Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
jmccr8

Are all gods aliens?

339 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

papageorge1
56 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

You don't really believe that though I don't think.  Doesn't a decent chunk of the paranormal evidence you find convincing rely entirely on what people have actually seen and heard?  I'm pretty sure that's true, I've seen you offer readings from the papameter on purely physical things I'm sure, and this means it is then within reach of physical senses.

I'm convinced there's no 'there' there, and the only interesting thing about the reality of it is what it tells us about human perception and cognition and the meanings that some people derive from it.  Your conviction is no more compelling to me than mine is to you I'm sure, but I'm not advocating that mainstream empirical science isn't sufficient enough to convey the idea that the paranormal has been soundly disproven.  So since our mere convictions then don't mean much, when you say that "mainstream empirical science has ruled the roost for the last couple centuries" I think you left out, 'as well it should and of course makes perfect sense, since no alternative can even compete with it'.

My point was science with humility is good. Arrogant and pompous scientism is bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
3 hours ago, White Crane Feather said:

Alien... interdimentional being.... Eternal Spirit. 
 

We have been discussion this in another thread but a huge post I made vanished and I got frustrated hahaha.

If we are going to consider the existance of a single creator god  then we have to consider the nature of that god relative to us. If somehow we are children or maybe extensions of that god, then I’m not sure we can call that alien. 
 

Some assert that Their God created existence itself. How can that be? The ability for something to exist must come before something can exist. Or possibly they are co phenomenon. Existance and God being both eternal and together. Even Thomas Aquinas struggled with these thoughts on god.

Even being a catholic priest, he could not deni that god must be subject to some sort of natural order. His struggle however was  about ethics. How could god be good if good is just what god says it is. If this were the case then god could say bad is good and bad would be good. So for goodness to exist, there has to be an external back drop of which to measure. For Aquinas that was natural order. Whatever that means.

Of course philosophers eventually settled on cultural relativity as the source for Ethics. Good is good because everyone says it’s good. If everyone around you hatted you for being good, then in fact in that culture you would be relatively bad. 

Anyway tangent there hahah. 

Aquinas didn’t struggle with first cause, he made a fairly decent argument for it. 
 

 

Edited by Sherapy
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
7 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

My point was science with humility is good. Arrogant and pompous scientism is bad.

What is Science with humility? What is scientism ? For me, it is someone who doesn’t understand the-scientific process and instead projects omniscient onto it? Which isn’t uncommon for woo thinkers who do not want to do the work of critical thinking. 

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
11 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Aquinas didn’t struggle with first cause, he made a fairly decent argument for it. 
 

 

He was conflicted between the teachings of the church and the recognition that for God to have any definition, there needed to be a back drop in which God was defined. In essence something other or in a sense greater. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Just now, White Crane Feather said:

He was conflicted between the teachings of the church and the recognition that for God to have any definition, there needed to be a back drop in which God was defined. In essence something other or in a sense greater. 

Do you have a link?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
5 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Oh gese I havnt picked up those books in ages. No. That wasn’t internet learning. Good old fashion book reading. It was for a philosophy course in ethics.

I don’t know why this dumb thing won’t let me write in the normal space.

weird. 

Edited by White Crane Feather
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
13 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

What is Science with humility? 

An attitude that science has a long way to go and that there is a lot it can't explain and don't look at us for all life's understanding. It can not tell us much on spiritual subjects.

13 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

What is scientism ?

Pretty much just as my dictionary defines it: excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

13 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

For me, it is someone who doesn’t understand the-scientific process and instead projects omniscient onto it? Which isn’t uncommon for woo thinkers who do not want to do the work of critical thinking. 

woo thinkers? LOL. I see who I am dealing with. I think you vastly underestimate the so-called 'woo thinkers' I consider. They engage in critical thinking.
Edited by papageorge1
  • Like 1
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
3 minutes ago, White Crane Feather said:

 

“Aquinas did not think the finite human mind could know what God is directly, therefore God's existence is not self-evident to us.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)

Do you mean this?

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
4 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

An attitude that science has a long way to go and that there is a lot it can't explain and don't look at us for all life's understanding. It can not tell us much on spiritual subjects.

Pretty much just as my dictionary defines it: excessive belief in the power of scientific knowledge and techniques.

woo thinkers? LOL. I see who I am dealing with. I think you vastly underestimate the so-called 'woo thinkers' I consider. They engage in critical thinking.

I like your Science humility thoughts. 

Can you provide an example of a woo thinker engaging in critical thinking?

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

Can you provide an example of a woo thinker engaging in critical thinking?

The Theosophical Society

Edit: Scientific papers from the parapsychology field

Edited by papageorge1
  • Haha 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Just now, papageorge1 said:

The Theosophical Society

What is critical thinking to you?

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, Sherapy said:

What is critical thinking to you?

From Wikipedia: Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
White Crane Feather
3 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

“Aquinas did not think the finite human mind could know what God is directly, therefore God's existence is not self-evident to us.[

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Five_Ways_(Aquinas)

Do you mean this?

Yeah he thought a lot of other stuff too. His argument conflicted with standard Christianity at the time because natural law in a sense was greater than God. It has to do with ethics because logically God could not be a good or just god worthy of worship if he himself defined what good actually is. He revolutionized Catholicism this way and the argument is to this day contested by many Christians who have a need to have God at the very top. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Just now, papageorge1 said:

From Wikipedia: Critical thinking is the analysis of facts to form a judgment. 

Do you agree with this?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
Just now, Sherapy said:

Do you agree with this?

Yes, that's why it was in my reply.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
Just now, White Crane Feather said:

Yeah he thought a lot of other stuff too. His argument conflicted with standard Christianity at the time because natural law in a sense was greater than God. It has to do with ethics because logically God could not be a good or just god worthy of worship if he himself defined what good actually is. He revolutionized Catholicism this way and the argument is to this day contested by many Christians who have a need to have God at the very top. 

Thanks for your thoughts.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Nuclear Wessel
23 minutes ago, papageorge1 said:

Edit: Scientific papers from the parapsychology field

I don't think it's fair to use "scientific" in the same sentence as "parapsychology".

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
11 hours ago, Rlyeh said:

How much of that is founded in reality?

Hi Rlyeh

Likely should get a Papameter reading on that. :whistle:

jmccr8

  • Haha 7

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jmccr8
5 minutes ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

I don't think it's fair to use "scientific" in the same sentence as "parapsychology".

Hi Nuke 

There is no "r" in papapsychology:rolleyes:

jmccr8

  • Like 1
  • Haha 6

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sherapy
2 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Yes, that's why it was in my reply.

 

3 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

Yes, that's why it was in my reply.

Wonderful, can you offer a claim with evidence to show how a woo claimer does this based on facts. 

  • Like 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
papageorge1
14 minutes ago, Sherapy said:

 

Wonderful, can you offer a claim with evidence to show how a woo claimer does this based on facts. 

An analysis of a large body of claims involves critical thinking to form a judgment.

Like a jury does with eyewitness claims. That’s critical thinking.

Edited by papageorge1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Liquid Gardens
4 hours ago, papageorge1 said:

My point was science with humility is good. Arrogant and pompous scientism is bad.

But isn't this the most tangential and micro of complaints?  On a subject that if true would change everything we understand about our reality, the discovery of the supernatural, where there should be all kinds of things to discuss if the basis for your belief matched your certainty about it... you complain about personalities. 

"Scientism" has to be the most over-used term and is so incredibly weak and irrelevant in the argument for or against the supernatural, or anything, existing.  I honestly don't know who you are referring to and how you are determining they are scientismists (and again what it has to do with anything).  About the only statement that I for sure I think is 'scientism' would be something like, "if a majority of scientists say it's true, then it's true".  I don't see anyone say that though.

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 4

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
third_eye

Now we're dancing into Descartes territory... 

~

  • Like 2
  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
psyche101
8 hours ago, Nuclear Wessel said:

Seems like you're an easy target for charlatans.

"He looks a nice fellow! Why would he ever lead me down the wrong path?"

I don't think he is a target. I think he seeks targets. Attention seeking through shock value or one of the charlatans themselves in pseudo. 

  • Like 5

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
onlookerofmayhem
17 minutes ago, Liquid Gardens said:

"Scientism" has to be the most over-used term and is so incredibly weak and irrelevant in the argument for or against the supernatural, or anything, existing.

It's a loaded term that woo peddlers use to try and insult those that ask for an empirical scientific reason to believe something. 

It's like asking for a well constructed argument, evidence and/or reason is somehow proclaiming, "Science knows everything!"

99.999999% of supernatural "evidence" is "You just gotta believe me" stories and anecdotes.

Woo peddlers seem to think that science is a religion to anybody who doesn't believe supernatural claims.

I see it more as not being woefully ignorant of how science actually works and not being so extremely gullible.

 

  • Like 2
  • Thanks 3

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.