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

19 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

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

 

Because almost all guys here like for example, Cormac and Xeno, they insist that my reasoning is all wrong.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

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.

Since the following EARTH rocks have been dated your complaint of years vs light-years is moot. 
 

Quote

The oldest-known rocks on Earth are the Acasta Gneiss Complex near Great Slave Lake in Canada’s Northwest Territories. Scientists have dated these rocks using uranium-lead isotopes at 4.03 billion years (Stern and Bleeker 1998). Also, scientists recently (2001) reported 4.0–4.4 billion year old detrital zircons in sediments at Mt. Narryer and the Jack Hills in Western Australia (Nutman 2001), which suggests the erosion of granite-like crust older than the oldest known preserved crust (Cooper 1986). Thus, we can be confident that the minimum age for the Earth exceeds 4 billion years by examining Earth materials.

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/age-of-the-earth.htm

Nope, I thought they were hilarious. 
 

Pettersson’s results “prove” he didn’t know as much as he thought he did. 
 

cormac

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

Since the following EARTH rocks have been dated your complaint of years vs light-years is moot. 
 

https://www.nps.gov/subjects/geology/age-of-the-earth.htm

Nope, I thought they were hilarious. 
 

Pettersson’s results “prove” he didn’t know as much as he thought he did. 
 

cormac

THERE YOU GO AGAIN MISSING THE ****ING POINT! Let me just quote you:

18 minutes ago, cormac mac airt said:

The oldest-known rocks on Earth are the Acasta Gneiss Complex near Great Slave Lake in Canada’s Northwest Territories. Scientists have dated these rocks using uranium-lead isotopes at 4.03 billion years (Stern and Bleeker 1998). Also, scientists recently (2001) reported 4.0–4.4 billion year old detrital zircons in sediments at Mt. Narryer and the Jack Hills in Western Australia (Nutman 2001), which suggests the erosion of granite-like crust older than the oldest known preserved crust (Cooper 1986). Thus, we can be confident that the minimum age for the Earth exceeds 4 billion years by examining Earth materials.

"Uranium-lead isotopes" AGAIN, radiometric dating is BALONEY! Radioisotopes carry photonic energy. That is RADIATION (see that Thorium-229 clock I was talking about previously). I was talking about geological dating, not radiometric. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Timothy said:

@InvestigativeThinkerI hope you know that a light-year is a unit of length. Not time.

Hopefully that’s what you were getting at…

see

48 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

Lightyears is how you'd measure objects in space (see Newton's Laws of Motion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

see

In context, it appears as though you thought it was a unit of time.

53 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

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.

*snip*

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think getting into a discussion about ghost hunting tech is a great idea.  Do you have any idea how many shows on television deal with ghost hunting, or using spirit boxes to communicate with the spirits?  It’s a huge thing.  That means people want to know.  And, frankly, I do too.  I want to know if ghosts are real.  These frequencies, and the techniques they are using, I would like to hear a knowledgeable and skillful practitioner give a complete breakdown on that because I admit that I am ignorant of that information.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

THERE YOU GO AGAIN MISSING THE ****ING POINT! Let me just quote you:

"Uranium-lead isotopes" AGAIN, radiometric dating is BALONEY! Radioisotopes carry photonic energy. That is RADIATION (see that Thorium-229 clock I was talking about previously). I was talking about geological dating, not radiometric. 

So far you haven’t shown that, all you’ve done is tossed out a word-salad hypothesis that means absolutely nothing. 
 

cormac

  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
12 minutes ago, Guyver said:

I think getting into a discussion about ghost hunting tech is a great idea.  Do you have any idea how many shows on television deal with ghost hunting, or using spirit boxes to communicate with the spirits?  It’s a huge thing.  That means people want to know.  And, frankly, I do too.  I want to know if ghosts are real.  These frequencies, and the techniques they are using, I would like to hear a knowledgeable and skillful practitioner give a complete breakdown on that because I admit that I am ignorant of that information.

Well, it's not that hard really. Quanta = light. Light = life. These are unstable life forms that aren't really... "Life forms". Humans technically consist of both (electrons, which are fermions, and photons, which are bosons). This is some kind of quantized state of being that violates the laws of thermodynamics (namely, the first and the second). That would probably be overlysimplifying it, but you get the point. Point is: they're a ****ing mystery to accredited scientists.

Edited by InvestigativeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
36 minutes ago, Timothy said:

In context, it appears as though you thought it was a unit of time.

Well, I mean scientists most certainly seem to think that's true. 

45 minutes ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

The oldest-known rocks on Earth are the Acasta Gneiss Complex near Great Slave Lake in Canada’s Northwest Territories. Scientists have dated these rocks using uranium-lead isotopes at 4.03 billion years (Stern and Bleeker 1998). Also, scientists recently (2001) reported 4.0–4.4 billion year old detrital zircons in sediments at Mt. Narryer and the Jack Hills in Western Australia (Nutman 2001), which suggests the erosion of granite-like crust older than the oldest known preserved crust (Cooper 1986). Thus, we can be confident that the minimum age for the Earth exceeds 4 billion years by examining Earth materials.

Note that with radiometric dating, you are mixing light (radiation) with mass, which is basically a QUANTIZED ELECTROMAGNETIC FIELD! That's why they can't get a consistent number ("Scientists have dated these rocks using uranium-lead isotopes at 4.03 billion years [...] Also, scientists recently (2001) reported 4.0–4.4 billion year old detrital zircons in sediments at Mt. Narryer and the Jack Hills in Western Australia"). 

The fourth dimension (space time) accounts for years to us. But they don't explain the age of the Earth itself. Plus it's notoriously inaccurate (I knew somebody who had a tree petrified by lightning and had it carbon tested and it said 10,000 years old when it was only 50).

Edited by InvestigativeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, oslove said:

 

Because almost all guys here like for example, Cormac and Xeno, they insist that my reasoning is all wrong.

Hi Oslove

You don’t show your reasoning process, you pose a question why and a conclusion without show how you got from A to C.

All I can conclude is there is nothing given that shows a reasoning process to question at this time

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

Well, I mean scientists most certainly seem to think that's true. 

*snip*

We’ll go on then, spit it out. Don’t be shy.

Whatever you’re alluding to…

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

Well, it's not that hard really. Quanta = light. Light = life. These are unstable life forms that aren't really... "Life forms". Humans technically consist of both (electrons, which are fermions, and photons, which are bosons). This is some kind of quantized state of being that violates the laws of thermodynamics (namely, the first and the second). That would probably be overlysimplifying it, but you get the point. Point is: they're a ****ing mystery to accredited scientists.

But, we actually are life forms because we experience life.  So….anyway.  If you would like to know if you are a lifeform or not, consider this.  All you have to do is stop eating food and drinking water for a few days, and then you will be dead.  After you are dead, you will be a lifeform that was once living, but is now no longer living.  

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As an aside to the above, are you aware that if exposed to extreme heat suddenly, a persons brain can be turned into exploded shards of glass?  I’m just saying.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
14 hours ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

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).

There's no choice here.

That is, you can't take a chunk of reality to your lab, tear it apart, and put it back together in different ways to determine what it is.

String theory is promising in that it can combine previous theories into one theory.

Those previous theories are legit. Relativity and Quantum theory.

Both of those provide testable predictions. The predictions made have been confirmed. But those two theories are mutually exclusive.

String Theory does NOT "try to justify" the Big Bang. The Big Bang arises from Relativity, and String Theory tries to attach Quantum Theory to the concept.

The idea is to use String Theory to interpret the Big Bang in a way that will lead to predictions exclusive to String Theory that might then be tested. That's the problem with String Theory currently - it can't be tested.

Quote

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. 

Are you saying that Michelson-Morely didn't involve an observed phenomenon? Or that previous theories didn't involve observed phenomena?
As measurement technology is further and further refined (as Michelson's device represents,) we are able to observe more and more phenomena that were previously not observable. This leads to refinements to current theories, and sometimes puts previous theories in the dustbin - as Michelson-Morely did to the "Aether."

Harte

Edited by Harte
  • Like 6
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Dear Cormac, I like you and me to talk about my proof of God:

 

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.

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, Harte said:

Are you saying that Michelson-Morely didn't involve an observed phenomenon? Or that previous theories didn't involve observed phenomena?
As measurement technology is further and further refined (as Michelson's device represents,) we are able to observe more and more phenomena that were previously not observable. This leads to refinements to current theories, and sometimes puts previous theories in the dustbin - as Michelson-Morely did to the "Aether."

Again, you keep making these weird strawman claims I never made, which, if anything, only confirms my claims even further. During Einstein's time, the Earth spinning wasn't really an "observable phenomena" per se (which is why it was hard for even him to understand and utilized a team of scientists to derive his results, see Hertz and Maxwell - they weren't popular with other scientists at the time because a lot of it was OVERDETERMINATE). Michelson & Morley failed to confirm it. So he had to use calculations and data. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)

But as for an endcap on time and age of the Earth, my prediction is that there is actually a lot more fine dust accumulation on the Moon's surface, but Pettersson's calculations were off because of the technology of the time not being up-to-date. In order to make this "Earth clcok" more accurate, you would need a modified accumulator that represents the dust on the Moon's surface, and that would involve some calculations of my own using SI values and natural unit property equations to derive those values because back in Pettersson's days (1950s), slide rules were still a thing. Let's stick with the 9,998 year old (as of 2022) figure just for the sake of argument. That would imply a lot more than just a 35-feet layer of dust on the Moon's surface. But unfortunately, I would have to not only do the calculations to equal out the distances, I would also have to use the scientific method to get those results (ie experimentation) using more modernized (or even custom) measurement tools to achieve these results, I would also need to make this "clock" work just to see how it would work in terms of my calculations and match it up with realtime and then to confirm it, I would need to compare different interferometer imagery of the Moon from the Earth's surface and make my own estimates, and that would take some time. But the reason I choose Pettersson is for two main reasons:

1.) There are so many different methods used to determine Earth age, but all of them yield different results for the most part, so only one can really be true (radioisotopic dating is used today by scientists either out of laziness of doing all the calculations or because they have an agenda).

2.) Nickel is a lot more common in space rock than sedimentary rock, so this is harder to "mix up". 

Edited by InvestigativeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
4 hours ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

But as for an endcap on time and age of the Earth, my prediction is that there is actually a lot more fine dust accumulation on the Moon's surface, but Pettersson's calculations were off because of the technology of the time not being up-to-date. In order to make this "Earth clcok" more accurate, you would need a modified accumulator that represents the dust on the Moon's surface, and that would involve some calculations of my own using SI values and natural unit property equations to derive those values because back in Pettersson's days (1950s), slide rules were still a thing. Let's stick with the 9,998 year old (as of 2022) figure just for the sake of argument. That would imply a lot more than just a 35-feet layer of dust on the Moon's surface. But unfortunately, I would have to not only do the calculations to equal out the distances, I would also have to use the scientific method to get those results (ie experimentation) using more modernized (or even custom) measurement tools to achieve these results, I would also need to make this "clock" work just to see how it would work in terms of my calculations and match it up with realtime and then to confirm it, I would need to compare different interferometer imagery of the Moon from the Earth's surface and make my own estimates, and that would take some time. But the reason I choose Pettersson is for two main reasons:

1.) There are so many different methods used to determine Earth age, but all of them yield different results for the most part, so only one can really be true (radioisotopic dating is used today by scientists either out of laziness of doing all the calculations or because they have an agenda).

2.) Nickel is a lot more common in space rock than sedimentary rock, so this is harder to "mix up". 

Btw, this "clock" I'm talking about is a simple clepsydra oscillator/accumulator powered clock crossed with a geologic clock that makes precise measurements accordingly to the amount of time the Earth has existed, but it is in sync with normal time. It goes back to 7976 8th millennium BC (9,998 years before 2022 AD in standard time) and the timeline outlined on the clock face is modified. 

Clepsydra.thumb.jpg.4fd72e771d5f7fa1d95a169ce5361fa5.jpg

And this for the actual clock (modified though).

geologic_time_large_clock-rccce782146b14a2eb91d3b4884a22a9d_fup13_8byvr_704.webp.9367e88fcf56c4680ac166c6a7f95187.webp

In other words, it would have a regular clock mechanism but it would run sort of like a geologic clock, but the hands would be set differently for a much shorter time frame to represent each period presented on the clock face.

Edited by InvestigativeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 hours ago, jmccr8 said:

Hi Oslove

You don’t show your reasoning process, you pose a question why and a conclusion without show how you got from A to C.

All I can conclude is there is nothing given that shows a reasoning process to question at this time

 

Dear Jmc, that is very good, you have an interest in my proof, here it is again, see below.

 

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.

 

So, let us start with No. 1, what is wrong with it?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, oslove said:

Dear Jmc, that is very good, you have an interest in my proof, here it is again, see below.

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.

 

So, let us start with No. 1, what is wrong with it?

2:  is only partly true as 2a is unevidenced. One can’t, or shouldn’t, assume the conclusion ahead of any facts. You however DO. That’s not science that’s fiction. 
 

3:  b DOES NOT implicate a, the only thing it implies is that ALL THINGS in our universe exist for a relatively brief time. It has no bearing whatsoever on what “might” have come “before” our universe. 
 

Once again you’ve “proven” absolutely nothing. 
 

cormac

  • Thanks 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, InvestigativeThinker said:

Again, you keep making these weird strawman claims I never made, which, if anything, only confirms my claims even further. During Einstein's time, the Earth spinning wasn't really an "observable phenomena" per se (which is why it was hard for even him to understand and utilized a team of scientists to derive his results, see Hertz and Maxwell - they weren't popular with other scientists at the time because a lot of it was OVERDETERMINATE). Michelson & Morley failed to confirm it. So he had to use calculations and data. 

I made NO strawman claim

How is a person to interpret this statement by you?

Quote

Another thing: not all of it is observed phenomena. See the Michelson & Morley experiment that gave us the E = mcx2 equation (Einstein)

My emphasis.
Regarding whether Michelson-Morely "failed to confirm," let me ask you - confirm what?
I mean, obviously I can't trust the words you write to convey the meaning you have in mind (see above example.)

Harte

  • Like 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

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

Proof of God (Gnosticism = Knowledge is Power)


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

 . . . . . .

As for more details:Theism = blind faith
Pantheism = God is the universe
Panentheism = God interacts with the universe
Deism = some weird philosophical concept of a God. 

 . . . . . .

 

Dear Invest, that is some most thorough exposition on your proof for God existing.

Suppose you and I, we go together to my concise proof for God existing, see below. 

 

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.

 

Take No. 1 Existence is the default status of reality.

Is or isn't that beyond impugnation?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
16 minutes ago, Harte said:

I made NO strawman claim

How is a person to interpret this statement by you?

My emphasis.
Regarding whether Michelson-Morely "failed to confirm," let me ask you - confirm what?
I mean, obviously I can't trust the words you write to convey the meaning you have in mind (see above example.)

Harte

How the Earth turned and orbited. Literally. ****ing gravity, dude. What do you think "general/special relativity" is?

The aether hypothesis was the topic of considerable debate throughout its history, as it required the existence of an invisible and infinite material with no interaction with physical objects. As the nature of light was explored, especially in the 19th century, the physical qualities required of an aether became increasingly contradictory. By the late 1800s, the existence of the aether was being questioned, although there was no physical theory to replace it.

The negative outcome of the Michelson–Morley experiment (1887) suggested that the aether did not exist, a finding that was confirmed in subsequent experiments through the 1920s. This led to considerable theoretical work to explain the propagation of light without an aether. A major breakthrough was the theory of relativity, which could explain why the experiment failed to see aether, but was more broadly interpreted to suggest that it was not needed. The Michelson-Morley experiment, along with the blackbody radiator and photoelectric effect, was a key experiment in the development of modern physics, which includes both relativity and quantum theory, the latter of which explains the particle-like nature of light.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Luminiferous_aether

Edited by InvestigativeThinker
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, cormac mac airt said:

2:  is only partly true as 2a is unevidenced. One can’t, or shouldn’t, assume the conclusion ahead of any facts. You however DO. That’s not science that’s fiction. 
 

3:  b DOES NOT implicate a, the only thing it implies is that ALL THINGS in our universe exist for a relatively brief time. It has no bearing whatsoever on what “might” have come “before” our universe. 
 

Once again you’ve “proven” absolutely nothing. 
 

cormac

 

Thanks, dear Cormac, now what about you expound on whatever you have for your position on God, okay?

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.