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 -

Proof of God (Gnosticism = Knowledge is Power)


InvestigativeThinker
 Share

Recommended Posts

11 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You've made all the mistakes.

Well, that's your own beliefs, since what you accept as reality is only your perception also. So again, trying to enforce your beliefs on others like a true religious fundie here. Just one that wears a lab coat. 

12 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Just like hundreds of others over the centuries. Taking old ideas and repainting them as something new. Even if they got everything wrong. 

Well that kinda demonstrates my point there, doesn't it? I'm trying to combine ideas to derive a full given value. I am not the one to get trapped up in ideology unlike you. I don't submit to anything because if you're a slave to ideology, doesn't matter how "correct" it is (or may seem), you're still a slave.

13 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

Dime a dozen. You've expressed incorrect ideas and notions while also rejecting correction. Seen it all before.

Again, you're not being specific. So I guess I have nothing to address then.

14 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

It's much further than that. We as a species have be working science since we've been what we are now. Religious thought is nothing new either. Ideas evolve, change, get renewed. It's pretty much just recycling

You really don't understand history, do you?

14 minutes ago, XenoFish said:

You're really not.

Well that's the truth for you also? Isn't it? You're just regurgitating Darwin's ideas and accepting them as your own even if you never did the experiments or calculations yourself. You just somehow "know it's true" because everybody says it is, eh?

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 hours ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

I never said that, I said this:

I was referring to these photon-denying "scientists" who believe that since you're quantizing the electromagnetic field and science hasn't fully explained the phenomenon yet, that must make it fake. That's literally all I said.

"Current science doesn't even explain what the **** a "photon" even is; many scientists even doubt they exist."

Science doesn't explain what things "are." 
Science creates models to explain observed phenomena.

A photon is one of those models.

Harte

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 6/21/2022 at 6:11 AM, InvestigativeThinker said:

Unlike Atheism, Gnosticism actually explains metaphysics - something we can physically observe.

[ . . . . ]

 

Tell me what you know about metaphysics - in regard to "something we can physically observe."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, oslove said:

 

Tell me what you know about metaphysics - in regard to "something we can physically observe."

Good question, because there's many. Here are a few examples:

bghst.jpg.99433ae7fe5bfe09154ec6443d185fe1.jpg

meditate.thumb.jpg.cf73842b9635075d87ee42f2c67787e7.jpg

images.jpeg.1eded434a48d1ba5103f48cb417dc460.jpeg

istockphoto-1010036252-612x612.jpg.c2bca750f5291d286fe702e6d6d9db87.jpg

F4.large.thumb.jpg.20c2bd300776421a9bb1586e48b7d143.jpg

130409141844-brain-scan-afterlife-crop.jpg.52174d5a6048578d1b7245cc764bf8f2.jpg

medit2_custom-262615aa650a5c9f3c050ecccb7f9dbe3fb2337c-s1100-c50.jpeg.7646d611a7c85c5fceb0bf15a87e0cf9.jpeg

1_Rvrt8UERcbEpSg0xYrRzdQ.thumb.jpeg.20963951b9117575c0b7ba1994023ed7.jpeg

Edited by InvestigativeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, Harte said:

"Current science doesn't even explain what the **** a "photon" even is; many scientists even doubt they exist."

Science doesn't explain what things "are." 
Science creates models to explain observed phenomena.

A photon is one of those models.

Harte

That is most certainly true. However theories to explain things that are more difficult that could also explain observable (and known) phenomena exist also. Revert back to string theory scientists are trying to use to justify that "big bang". Really, this is nothing new or unheard of. You have to connect the dots to fill in the blanks, even if it involves using only your head to make conclusions, that's how probability works. It's CALCULATIONS and THEORY! That other dude apparently doesnt even know what a "planed existence" means, he thinks there is only one. So yeah, not too good on the Quantum field of science and still wants to be pretentious about it (guy with the "Rick and Morty" avatar LoL).

Another thing: not all of it is observed phenomena. See the Michelson & Morley experiment that gave us the E = mcx2 equation (Einstein) when all experiments at the time were proven wrong. 

Edited by InvestigativeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Say what you wish about me. You're still recycling old ideas that'll amount to nothing more than your own ego inflation.

Round peg, square hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

In all honesty though, I'm actually not a Christian. I'm also not somebody who even believes this "Jesus" you speak of ever existed.

Hi IT

Seems odd 

4 hours ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

And whoever does it'll only happen within the end of days. 

Why use a Christian construct if you are not Christian?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
8 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi IT

Seems odd 

Why use a Christian construct if you are not Christian?

I believe in the Bible, but not the bull**** interpretations and literalism of it. I can only come to my own conclusions, not somebody else's. I believe in the Bible in that I try to solve the puzzle and use elocution to explain certain verses, but I don't believe in Jesus. Kinda like Judaism and OT-onlyists.

Edited by InvestigativeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

I believe in the Bible, but not the bull**** interpretations and literalism of it. I can only come to my own conclusions, not somebody else's. I believe in the Bible in that I try to solve the puzzle and use elocution to explain certain verses, but I don't believe in Jesus. Kinda like Judaism and OT-onlyists.

Hi IT

Then you are using the bible as a baseline for your religious revelations then. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

44 minutes ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi IT

Then you are using the bible as a baseline for your religious revelations then. 

My source and authority on the age of the Earth is Hans Pettersson. Every other Creationist seems to find Ussher's work more attractive, but then again I'm no Bible literalist.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/moon/moon-dust-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system/

Note that the above link goes into full detail about Pettersson's discoveries that revealed the Earth to be less than 10,000 years old (which p***ed off the scientific establishment even though many agreed), however the website claims he was "debunked" after the Apollo mission, which I have my own personal conspiracy theories regarding, but that's a different subject altogether. But to give you a hint, it happened at a time when America was entering a technological and scientific arms race with the Soviet Union and I personally think it was this dude they even staged the "Moon landing" for in the first place. NASA are liars and you can disprove the moon landing by simply taking said photo of Earth in the background from the Moon surface in the Apollo mission, dropping the saturation and the levels down, and you'll see how it was pasted in. See also "Sex" pasted in the clouds from NASA on Earth, photoshopped Earth pictures from space and so on that NASA releases. Also see why we never returned to the Moon - it's because we never went there to begin with. Why? The ****ing dust. That's why. You would "disappear" into it, if you will.

  • Haha 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

My source and authority on the age of the Earth is Hans Pettersson. Every other Creationist seems to find Ussher's work more attractive, but then again I'm no Bible literalist.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/moon/moon-dust-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system/

Note that the above link goes into full detail about Pettersson's discoveries that revealed the Earth to be less than 10,000 years old (which p***ed off the scientific establishment even though many agreed), however the website claims he was "debunked" after the Apollo mission, which I have my own personal conspiracy theories regarding, but that's a different subject altogether. But to give you a hint, it happened at a time when America was entering a technological and scientific arms race with the Soviet Union and I personally think it was this dude they even staged the "Moon landing" for in the first place. NASA are liars and you can disprove the moon landing by simply taking said photo of Earth in the background from the Moon surface in the Apollo mission, dropping the saturation and the levels down, and you'll see how it was pasted in. See also "Sex" pasted in the clouds from NASA on Earth, photoshopped Earth pictures from space and so on that NASA releases. Also see why we never returned to the Moon - it's because we never went there to begin with. Why? The ****ing dust. That's why. You would "disappear" into it, if you will.

Hi IT

Thanks for the clarification.:tu:

I am not a creationist and have spent some time in the last decade learning about a great many aspects of human evolution for which we have credible evidence that supports how long we have been here as a species and what we have achieved to both our credit or detriment. Our understanding of our past will always evolve as new data and discoveries are made.

Religious and god constructs can be anything you want in your life if you need one, I don't because I have a different perspective on life.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

My source and authority on the age of the Earth is Hans Pettersson. Every other Creationist seems to find Ussher's work more attractive, but then again I'm no Bible literalist.

https://answersingenesis.org/astronomy/moon/moon-dust-and-the-age-of-the-solar-system/

Your argument has a MAJOR problem. 
 

https://answersingenesis.org/kids/astronomy/moon-dust-argument-no-longer-useful/

cormac

 

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Again, you're not even listening to my claims. The "low dust" idea CAME from the Creationists who thought the fact the "landing" happening proved "their" idea. Which even then, that wasn't even their idea since they're dumbasses.

Now, any such calculations must be based on data. In this case, the creationist's data source is a 1960 Scientific American article by H. Pettersson. Working before we had actual space dust measurements from satellites, Pettersson measured atmospheric dust filtered from the air atop Mauna Loa in Hawaii and then attempted to estimate how much of that dust came from space. He knew that only a tiny fraction of the dust he collected came from space. To estimate how much meteoritic dust there was, Pettersson used the fact that nickel is much rarer in terrestrial dust than in meteorites. He made reasonable assumptions that meteorites averaged about 2.5% nickel and that all the nickel in his dust samples came from meteors. Then he simply weighed the nickel in his samples and divided by .025 to get the total weight of space dust in the volume of air that passed through his filters. With an uncertain assumption about how fast dust settled out of the atmosphere, Pettersson figured that 14 million tons of space dust settled on earth each year. Because this figure was much higher than estimates based on other data, Pettersson said five million tons per year was plausible. Like any reputable scientist, he presented his assumptions and warned that unknowns made his estimate very speculative.

 

- page 23 -

 

Astrophysicists were aware of Pettersson's estimate and there was some speculation that space craft sent to the moon might sink into a thick layer of fine dust. None were terribly surprised when that did not happen. Nevertheless, creationists took Pettersson's 14 million ton estimate as fact, plugged it into their equations and "proved" that the cosmos was less than 10,000 years old. Kofahl and Segraves (p. 146) even stated that astronomers were dismayed because the moon did not have the expected thick dust layer and that "there is a noticeable silence on this matter in current discussions of moon data." A similar comment appears in Scientific Creationism (p. 152). Now we have another standard creationist charge; that evolutionists and their allies suppress evidence unfavorable to evolution. The facts tell a different story.

Astrophysicists are vitally interested in cosmic dust calculations because micrometeorites are potentially hazardous to satellites and other space craft. Therefore, Pettersson's method for determining cosmic dust abundance in the earth's vicinity is only one of many different indirect methods being used. 

https://ncse.ngo/space-dust-moons-surface-and-age-cosmos

 

Pettersson's argument was that they would fall through. Read again.

Edited by InvestigativeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

Again, you're not even listening to my claims. The "low dust" idea CAME from the Creationists who thought the fact the "landing" happening proved "their" idea. Which even then, that wasn't even their idea since they're dumbasses.

Now, any such calculations must be based on data. In this case, the creationist's data source is a 1960 Scientific American article by H. Pettersson. Working before we had actual space dust measurements from satellites, Pettersson measured atmospheric dust filtered from the air atop Mauna Loa in Hawaii and then attempted to estimate how much of that dust came from space. He knew that only a tiny fraction of the dust he collected came from space. To estimate how much meteoritic dust there was, Pettersson used the fact that nickel is much rarer in terrestrial dust than in meteorites. He made reasonable assumptions that meteorites averaged about 2.5% nickel and that all the nickel in his dust samples came from meteors. Then he simply weighed the nickel in his samples and divided by .025 to get the total weight of space dust in the volume of air that passed through his filters. With an uncertain assumption about how fast dust settled out of the atmosphere, Pettersson figured that 14 million tons of space dust settled on earth each year. Because this figure was much higher than estimates based on other data, Pettersson said five million tons per year was plausible. Like any reputable scientist, he presented his assumptions and warned that unknowns made his estimate very speculative.

 

- page 23 -

 

Astrophysicists were aware of Pettersson's estimate and there was some speculation that space craft sent to the moon might sink into a thick layer of fine dust. None were terribly surprised when that did not happen. Nevertheless, creationists took Pettersson's 14 million ton estimate as fact, plugged it into their equations and "proved" that the cosmos was less than 10,000 years old. Kofahl and Segraves (p. 146) even stated that astronomers were dismayed because the moon did not have the expected thick dust layer and that "there is a noticeable silence on this matter in current discussions of moon data." A similar comment appears in Scientific Creationism (p. 152). Now we have another standard creationist charge; that evolutionists and their allies suppress evidence unfavorable to evolution. The facts tell a different story.

Astrophysicists are vitally interested in cosmic dust calculations because micrometeorites are potentially hazardous to satellites and other space craft. Therefore, Pettersson's method for determining cosmic dust abundance in the earth's vicinity is only one of many different indirect methods being used. 

https://ncse.ngo/space-dust-moons-surface-and-age-cosmos

 

Pettersson's argument was that they would fall through. Read again.

I see you throw crap against the wall to see what sticks. So far it’s not looking good for you. Also, you DID say:

Quote

My source and authority on the age of the Earth is Hans Pettersson.

Which means your source is worthless. 
 

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
1 hour ago, cormac mac airt said:

I see you throw crap against the wall to see what sticks. So far it’s not looking good for you. Also, you DID say:

Which means your source is worthless. 
 

cormac

Okay, let me make this clear as day:

*Soon after discovery, creationists made a geologic clock that supposedly supported a young Earth. 

*Pettersson's initial claim was that there was anywhere between 5 - 14 million tons of dust on the Moon using samples he analyzed.

*the bull**** moon landing happens and those calculations were based off of phony science as a result that Creationists were basically saying before they did (explained below).

The part these creationists are getting wrong is that the moon having little dust wouldn't actually prove a "young Earth" whatsoever. If Pettersson’s calculations were correct, then the moon should be covered in 35 feet of space dust. Here's another article that basically explains it:

"Pettersson was aware his ground-based instrument measured not only infalling space dust but also atmospheric material generated by wind erosion and volcanic eruptions. Fortunately, a decade after Pettersson published his estimates, scientists made direct satellite measurements of cosmic dust inflow. Instead of a 5-million-ton annual accumulation on Earth, only 23,000 tons were indicated (1,700 tons per year for the Moon).2 This result was known before the Apollo 11 mission. NASA, therefore, was not at all concerned about the lunar lander disappearing in dust."

"Again, if Pettersson’s measurements were accurate, this would imply a lunar age of only millions of years. Some young-earth creationist leaders attempted to lower the Moon’s age even further—down to 10,000 years—by exploiting the large errors and uncertainties in Pettersson’s results to skew the numbers toward as youthful a lunar age as possible."

"The most accurate measurements of micrometeorite influx to date were performed in 1993 and showed 40,000 tons annual accumulation for Earth (3,000 for the Moon).3This quantity translates into an average of 1.2 inches of dust on a Moon that’s 4.5 billion years old."

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/q-a-does-the-moon-s-shallow-dust-layer-support-a-young-earth-model

The part they [and by "they" I mean the Creationists] were right about was predicting the age, but their conclusions were completely false. They're literally the same conclusions the scientists were stating in that the Moon had much smaller quantities of dust. I swear, a lot of these people calling themselves "Young Earth Creationists" are actually Atheists trying to infiltrate and derail any proof of God (see Kent Hovind and his son). 

Also, "Instead of a 5-million-ton annual accumulation on Earth, only 23,000 tons were indicated (1,700 tons per year for the Moon).2 This result was known before the Apollo 11 mission" - how the **** would they know this if they didn't have the technology yet to do the accurate calculations?

Edited by InvestigativeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

Okay, let me make this clear as day:

*Soon after discovery, creationists made a geologic clock that supposedly supported a young Earth. 

*Pettersson's initial claim was that there was anywhere between 5 - 14 million tons of dust on the Moon using samples he analyzed.

*the bull**** moon landing happens and those calculations were based off of phony science as a result that Creationists were basically saying before they did (explained below).

The part these creationists are getting wrong is that the moon having little dust wouldn't actually prove a "young Earth" whatsoever. If Pettersson’s calculations were correct, then the moon should be covered in 35 feet of space dust. Here's another article that basically explains it:

"Pettersson was aware his ground-based instrument measured not only infalling space dust but also atmospheric material generated by wind erosion and volcanic eruptions. Fortunately, a decade after Pettersson published his estimates, scientists made direct satellite measurements of cosmic dust inflow. Instead of a 5-million-ton annual accumulation on Earth, only 23,000 tons were indicated (1,700 tons per year for the Moon).2 This result was known before the Apollo 11 mission. NASA, therefore, was not at all concerned about the lunar lander disappearing in dust."

"Again, if Pettersson’s measurements were accurate, this would imply a lunar age of only millions of years. Some young-earth creationist leaders attempted to lower the Moon’s age even further—down to 10,000 years—by exploiting the large errors and uncertainties in Pettersson’s results to skew the numbers toward as youthful a lunar age as possible."

"The most accurate measurements of micrometeorite influx to date were performed in 1993 and showed 40,000 tons annual accumulation for Earth (3,000 for the Moon).3This quantity translates into an average of 1.2 inches of dust on a Moon that’s 4.5 billion years old."

https://reasons.org/explore/publications/articles/q-a-does-the-moon-s-shallow-dust-layer-support-a-young-earth-model

The part they [and by "they" I mean the Creationists] were right about was predicting the age, but their conclusions were completely false. They're literally the same conclusions the scientists were stating in that the Moon had much smaller quantities of dust. I swear, a lot of these people calling themselves "Young Earth Creationists" are actually Atheists trying to infiltrate and derail any proof of God (see Kent Hovind and his son). 

Doesn’t matter, YOU presented Pettersson as an authority. He’s an authority of absolutely NOTHING concerning the Earth’s age. THAT’S the point. 
 

cormac

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Investigative Thinker, up to now you have not responded to my invitation to examine my reasoning, on how to prove that God exists, see my post below:

 

oslove
Posted 8 hours ago  #100 

Dear Invest, I am so glad to meet you here, and you are a new member, with a lot of thoughts in your mind.

What do you think about this reasoning from me, on how to prove that God exists:

1. Existence is the default status of reality.

2. There are ultimately two kinds of reality:

a. permanent self-existent reality

b. transient reality

3. The fact is that b. implicates the existence of a.

Wherefore: God exists as the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.

 

There, what do you say about my proof for God's existence?

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

...and thus, he saw the light 

Quote

NUNr.gif

~

 

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 minutes ago, oslove said:

There, what do you say about my proof for God's existence?

It's a family forum.

  • Haha 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Doesn’t matter, YOU presented Pettersson as an authority. He’s an authority of absolutely NOTHING concerning the Earth’s age. THAT’S the point. 
 

cormac

Okay, this might sound like a Captain Obvious statement to make, but you don't measure Earth time IN ****ING SPACE TIME! There are two different "times" here: years and lightyears. Lightyears is how you'd measure objects in space (see Newton's Laws of Motion), but not actual planes. You paid zero attention to the other claims I made in this thread. I claimed there were 64 dimensions and that each dimension had a given property. So there's 3rd dimensional time, and then there's 4th dimensional spacetime. So the only accurate way of measuring time on Earth would be NATURALLY. If they simply corrected their clock by providing the right measurements and calculations, they wouldn't have gotten so easily "debunked" by NASA's bull****. Nobody measures time in lightyears. 

Also, Pettersson's results, if anything, proves that the moon landing wouldn't be possible due to all the dust.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, oslove said:

Dear Investigative Thinker, up to now you have not responded to my invitation to examine my reasoning, on how to prove that God exists, see my post below:

 

oslove
Posted 8 hours ago  #100 

Dear Invest, I am so glad to meet you here, and you are a new member, with a lot of thoughts in your mind.

What do you think about this reasoning from me, on how to prove that God exists:

1. Existence is the default status of reality.

2. There are ultimately two kinds of reality:

a. permanent self-existent reality

b. transient reality

3. The fact is that b. implicates the existence of a.

Wherefore: God exists as the permanent self-existent creator and operator of man and the universe and everything transient.

 

There, what do you say about my proof for God's existence?

I think it's pretty solid, but why is this important?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.