Scotty99

Strange i have tried to remain as transparent here as i can, but you still think i am on some religious crusade lol. As i mentioned a couple of times in this thread, my idea of a creator is one in that you dont have to take faith into the equation, everyone knew there was a creator based on something substantial they experienced at the time. I think that alone is explanation enough as to why you can trust me when i say this thread has nothing to do with religion, if everyone knows a creator exists the negatives we attribute to current religions mostly fall away in a scenario i describe above.

Ill concede for sure that just because relativity states the earth can be the center that does not necessarily mean we are. Its just really hard to get away from the fact that it is possible, especially when i take into account some of the other things ive brought up in this thread.

I understand you two mostly disagree with how i am getting to these conclusions and that is fair. But you also have to understand that i have made a conscious decision to think in a different way than what is an accepted approach to problem solving. You are absolutely correct in assuming some of this is gut feeling, i think ignoring that entirely would be a poor decision, luckily i feel ive a good gut. To me being right matters, not how you get there. I think that is the main difference between me and you two.

Hopefully the thread can continue but i am not so sure, it seems to me just thinking in a different way than the norm is a big no no around here. To be honest i was hoping to get more spit balling from other people on what they feel to be the truth, but i think the culture around here discourages that, which seems a bit of a shame. A hypothetical if you will, say tomorrow we found evidence that everything i predicted in this thread was true. Would you guys care at all that i predicted the truth, would i get praise for being right? Or am i simply just odd for thinking that the truth matters and not how you get there?

Like i said above maybe my interpretation leaves something to be desired, check my example i put.

But what i am more trying to get across, in trying to make you guys understand how my brain works is this. In a theory that is over 100 years old that we are still using, that theory says that it is POSSIBLE for the earth to be in the center (remember, all are valid frames in relativity) how can i let go of the idea of geocentrism when i am fairly certain that we also have a creator? Leave robert sungenis, the bible, everything that you would imagine a religious fanatic would say out of this, just please focus on relativity here.

Again not trying to make this about geocentrism, more trying to show where i am coming from so you guys can understand me a bit clearer.

The things you pick and choose out of my posts strange lol. I thought i have made it fairly clear i have no agenda here, nor have i ever followed any religion but you are still accusing me of such things. What personal beliefs do i have? I dont understand what that means. And occams razor absolutely makes sense in regards to geocentrism, when i think of occams razor this is what stands out to me:

The razor's statement that "other things being equal, simpler explanations are generally better than more complex ones"

To me, geocentrism is the simpler explanation, especially when it is allowable by our current theories. The problem we would have now is the testing, how do you test for a creator?

Even if you disagree with my interpretation of occams razor, the fact remains that relativity states that it is possible the earth could be in the middle, that is what really piqued my interest in geocentrism in the first place, the fact its POSSIBLE in our theory that best describes the universe.

On the one hand, we have your idea that somehow we lost knowledge (those who had it died before passing it along?) (it was somehow struck from the memories of every human?) (it was such a great idea it was destroyed for some reason?) that we once had about some things, including our god and his purpose for us, which would arguably be the most important thing we could ever know.

 

On the other hand, we have reality telling us we don't seem to have lost anything super important, and still see no evidence of god(s).

 

Occam's Razor might be a good tool to apply here.

That's funny you bring that up, occam's razor is one of reasons geocentrism makes so much sense to me. Again, i already had that thread and i dont want to turn this into that. But if relativity itself (the best way we can currently explain what we are seeing in the universe) says that its POSSIBLE that the earth is in the middle, to me that says it is LIKELY that it is. Most people dont even realize how tied a geocentric universe is to relativity, they are basically two different ways of saying the same thing. Yes you could link me things about why the earth isnt in the middle and how this experiment proves without a shadow of a doubt we are moving in space, but in the end relativity is working against itself here, both can be valid view points. Please, lets not go down that road.

 

It's a popular theme, but are there any real-life examples of knowledge we used to have but no longer possess? I'm not talking about the arguments from incredulity where you can't imagine how the pyramids were built, so you assume that knowledge was somehow lost. I'm talking about quantifiable processes that we can no longer reproduce because we somehow "lost" the knowledge of how to do it.

If it was lost, not sure how i could give an example? About your "popular theme" remark, is it actually? Like, what about what i said above is a popular theme? And ancient structures are only a part of all of this for me, when i say lost knowledge i mean more so of a creator, its just possible we also have lost knowledge when it comes to the how and why of said structures.

 

Given that we have no evidence for a god(s), and given that you think this knowledge would have been unquestionable if it existed, isn't it more likely that it never existed?

I have a nutty example above, but my guess is that it wasnt leap of faith kind of stuff, it was stuff that could be witnessed or felt or whatever. It would take something that powerful to accomplish what i am suggesting.

We have none to support one's existence. It isn't that there is no God, it's that there's no evidence for one.

 

Basing these beliefs on incredulous feelings is probably exactly how these religions were formed in the first place.

 

"The next village over got flooded, but we're safe. I can't believe there isn't a magic sky god watching over us!"

Well strange asked why take a guess when you can use evidence, there is no evidence either way as to a creator existing. And i really am not using feelings here lol, i just think that the knowledge we lost is one that would be so strong that no one would be questioning it, it would be inherent to everyone. Again there is no way i can speculate as to how, but i just believe we all KNEW we had a creator in the past. I think this is part of the reason we have not discovered anything would we consider technology in ancient digsites, the knowledge of a creator was so deep they had a better understanding on how to live life and what was important.

Let me also go a little nutty if you will, as for my "i cant speculate as to how" above. Imagine for a second, part of that knowledge we lost included something that would can see and use, what if we had the knowledge of harnessing energy that we could not even fathom today. I cannot remember where i heard this suggested, but one idea that sticks out in my head is that ancient people had an understanding of sound that could have been used to move the immense objects that they were moving regularly back in those days. Again i dont want to get into specifics about this, but one thing i do believe is that the reason we see all of these gigantic ancient structures scattered around the world is that it was easy for them. I do believe it was POSSIBLE it could have been done with our current theories but those were not EASY. I feel for the amount of structures on this planet and our theories about what kind of time period they were completed in, that it was EASY. Rollers ropes are manpower are plausible, but not EASY. Could that not be a part of the lost knowledge and how people found it so easy to collectively believe in a creator? Again lol, just spitballing here.

 

 

Why take a guess, when you can use evidence?

 

 

Can you explain the difference between believing in an invisible and unknowable creator (most religions) and believing in an invisible and unknowable creator (you)?

We have evidence there isn't a creator? And i have went over the second part many times, i feel a creator is a basic knowledge we have lost to time, and our current religions may or may not be tiny remnants of that lost knowledge. I just feel that our current religions cannot be true because of how they divide everyone, i think the truth would be one that brings people together.

 

Are you saying that you know they don't know? How does that work?

 

All ideas with no evidence are unsupported, and therefore equal. No religion has presented evidence that can't be refuted, so any stories about a creator are equally unsupported, whether they come from "them" or you.

Like above, the main reason i feel none of them have it right is the nature of religions currently. Sure its possible we had many creators, but even if that is true why does it divide people as much as it does? The last survey i read of the US said something like half believe in god half dont. My idea of a creator would bring people together, and i think that is how it was in the not so distant past.

Well it is your thread, but don't you think it is best to stay true to the truth..?

Well the thread is titled ramblings, am i not allowed to do that on a philosophy section? I just cannot fully understand why you feel the desire to give me advice, can you elaborate a bit on why you feel that is necessary?

I think a lot of you believe i have an agenda of some sort, NOTHING could be farther from the truth. I am honestly just spit balling here, tossing out ideas from different places that i feel we dont have a full grasp of understanding and stitching them together in a way that makes sense in my head. The only time ive ever been to church is for a wedding or a funeral, and while i have no problem with people living their lives for a religion if they feel it betters them, i dont believe that any of them have the origin story of our creator correct.

@ Scotty99: If you follow the advice given in the first four sentences of my post, you should be able to discard the idea's re the Earth being at the centre of the universe or human civilizations being recycled here on this planet.

Not sure why it matters to you why i think this way lol, what harm am i doing in imagining a scenario that makes sense to me? I am in no way pushing this on anyone, i just wanted to put my thoughts down on paper. The thread is kind of an exercise in if you had to take a guess, what do you think is the most likely the truth of our existence.

You aren't grasping the gist of my post @memammal.

I will bullet point a few reasons as to why i believe what i do:

~I believe in a creator, but i am not a fan of religions for the obvious reasons that i have outlined in this thread. I think the truth about a creator would not be so dividing as our current religions are.

~The idea of geocentrism had a big impact on me. I did not even HEAR of this concept until i was 34 years old, and the fact of the matter is i have read nothing that 100% debunks the possibility of the earth being in the center of the universe in our relativistic model of today. The problem i had with geocentrism was the source (a guy by the name of robert sungenis) but that is not enough for me to give up on the idea, as i realize he has his agenda but that does not make the theory wrong because of the unfortunate way i stumbled upon the information.

~I believe we are a society with amnesia. Most of this comes from our full lack of understanding of how old ancient civilizations really are, and the how and why of the magnificent structures they left behind. I feel our ancestors operated at a higher level of understanding of the universe and were far more advanced than we are now.

~I feel it to be very possible the earth is so old society has reset over and over again, evidence of this being lost to time. This one i am less sure on, but interesting to me nonetheless.

~The world is how it is, numbers present themselves in nature for a reason....whoever created it for us WANTS us to explore it. Knowing a creator exists does not mean we stop asking questions, again it just means we stop asking that question....which i dont know why so many in this thread make that out to be a bad thing. Science is a great tool and i absolutely respect those who dedicated their lives to it but i personally have made the choice to take the path less traveled. There are a lot of smart people working in the field today, i feel personally i am better suited to what you guys would consider the fringe fields i suppose.

I dont want to make this about geocentrism or ancient civilizations, if you want to comment about them sure but i already had a large geocentrism thread that was closed. (which i got a lot of positive feedback from in private messages btw, the fact that thread got so popular tells me there is interest in it....for whatever reason)

This thread is just me rambling about what i believe to be a possible truth, i am not exactly sure why people are trying to turn it into something different by giving advice on what i should be doing, maybe its because its so off the wall people dont know how to reply, i dont know lol.

Like i stated in the OP the truth matters to me for some reason and im not exactly sure why. I feel that its a race to figure out who is right and this is the best guess that i have today.

I have no agenda here strange, if you want to say this thread is about religion you haven't read most of it lol. I am only spitballing here about where i believe we are in history, and how lost knowledge has put us in the spot we are.

Basically, i have taken a lot of ideas that made sense to me and put them together into a scenario that i believe could be very possible.

As for your last comment, you are making assumptions based off of current religions. What i am proposing is some of the current religions of the world could have some of the origin story right, or they could have none of it right. Knowing we have a creator does not mean we stop asking questions, it just means we stop asking that question.

But if we don't have to look for answers life would be extremely boring.

 

How can one improve himself if he nothing to strive for? How does one develop his self confidence without being challenged?

No i dont think it would be boring at all, i think if anything our studies would just go to different and possibly more interesting studies. We dont stop being inquisitive just because we know this place is here for us, it would all still be here for us to explore. I think your attitude about improving yourself would change if you KNEW we had a creator, the goal posts would simply change.

To be clear ive had those same kind of thoughts, but i think the idea is that these big questions are kind of not the point. We have been denied a basic knowledge that we have had in the past that has us barking up the wrong tree, who even knows what questions we would have if we possessed the knowledge i suggest our ancestors did.

Historically speaking in some areas we are regaining knowledge. The base we stand upon is our recorded history of research. Its a fairly solid base. Yes it would be nice to find the original scripts. However I don't see how not finding them will prevent us from understanding science.

 

Even in the scenario of current open questions such as the beginning of the universe. Which we still haven't answered.

That is not what i mean by a base, imagine it inherent to us all we have a creator (and i think deep, deep down we all have that locked away somewhere). This thread is basically my guess if the world was posed the question "what is the most likely guess to our existence, and where we are at today". If i had to put all my marbles in one basket it would be we had a creator, we have known this in the past, and our current religious teachings are only tiny parts of a greater knowledge that has been simply lost to time or possibly some event in our not too distant history.

I just feel that it can be so much better than we have it, we have lost some basic knowledge throughout the years that has left us divided and looking for answers we shouldnt be having to look for.

I hear this a lot "Science gets in the way of understanding the physics of the universe"

 

Never did make sense to me. Its usually by those that fully don't understand the scientific method.

We never state "this is the way it is", we simply state to the best of our research the following holds as a reasonable approximation.

 

We never stop trying to improve our understanding of any formula, model or theory. Not even those well tested over time. Even formulas as simple as f=ma is tested and retested in numerous and more elaborate tests.

Some models even exist where f=ma is no longer considered accurate. MOND for example.

 

I'm not going to get into a debate of religion vs science. Quite frankly I see no need for any competition between the two. Nowhere in the bible does it state "man shall remain ignorant"

This thread is not about religion at all if you have read any of It, I think it very possible most if not all of our current religious texts are just bits and pieces of a greater knowledge that has been lost to time. It is my hope that if there is an original "master copy" of how we should live our lives, that it is one that does not divide people as these current incantations do. I think the universe is meant to be explored and studied, otherwise why are numbers so prevalent in nature for example, but right now i feel what is missing is a base for us all to stand on. I think that missing knowledge is of a creator we all can get behind, to me we are in a really weird spot in time and if i was to take a guess what these few past thousands years are to be called by our successors it would be "the lost ages".

Again, just ramblings lol.

You call my ideas insanely stupid, could i not say the same thing about devoting your life to the scientific method when trying to unlock the secrets of the universe? I just feel very strongly that although science has taken us a long way, ultimately it will be for naught. I think if anything, an archaeologist or someone in a related field is where the real discoveries are going to come from. Scientists today are simply trying to be smarter than we are, and i think that is starting to become clear to everyone, scientists included (ive seen quite a few people come out about a creator being a very possible scenario, examples including max tegmark and michio kaku).

I am not saying here you just drop everything in science, you scale back a little bit and just refocus your efforts on what science is good at doing. I don't want to say i feel bad for people that have devoted their entire lives to science because they put in the effort into something they were passionate about, but i do truly feel they will not be able to come to an ultimate answer about the truths of the universe.

Because all religions have a creator, i think every single one of them could have had the same origin story its just that it was so long ago that they have each taken on a form of their own. And im not talking about abrahamic religions as we know today, like i propose in this thread we have had a deeper understanding of the universe in the past and these current religions are the remnants of that lost knowledge. As for your comments on the pyramids, how do you know the pyramids were a futile endeavor? We have zero clue what they were used for, our only real guess is they were burial chambers but in all honestly when you study the structure, that hardly holds up. I just cannot in my head come to any reasonable conclusion of how nothing bigger was built for FOUR THOUSAND years. 100 years sure, 200, 300 but 4000 just no.

I am not even focusing on the word "progress" here, that can mean so many different things. Is it not baffling to anyone else the great pyramid was the largest man made structure for 4 millennia?

Edited for clarity.

Eh, "the Great Pyramid of Giza, at an original height of 146.5 metres (481 ft), being the tallest man–made structure in the world for over 3,800 years, until the construction of Lincoln Cathedral in 1300"

From:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_world's_tallest_buildings

This is just one example of how little we know about the history of this planet. There is no argument you could propose to me that would explain why the pyramids were the largest man made structure on our planet for a minimum of 4k years (its probably longer, recent analysis say the pyramids could be upwards of 8k or more years or more).

Even if people ~10k years ago didnt have wifi, i truly believe they were far more advanced in other ways, ways we cant even begin to understand and i feel that knowledge has been lost to time.....somehow. They knew something we don't, and i feel that something had to do with knowledge of a creator and how the universe works. I believe the religious texts of today are just tiny tiny bits of that knowledge that have gone through so many hands the source material is all but lost.

Good point with why the christian bible. Its just the one i am familiar with, my line of thought here applies to them all tho really. I think they are all versions of the same knowledge that has been lost to time, and none are even close to the original. I think in the past we have known the truth and have been much much more advanced as a society than we are now. I think the earth is so old that civilization has reset over and over and over again, imho we are currently in a very early stage of development as a society. (even tho if you ask most they would say we are very progressed, i mean we can talk to our phone and it gives us answers).

As for the drug question, i have relatives on anti-depressants and they say it does help, but i am of a firm belief that the brain is so complex we simply should not be fiddling around with it and these drugs do more harm than good in the long run. I think we just need to understand our limits, if we dont understand something and just see the end results....well that is where we should stop.

As for the person commenting on the pyramids, imagine for a second if you will that the pyramids were the tallest structure on the planet for at least 4k years. How is that possible? That is the best example i can come up with to express my point about lost knowledge. How many times in just the past 100 years has the largest skyscraper been dethroned? 4k years does not sound like much when you think of the age of the planet, but that is a long dam time for something to be the tallest thing. Why did progress stop for FOUR THOUSAND YEARS? Like i said i have no idea how these two things are linked but i believe they are, i feel we have known the truth about our existence in the not too distant past, and who knows maybe we will find it at the bottom of the ocean in the not too distant future.

(This is going to be rambly, i have always had a hard time putting my thoughts down in a concise manner and i apologize in advance)

For the longest time all ive cared about is the truth, and no matter what i cannot lie to myself as it is impossible for me to do so. I am not sure if this is a flaw or an attribute, but it has shaped the way i am today for better or worse. Everything i do focuses on truth, i get super upset with people when they get even the smallest things wrong, but here i would like to focus on the truth of our universe and how it (and we) came to be.

Like many i have always had the big questions like why are we here, how did the universe come to be, is god real? Etc etc etc. I have always tried to keep up with sciences leading theories as well as the biggest problems facing them, and today i would like to talk about what i think is our truth currently when you take all things into consideration.

First off id like to start with god/creator. Like many i used to think (it seemed obvious at first) that there is no way other life forms dont exist somewhere else in the universe, its so massive that somewhere out there life exists....right? Common sense would denote such things and its easy to have this kind of view with how our brains are wired, now i am not entirely sure of this. Some of you may recognize me from a different thread on geocentrism, i still feel that there are some great points about the earth being in the center of the universe but i have problems with it that this thread is mainly about. Many people somewhere along the lines have given up on god, the reasons for this could vary greatly from them not having their prayers answered, to stories from the bible that they cannot by any shape or form believe in any rational way, or any other reason you could imagine along these lines. It's very easy to give up on god when we have the wrong information, more on that later. When i say god i dont mean god from the bible per say, but a creator in the general sense.

What this thread really boils down to is this, why cant the answer be in the middle? Why am i not allowed to believe in a creator and evolution at the same time for example? I can look around and see that ya, evolution is likely a thing that happened, but am i not allowed in the next sentence to say i believe we are the only living things in this universe? You see to me if you take all of the evidence and you put it all together in your head it points to us being created, but does that mean we also have to take everything in the bible at face value? How are we sure that some of the bible is correct and some of it isnt? For example i dont believe the earth was created in 7 days but i absolutely do believe the entire universe was created and it was created for US. I dont believe the earth is 6,000 years old but i do believe the earth sits in the exact geometric center of our universe. I could go on and on with examples like this, but i think you get the idea. Its not that i am questioning god (creator) here, i am simply questioning the literature we have at our disposal that has us so confused.

Why are we convinced the answer is in science? If god did create this universe who do we think we are to try and figure this whole thing out, it is so far outside of our realm of understanding we cant even contemplate the idea of infinity. Science absolutely has it merits and great things have come from it but we need to know where to stop. A great example is drugs, antibiotics saved millions of lives but on the same token we need to know our limits and absolutely should not be fiddling with drugs that affect the mind, because we simply are no where near understanding how the brain actually functions, it is beyond our capacity. I truly believe we are getting to that point in our understanding of the universe currently, and as someone only after the truth i do not feel science is going to get us there alone.

One thing i wont go into detail here but i believe plays some part is the fact we basically know nothing about even our fairly recent history. How are pyramids still standing today when they could have been built upwards of ~8k years ago, what exact processes were used in some of the mind blowing structures that are scattered around this planet that we really only have poor theories on how they were accomplished? Again this is only part of what i believe to be lost knowledge, i dont want to go more into detail about this because i dont know enough yet (and no,NOT aliens! I just believe we are missing a large part of our history to time)

I understand many of you have minds that work purely on the grounds of the scientific method and nothing i am saying here right now will have any impact on you because its all hypothetical and it cant be tested and that is fine. I just wanted to put some thoughts down on paper and maybe get a discussion going that does not turn religion based because as you can see i came from no place resembling religion, these are just my thoughts on the truth of our current existence. I honestly have no bias one way or the other, i have a real feeling that we were created its just that the way people view a creator when you tie our current religious texts into it really muddies everything up. I think to get to the truth science is going to have to bring a creator into the picture, my wonder is if science and people who believe in our current religious texts can come to an understanding that they need to work together to figure this all out. I know people love to think of things in black and white that is why i titled the post as i did, i feel the answer is in the middle somewhere, just how long is it going to take to get there.

The presence, or lack thereof, of ego and narcissicism are not indicators of intelligence. Where'd you get that idea from?

Again, you presuppose what intelligence means. I am suggesting something different entirely.

Again, its all boils down to how to define intelligence. Are we smarter because we can build skyscrapers or do animals take the cake because they are oblivious to ego and narcissism?

1

Just how are we defining "structure" in this? I see no particular pattern in the blue dots, and while 250 million years may be short against the age of the Universe, it is still a very long time, quite long enough for the GRB's to be independent events. Now, if they spelled out "Eat at Joe's," I would be impressed.

Its not about you seeing a patten in the dots, merely that no patterns should exist at that scale:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_principle

You missed my point altogether. You instantly assume "high intelligence" as one befit to the human species, i am suggesting the term intelligence be redefined. I struggle to find a good example. the best i can come up with is instinct. I feel instinct is the true intellect of the universe.

Space time is something that was created by einstein because it is vague. Its much easier to imagine time contracting (time isnt a thing its an idea) than it is a physical object (speaking to the michaelson-morley experiements obviously). As to your question it is neither, it is simply a fudge factor.