Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Debunking New World Creationism 201 (Intermediate) -1

  1. Mar 7, 2004 #1
    (Note: The existence of a deity is fundamental to a belief in
    New World Creationism. This post is for New World Creationists, only!)

    (A Note for Theistic Evolutionists:
    I do not engage in debating Theistic Evolutionists about
    the existence of any deity, unless an invitation is extended.
    Below are a few reasons why I choose not to do this:
    I’ve no beef with Theistic Evolutionists.
    Theistic Evolutionists are not religious extremists.
    In general, Theistic Evolutionists are not known
    to me as typically being social or political fanatics,
    they do not seek to ban Evolution, nor Science either.
    I DO debate Theistic Evolutionists,
    where their social and political view differ from my own.
    For these and additional reasons,
    this post is not targetted for a debate with Theistic Evolutionists.
    Accept this “Note” as true, “on faith”, from an Athiest.)
    It is illogical to conclude that Atheism existed prior to Theism.

    For that reason, two “conditions” apply to the Theist.
    1) The Theist asserted the existence of "god(s)".
    2) The Theist’s assertion was made prior to the existence of Atheism.

    Logically, these conditions designate the BURDEN OF PROOF to the Theist. For that reason, it is not the responsibility of the Atheist to disprove the Theist’s assertion.

    The Theist can not provide any empirical evidence to scientifically prove the existence of “god(s)”. For that reason, the result of the “Scientific Method” is the conclusion that the Theist’s assertion is baseless and false.

    The Universe or life itself is not empirical evidence from which the existence of "god(s)" can be concluded, as these are only evidence of a tangible reality.

    What I know exists, does not lead me to conclude what does not exist, does exist.

    To the Creationist: Please provide empirical evidence of the existence of any deity (upon which creationism depends).
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 7, 2004 #2
    How can empirical evidence be supplied about a non empirical but spiritual entity or subjective belief.
    I ask you to provide empirical evidence that such and entity does not exist.
    I don't try to use a sledge hammer to fine tune a swiss watch. You may; but, I don't. While your at it prove intelligence and consciousness exist using empirical evidence only.
    What yard stick are you going to use to measure subjective reasoning and/or logic?.
  4. Mar 7, 2004 #3
    Here we go again...

    How can you claim the objective existance of something which only has a (purported)subjective reality?
  5. Mar 7, 2004 #4
    Yeah, I know. My thoughts exactly. To answer you question, I can't; nor, can anyone else. Its the wrong tool. All that I can say is that there is more to reality than objective reality, but then, I have said that before, haven't I? Oh well its a beautiful day in Georgia and I have to be at work (for 4 hours at least). What else to pass the time?
  6. Mar 7, 2004 #5

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    First of all, the only thing you are anyone else knows is subjective experience, so setting up this debate to be between subjective and objective is wrong. When it comes to human knowledge, it's all subjective. I say the real issue is whether or not the physical senses are the only avenue to legitimate experience.

    I'll try an analogy. Imagine you exist in an infinite medium, say light, which extends both infinitely outward (or divergently) from your position, and infintely inward ( convergently) from your position. Let's say you are yourself light housed in a human body. If you want to look outward from your position, you must rely on the senses. But if you wish to explore the convergent direction, you have to actually withdraw from the senses and turn inward.

    With the outward view one sees everything that is aggregate, compound, and distinct from other things; with the inner view, one experiences the unity of things.

    Now, let's say that on this planet, almost everyone is taken with the outward view. For thousands years outer view skills are developed, methods for studying aggregate stuff are perfected, social and political systems are based on outer view understanding, those who master outer view skills become the most financially successful, people in power champion the outer view, etc.

    Meanwhile, there are those few who undertake developing inner view skills. Individuals who actually do it report information that is unavailable to the outer view. Now, what do you think all those outer view experts say about such reports? They say, show us outer proof that the inner world exists! And if someone experienced in the inner view says check out the real experts on this subject, rather than looking into it like scholars, they continue to demand that external proof be given for what can only be known from inner experience.

    It is one thing to say one is not interested in exploring the inner experience, but it is entirely different to claim the reports of those who practice turning inward can't be right because it doesn't fit into one's world view, or to use one's own experiences as the absolute standard for evaluating that with which one is inexperienced.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2004
  7. Mar 7, 2004 #6
    Les, its good to see you back participating. I've missed you and your comments.
    I think you analogy is one of the best that I have read on the subject. I almost want to say that it is not an analogy but truth.
  8. Mar 7, 2004 #7
    LOL, you guys are funny!!

    Wrong, deeply wrong, but humorous nonetheless. When you look inside yourself, all you can comment on is yourself. The rest of the universe appears to be outside of yourself.
  9. Mar 7, 2004 #8


    User Avatar

    But as far as materialism is concerned, looking inward and outward both involve senses. If the light converges infinitely, then it must be parallel, which means that the unity of all things is untrue. I do not believe that the body is a barrier - I think most materialists here agree that there is no difference between inwards, and outwards. To materialists, looking inwards means either disguising looking outwards - or not looking at all. Historically, the "outer view" people have not triumphed at all. Historically, almost no one has looked.

    What information has been gleaned from this inner view, without leaving at least the possibility of being simply a transformation of instinct, or "outer" experience?
  10. Mar 7, 2004 #9
    In my view, materialist view only one part of reality, the objective physical part which is the effect not the cause of reality. Spiritual or inner reality is the cause of and reason for being of the rest of reality which is simply different aspects of the One reality. I realize that this is nonsense to a materialist, but to believe in only the material is nonsense to those who have experience both the material and non material reality.
  11. Mar 7, 2004 #10

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    You are pretty funny too Zero. You make the same mistake every single time when you try to evaluate something you know nothing about. What exactly do you know about looking inside the way I am talking about?
  12. Mar 7, 2004 #11

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I find it pointless to debate someone who is determined to argue an intellectual position. I say that because if your first priority is to maintain your position, then you are obligated to do everything in your power to discredit any information which might undermine, in this case, materialism. When you do that I know from the outset you are not going to objectively look at what I say, so why bother? If my goal is to trade ideas hoping to learn or teach something true, then there isn't the slightest motivation for me to participate in such a debate.

    How do you come to know things FZ? To you try to figure it out cloistered in your room? Or do you actually try to acquire experience with that you want to know and understand?

    You are not required to understand the inner experience to live your life. My objection is that you and others speculate about it without feeling the slightest need to seriously look into it. I find it amazing that there exists a 3000 year history of people living for decades in every situation from caves in the deserts to monasteries just so they could develop turning inward skills, and yet someone thinks they are going to understand about that from information they casually pick up skipping through life. Ha, some scholarship and, consequently, the crappy opinions derived from it.
  13. Mar 7, 2004 #12


    User Avatar

    Please, please, don't say that, because it is simply not true. You don't know anything about me, and you have no justification to throw such stereotypes around. I know you are reasonable, but I find your attitude patronising and perhaps offensive.

    I was an atheist. Then I was a christian. Then I was a buddhist. Now I am an atheist. I do know what you are talking about. I even - and you may be surprised - meditate. I did not skip my way through life, I did not fail to understand. You have no right, as another human being to presume I do not. I simply perceived that it is senseless to maintain the belief that one "knowledge" has to be obtained at the expense of the other. I simply perceived that it is senseless to maintain a difference between my internal self-examination, and the experiences around me, for I am made by these experiences.

    What did 3000 years of self denial acheive? Nothing, but the imposition of dogma on others. They were made with the whip of authority behind them, fed untruths and untruths extracted. They saw only what they expected, because there was nothing new. To draw on an anecdote, it was only when the buddha walked out of his little compound that he could start to see, see how we are part of the world, and we can understand ourselves only by understanding the world. We have only recently become aware of those 3000 years. I see no reason to excuse them, or to make their same mistakes again.
  14. Mar 7, 2004 #13
    Been there, done that, got the T-shirt, and never found anything magical about it. I know LOTS about it, I just don't come to the same conclusions that you do.
  15. Mar 7, 2004 #14

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I apologize.

    Why would you think 'one "knowledge' has to be obtained at the expense of the other"? I don't have the slightest problem understanding the difference between external and internal knowledge.

    When a baby is born he or she can experience joy immediately. Exactly what "experiences around" made him/her that way? That potential for joy is already in there.

    You are talking about religion, not the inner experience. This is exactly what I mean by not being informed. You may have been a Christian and a Buddhist, but if you accepted the religion that developed around Jesus and the Buddha then you also accepted the millenia of interpretation by others that is stuck in between you and Jesus or the Buddha.

    In my opinion, you will never understand the experience Jesus and the Buddha were having through religion. In fact, I think the whole purpose of religion is to be a sort of metaphorical substitute for the inner experience. That's the problem with these discussions . . . people judging the inner experience using religion as the standard.

    If you had been alive when Jesus was teaching, exactly what religion would you have heard him teach? I say it wouldn't have been some way of behaving, believing or thinking that you'd have gotten from him, but rather a way of feeling and being conscious. In other words, his message was experiential. You find religion the instant you start reading what others have to say about him; then you can clearly see they are translating the experience Jesus was having into a way of thinking.

    Nonesense. Using only the Buddha's words, I challenge you to show me him teaching that "we can understand ourselves only by understanding the world." In fact, that is exactly opposite of what he taught, which was the "self" is an illusion. The self, he said, is a mere aggregate of traits acquired from our biology and conditioning. Our true nature lies within, beyond all apparent attributes, including that which we know as "self."

    It seems you, like the majority of people (Buddhists and non-Buddhists alike), assume that what the Buddha attained was some kind of mental understanding. But if one undertakes a careful study of the experience of enlightement, one finds that view is thoroughly contradicted by the 3000 year history of enlightenment on our planet, and not just in India.

    What the Buddha attained occurred after many years of work that culminated under the Bodhi tree sitting in uninterrupted meditation for a few days. To characterize his achievment as intellectual insight represents the constant watering down of religious interpretation done for the masses, it is the translation of seriously practicing samadhi meditation (or "union" by inner practitioners who followed Jesus) into some philosophical outlook. I say it was the power of the "enlightenment" experience that attracted people to the Buddha (and Jesus), not his ideas.

    And why can't people figure this out so easily today? I believe it is because we lack the living example of enlightenment that masters like Jesus and the Buddha provided for followers.
  16. Mar 7, 2004 #15
    Why does this argument remind me of when I was pre-school and I was embroiled in a "intellectual argument" responding to "Your dumb" with the ever classic "Your dumber".

    I find this post and many of your others reminiscent of these times of blissful ignorance. I don't know wether or not I should even attempt to respond to your posts, or just admire your ability to stay in happy land......

    Ok, I guess its just in my nature to argue.

    Your statement of:
    is utter garbage.

    Let me back this claim up with both your logic and my logic, first with yours..

    (your logic)Obviously, you have not the capability of comprehending what actually is, so it is a waste of my and your time to even attempt to explain it to you.

    (my logic) The whole point of the scientific method is to reduce the amount of influence one's personal beliefs has on the conclusions one makes. By definition intellectual people(people that use the scientific method as a problem solving tool) are more objective than somebody that believes whatever they feel must be actual truth.

    You know, in the history of humanity, I'm sure there has been one or two people that have been wrong. It would be hard to know if your wrong if you don't bother to go through a process in which you seperate your feelings from ideas and objectively evaluate them.
  17. Mar 7, 2004 #16

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Who said anything about it being magical? Got the T-shirt, eh? Sounds like religion to me.

    The monk Joshu practiced samadhi for forty years. Now about him I might say he knew "LOTS."

    Part of the problem in discussing this here is you don't know what I am referring to, and I don't know what you tried that taught you "LOTS." I know from previous statements you (and FZ) have made, it doesn't appear you know anything at all about what I am talking about. If what you tried didn't work out, it might have been because there wasn't anything real there to work out.

    Just like there is real science and pseudoscience, there is also real inner practice, and tons of pop pseudo-stuff to try out these days. If you were to undertake a serious study of the history of successes with enlightenment, you would find certain charactieristics common to all the efforts. So far, I've not heard you or anyone else here who talks against the inner experience who also seems to know anything about this. It all sounds like pop culture/religion knowledge to me, not the understanding that comes from conscientious scholarship.

    Now, if you don't care to do that kind of research, that is fine with me. As I have said many times, what I object to is all the truly shallow representation of what is inner by people who don't care enough about it to either seriously research or practice it.
  18. Mar 7, 2004 #17

    Les Sleeth

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Well, it could be that your interpreting skills need some work, but let’s find out.

    But first, let me commend you on the above excellent example of how stop that “your dumber” thing.

    This must be some new-fangled logic because all I see is your assertion that I lack comprehension of actuality, not evidence and logic used together to make a valid point. In fact, it again sounds remarkably like “your dumber” to me, but then if I am really dumber and lack comprehension, then I probably just don’t understand the new genius on the block. Let me read on and see if I can get your meaning.

    True, one of the objectives of the scientific method is to reduce. Being in a liberal mood to day, I might grant you that intellectual people think more scientifically than non-intellectual people, and even your conclusion they are more likely to be objective. But what does any of that have to do with my point to FZ?

    Here is what I said: “I find it pointless to debate someone who is determined to argue an intellectual position. I say that because if your first priority is to maintain your position, then you are obligated to do everything in your power to discredit any information which might undermine, in this case, materialism. When you do that I know from the outset you are not going to objectively look at what I say, so why bother? If my goal is to trade ideas hoping to learn or teach something true, then there isn't the slightest motivation for me to participate in such a debate.”

    I said that in response to FZ’s statement that he was going to argue as a materialist (I'll grant you that I could have been more clear that this is what I was talking about; this is an old debate between FZ and myself, so I didn't elaborate much). When I enter a discussion, I enter it to get at the truth. I couldn’t care less what the truth turns out to be. It is what it is. If reality is purely physical, that is fine with me. If consciousness has had something to do with forming our universe, that is fine with me too.

    But how can one be objective if one enters a discussion prioritizing some point over discovering the truth? It those who are attached to reality being a certain way who cannot bring themselves to consider evidence objectively or comprehensively. If you think empirical thinkers are immune to such attachment, you have a lot to learn.

    I hardly need a lecture from you about the history of humanity, about distinguishing feeling and ideas, or about objectivity. As for my ignorance compared to your apparent infatuation with your own abilities and opinions, I think we need to observe you in debate for awhile to judge just how much you really know and how well you reason.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2004
  19. Mar 7, 2004 #18

    I happen to know that alot of the attitude that you see in this post is based on many past discussions and resulting attitudes with the same people. Many times, when people engage in discussion with one another in different threads the tone/attitude continues throughout. So to make opinions the way you have is taking alot out of context. You might want to remember that before you eagerly start to argue again.

    It is in my nature to learn. I have learned alot from particpating in this forum. This means, at some point I've had to stop arguing and start acknowleding that someone knows more than I do about some things and start asking questions. Hope you find what you're after.
    Last edited: Mar 7, 2004
  20. Mar 7, 2004 #19
    Flip, if you care to analyse my post a little more you will see it as a satire copying sleeth's tone. And for your information I am not completely new to debating with sleeth as he has been a active and vocal opponent in one of other threads.

    As far as the statement of my like of arguing, it was used more as a transition then a statement. I have no problem admitting that someone else has more knowledge than me on a subject and if you saw my other post's in the hard science portions of PF you would see this.

    It is in everybodies nature to learn. It is only the decree of success that seperates us in this respect.
  21. Mar 7, 2004 #20


    User Avatar

    Well, I do. When you talk of turning inwards or outwards, you imply that by looking "inwards", you must turn your back on the "outwards". I cannot remotely see why that must be true, or why that sort of dualism is right.

    Instinct. The part of the external universe that makes up his brain. The experiences he has whilst copying his zygote, in his mother's womb.

    Au contraire. It was through looking through our millenias of gibberish that I came to understand, and came to a very different understanding from you.

    Precisely. Many years of hard work. He could not have just sat down, and seen "the truth within". He worked, and absorbed the truth. That is the way it works. Jesus again - his Passion was at the end of a journey. He was probably not born enlightened, but enlightenment came to him through action, even temptation. Who said anything about intellectual understanding?

    Yes, excuse my spurious examples. I do not think it was the power of the enlightenment experience that drew peace, but a simple and facile lure. Happiness, paradise, an end. That's why people deluded themselves with. They went there, because they thought it would be easy to copy someone who has already done it. And that is not true, is it?

    Samadhi, yes, samadhi. Tell me, do you still close your eyes when you practice samadhi meditation? The point of samadhi is oneness, an awakening of one sort of consciousness. Maybe it's BS, maybe it isn't. But samadhi is not about closing down one avenue, about switching lanes. It is about realisation of the oneness of reality, of the oneness of the self with the universe. It is not about looking inwards, or outwards, or whatever, but seeing not two, or many, but one. That is my interpretation, at least.

    I think the experience of samadhi is more prevalent that you think. Einstein's god is a manifestation of that, for example. He did not look inward. I don't think most of them cared. They simply looked.
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook