1828 replies to this topic

[psyche101]

nopeda, on 05 April 2012 - 04:26 PM, said:

There are beings who can survive between cycles or there are not, IF there are cycles at all. I don't have a belief, but you can't even comprehend that much. You can't comprehend considering a possibility without believing it apparently, and you sure don't seem able to consider any possibilities without first learning about them in a book or movie. Which particular story are you lying that I "lifted" this possibility from, do you have any idea? I predict you have no idea at all, but if you can find a story about the possibility we're discussing I might like to read it IF you can find one. Good luck.

Yes you are describing the entity Q from Star Trek. That was not all that tough to be perfectly honest. To date you have pretended to not know the movies I mentioned, which I take as a show of outright dishonesty. Did you already know this answer too? The question did seem rather too easy for me.
I can consider a principal. It when I ask you to explain further or provide proof is when this debate typically falls over and degenerates into your insulting others. this is where you and I differ greatly in that I seem to have a better understanding of physics. I am guessing that is why my posts to you contain things like Einsteins equation, and yours are filled with your own personal opinion and insults. I am familiar with popular entertainment. You are immensely upset that I exposed the fact that you are trying to push movies themes as some sort of scientific theory aren't you? I am not restricting myself to two particular movies, they were simply the most obvious and recent titles and again, had you read the posts you would have seen this discussion. I have little doubt that there is the work of many science fiction authors in your musing.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 08 April 2012 - 11:47 PM, said:

Your "knowledge" is simply trusting (having faith in) the orthodox Western view. I have no preconceived ideas, as I have explained multiple times on these forums. If you studied the ancient texts it would be undeniably clear that the ancients had knowledge of outer space. I suppose that you'll assume though, based on your Western ideas, that the ancient Hindus believed that the sun orbited the Earth--if you read the texts, it is clear that they believed the opposite. They had an empirical knowledge of the heliocentric solar system--as well as other solar systems, planets, the number of planets in our solar system, etc.

Absolute nonsense. Almost the entire thread has been devoted to your preconceived ideals. The proof you have put forth to bolster your tall tales is nonexistent.

And you use of the word "fact" is somewhat insulting. I noticed the side step you gave to Bade as well regarding the definition of outer space.

Edited by psyche101, 10 April 2012 - 12:27 AM.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 12:26 AM, said:

Absolute nonsense. Almost the entire thread has been devoted to your preconceived ideals. The proof you have put forth to bolster your tall tales is nonexistent.

And you use of the word "fact" is somewhat insulting. I noticed the side step you gave to Bade as well regarding the definition of outer space.

If you had read anything that I've written you would know that I have made quite sure not to allow any preconceived concepts or leaps of logic to infiltrate my research. I compiled evidence, and then simply studied it until a clear conclusion could be reached--no preconceived ideas were included in this process. I was very careful of this, and have kept a catalogue recording each step--making sure not to allow any ideas not directly indicated by the evidence to be included.

You are insulted quite easily, it seems.

What "side step"?

badeskov, on 10 April 2012 - 12:17 AM, said:

It was only an example. As long as it can be found from the reference and there is no ambiguity with respect to edition/copy or the like it suffices.

Cheers,
Badeskov

Alright then.

[psyche101]

nopeda, on 09 April 2012 - 03:46 AM, said:

How do you want people to believe ravines cut the top off of hills? Can you provide other examples of ravines (or whatever) having done so in similar ways?


I still find it amusing when I encounter someone who appears to believe that one.

I can.

Table Top Mountain. Toowoomba about 2 hours west from where I am sitting typing this.




The region consists of many such examples along hundreds of kilometers. I have driven around on the top of some. There is no current accepted theory that I am aware of, but my personal hypothesis is that the area was an inland sea, or immense lake at some point which drained through the Helidon valley and out through Brisbane, leaving many pillars and in some case the tops were eroded, and water flowed over them in it's rush to the sea creating the flat tops we see today. It seem to be the same path that the devastating floods took the year before last. Massive sandstone beds at the base of Toowoomba exist and I believe lend credence to this hypothesis, which are being raped to provide sandstone blocks for high quality housing. All sorts of things like indigenous artifacts and fossils are being "lost" so that none of the sandstone farms will have production halted. Most locals know the stories and have seen many artifacts that end up crushed out of existence, stashed in someones roof, or simply thrown back into pits and covered over again. The Government does not care own whit, they over rode the community around 10-15 years ago in the same area and destroyed indigenous caves and rock art to extend the Nobby/Warrwick road. A crime of the people the way I see that. I do hope one day someone is held responsible for that outright vandalism. My wife used to visit them as a child, but nobody will ever see them again.

Another example from Mackay - Lords Table Top Mountain.



Another natural formation, nothing to do with ET, but the course of water. If you visit on of these locations, that water created them is obvious.

[nopeda]

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 12:18 AM, said:

Quote

There are beings who can survive between cycles or there are not, IF there are cycles at all. I don't have a belief, but you can't even comprehend that much. You can't comprehend considering a possibility without believing it apparently, and you sure don't seem able to consider any possibilities without first learning about them in a book or movie. Which particular story are you lying that I "lifted" this possibility from, do you have any idea? I predict you have no idea at all, but if you can find a story about the possibility we're discussing I might like to read it IF you can find one. Good luck.

Yes you are describing the entity Q from Star Trek.

So far I don't believe you since what I have read about the being didn't say anything about the universe going through cycles of expansion and contraction. You need to provide reason to believe that specific situation is described in your movie or I'll continue to disbelieve you. And even if that specific situation is being described I still was thinking about it years before the movie you're talking about came out. If you want to pretend I learned the concept from a movie instead of from my dad, you need to pick one that was out before 1975 because I was aware of it by then. So since I've been aware of the concept for at least 37 years you need to come up with a movie about it that's over 37 years old before we can even begin to pretend what you apparently want badly to believe for some odd reason.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

If you had read anything that I've written you would know that I have made quite sure not to allow any preconceived concepts or leaps of logic to infiltrate my research. I compiled evidence, and then simply studied it until a clear conclusion could be reached--no preconceived ideas were included in this process. I was very careful of this, and have kept a catalogue recording each step--making sure not to allow any ideas not directly indicated by the evidence to be included.

In the other thread you discuss the same concept. Therefore you came into this thread with a specific mindset, and belittle those that disagree with you. You have provided little if any links to references, you have offered personal assurances by large. As such, how is your postion not preconceived? Just because you take notes of your own ideas does not change this does it?

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

You are insulted quite easily, it seems.

I know of no other way to describe the so called "facts" presented in this thread. If you have a preferred term, please offer it.

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 01:01 AM, said:

What "side step"?

I would be glad to. However, I will note that sourcing from the Internet is easier said than done--I am not always successful when I search for Internet versions of my evidence.


I have already offered assistance in this respect. And lets face it, the board is designed well and to accomodate ease of use. Placing a link is hardly rocket science, nor is scanning and providing an uncontrolled copy of a page to specifically illustrate a claim. That is if said publication is not already on Google Books.

[psyche101]

nopeda, on 10 April 2012 - 01:11 AM, said:

So far I don't believe you since what I have read about the being didn't say anything about the universe going through cycles of expansion and contraction. You need to provide reason to believe that specific situation is described in your movie or I'll continue to disbelieve you. And even if that specific situation is being described I still was thinking about it years before the movie you're talking about came out. If you want to pretend I learned the concept from a movie instead of from my dad, you need to pick one that was out before 1975 because I was aware of it by then. So since I've been aware of the concept for at least 37 years you need to come up with a movie about it that's over 37 years old before we can even begin to pretend what you apparently want badly to believe for some odd reason.

I shall repeat my request. Can you please start reading what I post. I am a little bored with you taking my posts and re-writing them to suit your agenda. Again, the post you replied to says:



You are immensely upset that I exposed the fact that you are trying to push movies themes as some sort of scientific theory aren't you? I am not restricting myself to two particular movies, they were simply the most obvious and recent titles and again, had you read the posts you would have seen this discussion. I have little doubt that there is the work of many science fiction authors in your musing.



I want badly to believe what? That your lifted you plot from others? Can you finish your posts if you are to respond please. I have not offered a belief in anything, I have presented facts and I have stated plain and rather obvious conversations which are referenced. Even posts. Can you prove to me that you discussed this with your father 37 years ago, or am I expected to take your word yet again? Honestly, with each post you make that request becomes a bigger ask.


Now slow down and read this entirely before you respond please. You are the cause of enough unnecessary confusion to date.

Edited by psyche101, 10 April 2012 - 01:23 AM.

[psyche101]

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 12:00 AM, said:

Again, there are vast amounts of evidence of the gods' presence here (or at least past presence). I suspect many things will be cleared up when they return.

No there is not. We have been over this too many time, Present the evidence ro stop making the claim. Evidence presented to date has been less than convincing.

[DONTEATUS]

I would have to agree with ,psyche101 and Badeskov`s we need to not just read and be told about the GOD`s but modern man must learn and actually grow from real events,physical proof,evidence with quite a bit of research put into it !
Not made up stories ! Thats what THe Bible,and Hollywood do ,give the mind an alternate belief system to sleep good at night and when the BOOGIE man comes to haunt. As for Real Science its how we got where we are today ,and where ww shall go tomorrow. If we can survive ourselfs.

[psyche101]

Quote

The deity of the Bible is a fallacy. The gods of the Hindu texts actually existed--

Myles, on 09 April 2012 - 11:42 AM, said:

There is not any proof of either.   I think there is more evidence for the bible in a piece of toast that looks like Jesus than in the Hindu texts.

Indeed Myles, this is not proof, but an example of extreme arrogance and self assuredness.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 01:25 AM, said:

No there is not. We have been over this too many time, Present the evidence ro stop making the claim. Evidence presented to date has been less than convincing.

I will.

I will have to ask that you be slightly more open-minded about this. For you to plainly say "no there is not" (despite vast amounts of existing evidence to the contrary) is quite biased and narrow.

[psyche101]

DONTEATUS, on 10 April 2012 - 01:27 AM, said:

I would have to agree with ,psyche101 and Badeskov`s we need to not just read and be told about the GOD`s but modern man must learn and actually grow from real events,physical proof,evidence with quite a bit of research put into it !
Not made up stories ! Thats what THe Bible,and Hollywood do ,give the mind an alternate belief system to sleep good at night and when the BOOGIE man comes to haunt. As for Real Science its how we got where we are today ,and where ww shall go tomorrow. If we can survive ourselfs.

Exactly mate

All this mumbo jumbo personal interpretation of a religion, or be it the Bible itself cannot trump the fossil record. After all it is a record! Just like the Red Hot Chillie Peppers make and who recorded Californication which has thos most prohetic line in it:


"Space may be the final frontier, but it's made in a Hollywood basement" -Red Hot Chilling Peppers.

[Arbitran]

psyche101, on 10 April 2012 - 01:28 AM, said:

Indeed Myles, this is not proof, but an example of extreme arrogance and self assuredness.

Is it arrogant to insist that historical, physical beings existed, as opposed to the intangible god of the Bible?

[badeskov]

Arbitran, on 10 April 2012 - 01:30 AM, said:

I will.

I will have to ask that you be slightly more open-minded about this. For you to plainly say "no there is not" (despite vast amounts of existing evidence to the contrary) is quite biased and narrow.

Psyche is very open minded, but he also has a good screen to filter out the BS. And he is correct, there is no evidence - whatsoever. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion now.

Cheers,
Badeskov

[Arbitran]

badeskov, on 10 April 2012 - 01:34 AM, said:

Psyche is very open minded, but he also has a good screen to filter out the BS. And he is correct, there is no evidence - whatsoever. Otherwise we would not be having this discussion now.

Cheers,
Badeskov

There is evidence. A massive amount of it. If anyone actually went and studied it as I have done over the past forty years perhaps this would be a more fruitful conversation. Not to be arrogant, but I should hope that after forty years my collection of evidence is fairly expansive.

All I can say of Psyche is that based on his former posts, I have seen naught but clear signs of narrow-mindedness and bias.