, sin and deception).

(I’ll expound on this if it’s needed. Could a couple of my fellow believers please tell me if the above statements are clear enough?)

This next part is really important:

If you don’t have an epistemology that’s coherent, how can you expect people to believe the results that you get from it? Post-modern relativism has the same destructive power on reason as superstition has a destructive power on the scientific method.

Jamesf, used this little illustration as a caricature against Christians but it best applies to what we are talking about right now:
Posted Image

When someone claims to have scientifically proven something, I don’t simply believe them. I ask for their inferences and what methods they used and how does it stand against other commonly understood scientific principles? Nine times out of ten you can see coherence or holes in their claims without even having to see a physical demonstration. Let’s all face it; most of the things we talk about here aren’t from personal scientific experiences but from some form of study and applying some form of logic.

Next, when someone claims to be rational, I don’t simply believe them either. I want to know their methods. If someone refuses to disclose their epistemological principles or if they don’t understand the request and don't care, I probably have an essentially unreasonable person on my hands, especially if they aren’t willing to discuss the issue when the request is made.

I don’t mind discussing hypothetical’s with you, Shpongle. However, if our discussion doesn’t have the end goal of determining truth but is framed to play relativistic mind games then you are just wasting all of our time.

#47 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2008 - 12:04 PM

First, I haven’t seen anyone here say: “Oh, just ignore the evidence, trust in Jesus anyway.”


Like I said, it's the Answers in Genesis approach (seriously, go look up their statement of faith). Furthermore, I've seen that very behavior from one of the forum members here (scott) who when confronted with evidence he doesn't like, just categorically denies it.

This is really human nature at its best; when someone sees a magic trick and asks; how did you do that? The person who simply says “that's impossible” is the intellectually lazy one. Does that sound familiar? It's kind of like; "I'll use evolution to explain everything because God is impossible." Don't get mad when we want to see your evolution magic trick whether we're scientists or not.


Ironically, I see this very thing from creationists (including you) on this forum:

"I'll use God to explain everything because evolution is impossible."

Now you want to say; "Wait a minute, wait a minute, God is the magic trick." That’s simply not true, tricks need deception and cover ups. God has disclosed Himself to us, primarily by His Word (this is Jesus, He is the Word made flesh), and also consistently by the natural world (Psalm 19:1, 50:6, 97:6). Also, those of us who believe have the essential personal relationship through the Holy Spirit of Truth to testify to the truth of Jesus Christ.


But here's the key: How do you know any of that is true? Again, it gets back to the question I just asked: How do you distinguish a universe created by Jehovah versus one created by Brahma? I agree with you that at the end of the day you need a basal philosophy in order to make determinations from.

To use your example of Christian faith, at the end of the day, you have to start by accepting the Bible as the word of God. If I reject it as just a collection of books written by men (which technically it is anyway) and accept the Vedas as divine scripture instead, what then?

If someone wants to talk about something as rational, hypothetical or otherwise, (like determining if Brahma or Jehovah is the right creator) they need a method. Now this is where the necessary gear shift must be recognized away from the scientific method. This isn’t about the scientific method anymore, it’s about epistemology. I know at this point, you want to scream foul because how dare I think I can determine truth without the scientific method. Epistemological philosophy actually trumps the scientific method because it is foundational to science not the other way around.


Actually I agree with you on this point. I agree you can't use the scientific method to determine whether Brahma or Jehovah created the universe... which was actually my point all along. Remember, all of this started stemming from a discussion on why the scientific method is limited to naturalistic explanations for things. Because you can't scientifically distinguish between non-natural (i.e. supernatural) explanations. They are outside the realm of science.

It seems you would agree to this so I'm not sure what we are arguing about anymore.

#48 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 December 2008 - 01:17 PM

It seems you would agree to this so I'm not sure what we are arguing about anymore.

View Post


Well, Buddy, since you won't step up to my challenge, there is nothing left to talk about.

#49 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 December 2008 - 01:55 PM

Shpongle,

I guess just like a Universe that came from nowhere, your rationality has no foundation either. Would you agree?

#50 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 06 December 2008 - 02:11 PM

Like I said, it's the Answers in Genesis approach (seriously, go look up their statement of faith).  Furthermore, I've seen that very behavior from one of the forum members here (scott) who when confronted with evidence he doesn't like, just categorically denies it.
Ironically, I see this very thing from creationists (including you) on this forum:

I question your alleged perception. I have seen plenty of bogus conclusions rejected by creationists; I do not see evidence rejected.

"I'll use God to explain everything because evolution is impossible."

Actually, a good number of people rejected evolutionism before accepting God. I'm one myself. Then there are cases like A.E. Wilder-Smith, who accepted God first, then was troubled by the discrepancies, and chose to investigate.

But here's the key: How do you know any of that is true?  Again, it gets back to the question I just asked: How do you distinguish a universe created by Jehovah versus one created by Brahma?  I agree with you that at the end of the day you need a basal philosophy in order to make determinations from.

As you were unwilling to make a convincing effort to explore your original question, I confidently assume the same to be the case with your second question.

To use your example of Christian faith, at the end of the day, you have to start by accepting the Bible as the word of God.  If I reject it as just a collection of books written by men (which technically it is anyway) and accept the Vedas as divine scripture instead, what then?

If you don't care, why should anyone else?

Actually I agree with you on this point.  I agree you can't use the scientific method to determine whether Brahma or Jehovah created the universe... which was actually my point all along.

Historic sciences are the means of learning about the past. Experimental science cannot tell you what I had for dinner a year ago. Common sense. No mystery.

Remember, all of this started stemming from a discussion on why the scientific method is limited to naturalistic explanations for things.  Because you can't scientifically distinguish between non-natural (i.e. supernatural) explanations.  They are outside the realm of science.

View Post

Experimental science doesn't work as a substitute for historical science. It has nothing to do with natural/supernatural issues. It's a matter of using the right tool for the right job. Hammers aren't particularly good at removing screws; do we conclude screws cannot be removed?

#51 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 December 2008 - 02:26 PM

Experimental science doesn't work as a substitute for historical science. It has nothing to do with natural/supernatural issues. It's a matter of using the right tool for the right job. Hammers aren't particularly good at removing screws; do we conclude screws cannot be removed?

View Post


That's right on, CTD. On top of that, Shpongle doesn't want to reveal that his epistemological tool kit is empty. Even when he’s doing his job, he sneaks over to a steadfast creator, and steals from the tool kit of those who start with God. Than Shpongle makes pronouncements about a planet that he assumes is ordered with a mind that he assumes is reliable.

However, when talking about God Himself, Shpongle wants to whip out the truth vacuum of post-modernism. :o

#52 JudyV

JudyV

    Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPip
  • 362 posts
  • Age: 50
  • no affiliation
  • Atheist
  • Augusta, ME

Posted 06 December 2008 - 03:10 PM

That's right on, CTD. On top of that, Shpongle doesn't want to reveal that his epistemological tool kit is empty.


What is in your epistemological tool kit?

Even when he’s doing his job, he sneaks over to a steadfast creator, and steals from the tool kit of those who start with God.


Can you provide examples of this?

Than Shpongle makes pronouncements about a planet that he assumes is ordered with a mind that he assumes is reliable.


Examples please, rather than groundless accusations, would be appreciated.

However, when talking about God Himself, Shpongle wants to whip out the truth vacuum of post-modernism.  :o



What is your definition of "post-modernism?"

#53 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 December 2008 - 04:12 PM

What is in your epistemological tool kit?

View Post

God's Word and a foundation in Jesus Christ. Now you tell me what’s in your epistemological tool kit?

Even when he’s doing his job, he sneaks over to a steadfast creator, and steals from the tool kit of those who start with God.


Can you provide examples of this?

View Post

Even evolutionist talk about design, Shpongle himself talks about how "evolution" designed things in such a way. As people we assume a capacity to think and think thoughts correctly. Where does that come from?

HEADLINE! - Mindless Chance Produces Thoughtful Order!

Science would collapse if people truly adopted relativism the way they deceptively employ it to reject things they don’t like, like morals and principle standards that are real and true apart from having to prove them. Every scientist in the world assumes a foundational respect for the absolute truth that can be known objectively and truly. Where does that come from… absolute truth? Well, since they don’t want to think about it, they deny it while they continue to assume it. I’m talking about post-modern relativists now, not scientists in general.

Than Shpongle makes pronouncements about a planet that he assumes is ordered with a mind that he assumes is reliable.


Examples please, rather than groundless accusations, would be appreciated.

View Post

I’m sorry, my bad. I can see why it would be offensive to tell someone that believes in evolution that they believe in order or that their mind is reliable. :o

What is your definition of "post-modernism?"

View Post

Post-modernism is a big umbrella but I’m talking about the relativism that seeps out especially when a post-modern relativist starts questioning something they don’t want to believe. It becomes a game whether they see it themselves or not. It’s not that they apply the scientific method to everything they believe but they give unrealistic expectations as if we’re deadlocked about discovering the truthfulness of something or anything without being able to test and demonstrate it scientifically.

Some phrases to cautiously be aware of:

"We can’t know anything for sure."

"Truth is relative."

"How do you test and demonstrate that truth?"


These are just three of many key self-contradicting and self-defeating statements, that crop up in many forms, that any person should be aware of as they engage someone who has adopted a relativistic and shifting foundation.

If someone wants to test themselves, they'll refocus their baloney detector on themselves and listen to their own conversations and wait to see if different forms of these same comments come out to reject something on emotional grounds and not rational grounds.

#54 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 December 2008 - 05:27 PM

Post-modernism

Postmodernism was originally a reaction to modernism. Largely influenced by the Western European disillusionment induced by World War II, postmodernism tends to refer to a cultural, intellectual, or artistic state lacking a clear central hierarchy or organizing principle and embodying extreme complexity, contradiction, ambiguity, diversity, interconnectedness or interreferentiality,[3] in a way that is often indistinguishable from a parody of itself.

It has given rise to charges of fraudulence.[4]


Post-modernism strips a person's capacity to be rational away. A post-modern relativist can herald how rational they are, while being irrational and nobody’s the wiser, let’s face it, we can’t know anything for sure… :o

#55 scott

scott

    Veteran Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 1,749 posts
  • Age: 21
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • mississippi

Posted 06 December 2008 - 06:48 PM

Like I said, it's the Answers in Genesis approach (seriously, go look up their statement of faith).  Furthermore, I've seen that very behavior from one of the forum members here (scott) who when confronted with evidence he doesn't like, just categorically denies it. 
Ironically, I see this very thing from creationists (including you) on this forum:

"I'll use God to explain everything because evolution is impossible."
But here's the key: How do you know any of that is true?  Again, it gets back to the question I just asked: How do you distinguish a universe created by Jehovah versus one created by Brahma?  I agree with you that at the end of the day you need a basal philosophy in order to make determinations from.

To use your example of Christian faith, at the end of the day, you have to start by accepting the Bible as the word of God.  If I reject it as just a collection of books written by men (which technically it is anyway) and accept the Vedas as divine scripture instead, what then?
Actually I agree with you on this point.  I agree you can't use the scientific method to determine whether Brahma or Jehovah created the universe... which was actually my point all along.  Remember, all of this started stemming from a discussion on why the scientific method is limited to naturalistic explanations for things.  Because you can't scientifically distinguish between non-natural (i.e. supernatural) explanations.  They are outside the realm of science.

It seems you would agree to this so I'm not sure what we are arguing about anymore.

View Post


I am truly not convinced with your (evidence).

#56 Adam Nagy

Adam Nagy

    Honorable Member

  • Veteran Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,053 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Age: 37
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania

Posted 06 December 2008 - 07:02 PM

I agree with you that at the end of the day you need a basal philosophy in order to make determinations from.

View Post


What's your basal philosophy?

#57 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2008 - 08:50 PM

Actually, a good number of people rejected evolutionism before accepting God. I'm one myself.


Seriously? Because I'm going be honest, in my experience I know of almost no one who rejected evolutionary science without some sort of religious basis for doing so.

Experimental science doesn't work as a substitute for historical science. It has nothing to do with natural/supernatural issues. It's a matter of using the right tool for the right job. Hammers aren't particularly good at removing screws; do we conclude screws cannot be removed?

View Post


So now you're going to tell me you can distinguish between a universe created by Brahma and one created by Jehovah? Great, go ahead and demonstrate it.

#58 Guest_shpongle_*

Guest_shpongle_*
  • Guests

Posted 06 December 2008 - 08:55 PM

What's your basal philosophy?

View Post


For the purpose of this thread?

That Brahma is the divine creator of our universe and all things within our universe as revealed through the sacred Vedas. Everything else is built on that.

#59 CTD

CTD

    Banned

  • Banned
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 2,059 posts
  • Age: 44
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • Missouri

Posted 07 December 2008 - 01:49 AM

Seriously?  Because I'm going be honest, in my experience I know of almost no one who rejected evolutionary science without some sort of religious basis for doing so.

If seeking the truth constitutes a "religious bias", I'm guilty as charged. I suspect you haven't asked around very much. Reading the older threads on this forum alone, one can quickly tally at least a handful of creationists who first rejected evolutionism.

So now you're going to tell me you can distinguish between a universe created by Brahma and one created by Jehovah?  Great, go ahead and demonstrate it.

View Post

Steps can be taken to distinguish true history from false. Present "your history" and it will distinguish itself. One can then commence historical analysis and investigation. The Vedas give many mutually exclusive stories, so you need to specify which one(s) you accept.

The "Brahma did it - period" approach you have adopted is a simplistic mockery you have invented for yourself, either to discredit religious people (in which case you'd need to demonstrate that they employ it) or in order to avoid serious discussion.

Alternatively, you could posit your own imaginary story. (In essence, this is what you've done, only plagiarizing the name 'Brahma'.)

Judging by the size of the thread, if you wanted to seriously consider the matter, you'd have begun by now.

#60 ikester7579

ikester7579

    Member

  • Member
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 12,500 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Florida
  • Interests:God, creation, etc...
  • Age: 48
  • Christian
  • Young Earth Creationist
  • I'm non-denominational

Posted 07 December 2008 - 04:09 AM

Seriously?  Because I'm going be honest, in my experience I know of almost no one who rejected evolutionary science without some sort of religious basis for doing so.


Your statement proves that evolution is religion. If science be only science, then rejection of one belief is not required to accept another. In religious terms this is called a conversion.

So if evolution is not a religion, then why is a conversion needed to accept evolution theory as a whole? Only a religion can compete with a religion on this level, unless you want to explain how science competing with religion is scientific?

So now you're going to tell me you can distinguish between a universe created by Brahma and one created by Jehovah?  Great, go ahead and demonstrate it.

View Post


In the same sense that you can absolutely show me how something can be created from nothing. Has it ever happened before? No? Then why and how did it happen for the big bang?

Also, if energy cannot be created or destroyed, where did the energy for the big bang come from?

Now the supernatural invoking answer would be: There were no laws back then so anything can happen.

Well, that is a god did type answer by invoking a god did it situation. That is not scientific either. Why? Invoking an anything can happen situation is invoking the same type of situation that God works in. Because no laws means no guidance but only chaos. And chaos never created anything. Which means that an intelligent being had to exist to guide things along when no laws existed. Other wise you would have to admit that the possibility of something happening when no laws existed is not even comprehendable by any means what so ever. Why? When there is no starting point of guidance through laws that form, then there is no ending point either. Unless you would like to explain how all the laws came into existence and in what order and why?

Example: If you were mixing things in a lab when no laws existed. And you were mixing them to get a result. When would that result happen if there were no laws guiding it to happen? It would never happen.

So can you explain where matter came from, and where the energy came from without invoking a god did it situation?




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users