|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: We are Subject To Our HISTORY
|
Pomona
Shipmate
# 17175
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
I could do with a translator at this point, Emily. I haven't the least idea what point you are trying to make.
By definition what we call ancient history began about 5,000 years ago.
Dear Barnabas, and yes I have and I disseminate copies of the Gospel of Barnabas, so I know you.
Ever hear of resurrection? That's another word for Life-after-life.
I'm in YHYH's "pocket," because as an unregenerate Dragon soul, my karma is "the law of the jungle."
The only good I get is if I EAT HUMANS.
Yuck! I'd rather starve.
So YHVH sequesters me because I DO NOT FIT IN.
Ancient history begins HALF A MILLION YEARS AGO when Annunaki first began mining gold here. Why? Because they needed CHEMTRAILS to spare the natural atmosphere on their planet which was dissipating.
Chemtrails are not new. Utilizing base elements to create a canopy over gaseous atmosphere has been tried and done over and over, usually with more bad results than good ones.
Okay. To proceed ...
Five thousands of civil history is less than one drop in the bucket ... so what we know for sure is, TPTB have NO INTEREST in telling us the real or whole story.
Can we agree this far?
EEWC
It may be different in your part of the US, but over here, my school textbooks did deal with the history of the Earth from before 5000 BC. Not human history, no, but history nonetheless.
--------------------
Consider the work of God: Who is able to straighten what he has bent? [Ecclesiastes 7:13]
Posts: 5319 | From: UK | Registered: Jun 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Jade Constable: It may be different in your part of the US, but over here, my school textbooks did deal with the history of the Earth from before 5000 BC. Not human history, no, but history nonetheless.
But I guess they called it Pre-History.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Sitchin was not a theoretician. He was a translator among other translators.
It's the Sumerians who had opinions about their history going back and back and back.
That is according to Stitchin's translations, the accuracy of which is disputed. And there are other criticisms of his writings to be found here.
It is not safe to take him as an authoritative source of information about Sumerian culture and Sumerian self-understanding of their own history. His translations, interpretations, scientific understandings and readings of myths and legends have all been the subject of criticism by other researchers.
Why should he be believed, and others doubted? He lacks credibility for a variety of well-documented reasons. Peer reviewers have found serious holes in his work.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
I'm not in a position to doubt translators.
I do, however, doubt their interpretations.
Sasha Lessin's interpretations put me in stitches.
Absurd, they are.
I let the Spirit of God guide me, in this respect.
And the Annunaki do have their own problems.
Thanks be to God!
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Galloping Granny
Shipmate
# 13814
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
what I expected to discuss here is how it happens to be that Scriptures only begin 4000 years ago when in scientific fact, the Earth is 3.5 billion years old.
That should have read 4.54 billion years.
GG
[ 21. May 2013, 03:15: Message edited by: Galloping Granny ]
--------------------
The Kingdom of Heaven is spread upon the earth, and men do not see it. Gospel of Thomas, 113
Posts: 2629 | From: Matarangi | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
Why do we expect recorded history to be older than, oh, say, writing?
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
I'm not in a position to doubt translators.
I do, however, doubt their interpretations.
Sasha Lessin's interpretations put me in stitches.
Absurd, they are.
I let the Spirit of God guide me, in this respect.
OK. It's a common enough understanding within Christianity that so far as hearing the indwelling voice of God is concerned, it's wise to be accountable within a church community. Check your perceptions of guidance with others.
The reason is simple enough; we get our guidance wrong routinely, because of the "noise" in our minds caused by various human weaknesses. That's just the normal outworking of the church as the Body of Christ.
It's a kind of "peer review" of our perceptions. Peer review is great. We don't have to accept what it says, but we're wise not to ignore our weaknesses.
Or as Cromwell put it "I beseech ye, in the bowels of Christ, consider that ye may be mistaken".
You've already reduced HISTORY to your personal perception of the Holy Spirit. You discount independent verification at your personal peril.
quote:
From your earlier post:
Dear Barnabas, and yes I have and I disseminate copies of the Gospel of Barnabas, so I know you.
No you don't. Barnabas62 is my Ship name. My local church nickname is Barnabas and I was 62 years old when I joined SoF.
Associating me with the very late pseudopigraphic mishmash which is the Gospel of Barnabas is laughable. If it has any roots in relatively early documents, they are probably Gnostic or Ebionite in character; in its amended form it conforms to Islamic understandings of Christian origins.
quote:
Ever hear of resurrection? That's another word for Life-after-life.
I'm in YHYH's "pocket," because as an unregenerate Dragon soul, my karma is "the law of the jungle."
The only good I get is if I EAT HUMANS.
Yuck! I'd rather starve.
So YHVH sequesters me because I DO NOT FIT IN.
Clearly you believe in reincarnation. I don't. It's not orthodox Christian belief. Again, it is associated much more with the family of beliefs generally described as Gnosticism.
quote:
Ancient history begins HALF A MILLION YEARS AGO when Annunaki first began mining gold here. Why? Because they needed CHEMTRAILS to spare the natural atmosphere on their planet which was dissipating.
Chemtrails are not new. Utilizing base elements to create a canopy over gaseous atmosphere has been tried and done over and over, usually with more bad results than good ones.
You may think that. I think your opinion is without value as a contribution to HISTORY
quote:
Okay. To proceed ...
Five thousands of civil history is less than one drop in the bucket ... so what we know for sure is, TPTB have NO INTEREST in telling us the real or whole story.
A complete non-sequitur, coupled with a paranoid reference to The Powers That Be.
quote:
Can we agree this far?
Not in the slightest degree.
[ 21. May 2013, 06:24: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SusanDoris
Incurable Optimist
# 12618
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
Marduk is not a buddy of mine.
I can't help you find him.
I work at losing him all the time.
I was interested to read this - have sent you a pm.
--------------------
I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.
Posts: 3083 | From: UK | Registered: May 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Which brings me back to my still unanswered question of what you consider valid evidence? You seem like a "selective naturalist" (not related to "natural selection"), who will require ironclad physical evidence for other people's pet ideas but dismiss any similar scrutiny of their own as "philosophical naturalism".
In short, isn't your request for "evidence" the exact kind of thing you dismiss as the product of "a highly tendentious and ill-defined philosophy" in other contexts?
Where have I said that I require "ironclad physical evidence" for other people's pet ideas? That assumes that proper evidence has to be limited to the physical. But there is absolutely no such thing as pure physical evidence, in the sense that we can derive any conclusion at all simply from the firing of our neurons in response to sense perception. If I look at a physical object, I can make no sense of it at all unless I have some framework of ideas in my mind, and I am prepared to apply logic to that perception through those ideas. Of course, this all happens so unconsciously that often we don't even recognise that most of our sense perception is actually ideational (which is not the same as subjective idealism, in case you jump to that fallacious conclusion. I certainly do not believe that all of our sense perception is ideational). So therefore we cannot even talk about 'evidence' unless we factor in the roles of logic and ideas. Therefore all conclusions are the result of logical inference, because our minds (or brains, if you prefer) do not have direct contact with the physical objects being perceived, but only infer their existence through the medium of sense perception and the ideas that make sense of sense perception. (By the way... if you feel like promoting pure empiricism, and believe that pure sense perception can count as valid evidence, then how do you distinguish between the perception of things in reality and the perception of things in a dream? Ironically, it's the empiricists whose theory affirms 'spectral evidence'!!)
You say that I dismiss scrutiny of my own position (or "pet ideas" as you rather scathingly put it). Where have I said - or implied - that I dismiss scrutiny of my own position? This is something that you have dreamt up (spectral evidence!) - or perhaps assumed, because I have not been prepared to just roll over and accept your atheistic view of reality. I am very willing to accept scrutiny of my position, but I will only accept logically valid scrutiny, not pseudo-scrutiny based on special pleading.
All valid scientific evidence is based on logical inference, and not simply sense perception. We cannot draw any conclusions about reality unless we make inferences based on various assumptions (such as, for example, the uniformity of nature, which cannot be observed empirically, since we cannot directly observe every event in the entire history of the universe). All theories of origins are based on inference, because the events have not been directly observed, or repeated according to the scientific method. Even if certain hypothesised events could be reconstructed in the laboratory, it is a non sequitur to conclude that "this is what must have happened", because the conclusion of "did happen" does not follow logically from the premise of "could have happened". Therefore it is perfectly right and logical to investigate the presuppositions held by those who infer a certain theory of origins. These presuppositions may actually be incoherent. I certainly believe that the presupposition of philosophical naturalism is logically incoherent, based on the observation, experience and study of various aspects of reality, such as the nature of complex functional systems, reason, consciousness, the moral sense and time, with reference to first cause. These are all recognised aspects of reality, which therefore constitute evidence, by which we can come to an apprehension of truth.
You seem to give the impression that "objective evidence" leads inexorably to atheism. I have seen no evidence to support that conclusion. That is why I used the word 'tendentious'. The lack of the existence of a supreme, intelligent, personal and moral first cause requires some other 'absolute' to explain the facts of reality. This impersonal, non-intelligent, amoral, infinitely regressive (or originating from 'nothing') force called 'nature' explains very little about reality as far as I can see.
So in a nutshell, to answer your question: the definition of 'evidence' includes the rigorous application of logic to all aspects of reality.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Crœsos
It occurred to me after reading EtymologicalEvangelical's latest post that if might help this tangent to provide this link to a related discussion in Kerygmania.
EE and I are not on the same page. I see Historical Criticism as primarily a matter of methodology and professional discipline. The presuppositions of practitioners (re the supernatural or indeed anything else) are secondary; the primary dimension is methodological and subject to peer review.
I'm not of course suggesting that the process is free from manipulation in favour of prior agendas. Precisely the same argument applies to scientific research - there are always social games afoot. But findings have no abiding future unless they receive the support of practitioners with different presuppositions.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62
The presuppositions of practitioners (re the supernatural or indeed anything else) are secondary; the primary dimension is methodological and subject to peer review.
Could you please give me an example of a metaphysically relevant* truth claim that has no reference to or dependence on any philosophical presupposition?
* i.e. a claim that has some bearing on what we believe about the nature of reality. So an idea in the same epistemic category as, for example, London being a city on the river Thames, which was called Londinium by the Romans, doesn't count, because this really has no obvious bearing on anything metaphysical.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
EE
I'll do so on the Keryg thread, rather than in the tangent here. Seems fairer to me to give the answer within the framework of that OP, rather than this one.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Where have I said that I require "ironclad physical evidence" for other people's pet ideas? That assumes that proper evidence has to be limited to the physical. But there is absolutely no such thing as pure physical evidence, in the sense that we can derive any conclusion at all simply from the firing of our neurons in response to sense perception.
Then what are you asking for here? What kind of "EVIDENCE" (your caps, not mine) are you expecting EW-C to cite?
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
Hmm. I have to wonder whether Barnabas knows what evidence he will accept.
I choked on the Gospel of Barnabas when I read the whole thing.
Then I read the Vatican document that supported it, and I was REALLY confused.
Want the linK?
So, evidence is quite IFFY and demanding evidence quite beside the point.
We must hear the Ring of Truth (by the Holy Spirit) and respond to That whether we have empirical evidence or not ... is my take on it at this point.
Got a better idea?
Em ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Then what are you asking for here? What kind of "EVIDENCE" (your caps, not mine) are you expecting EW-C to cite?
I am asking for the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law. This, of course, includes physical evidence - although remembering that 'pure' physical evidence is impossible, because sense perception stripped of any ideation delivers nothing by way of evidence (imagine you were looking at, say, a door and you had no concept in your mind of the ideas of shape, colour, substance, differentiation, identity, plurality, perspective, function and so on... What would you 'see'?).
But just because there is usually an element of the physical in a body of evidence, does not mean that the only reality that we are allowed to believe in is the physical. We can infer that the physical world cannot be a self-contained closed system, because if it were, then certain realities would not exist. That is a perfectly sound inference. The empirical method is merely that: a method, and certainly a limited one.
I must admit that I am still mystified by one of your comments earlier on this thread:
quote:
You seem like a "selective naturalist" (not related to "natural selection"), who will require ironclad physical evidence for other people's pet ideas but dismiss any similar scrutiny of their own as "philosophical naturalism".
Could you please quote an instance of where I have dismissed scrutiny of my own "pet ideas". I am most intrigued to know where you got this idea from.
Obviously, I am affirming that it is logically incoherent for someone to insist that my views should simply conform to the demands of a dogmatically imposed philosophy, such as the philosophy of naturalism. Imposing a dogma on me cannot be called 'scrutiny'. Imagine if someone demanded that you explain your views in conformity to the dogmas of Islam, for example. And if you refuse, you are then told that you are dismissing scrutiny of your "pet ideas" by labelling such scrutiny as just "Islam". I am quite sure you would feel pretty peeved by that conclusion!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Gospel of Barnabas
Epistle of Barnabas
Collection of early Christian Writings
Briefly, Emily, the Epistle of Barnabas is generally recognised as an early document and not without worth. Though included in the 4th Century Codex Siniaticus, it was never accorded canonical authority in the Western church.
The Gospel of Barnabas is another matter entirely, as you can see from the Wiki article. I'm not sure how you could have come across any Vatican endorsement of the Gospel. Unlike the Epistle of Barnabas, it does not get included at all in the online collection of canonical and extra-canonical writings on the linked website. It has a most dubious reputation, and for very good reasons.
Let's see your Vatican link.
[ 22. May 2013, 04:48: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Then what are you asking for here? What kind of "EVIDENCE" (your caps, not mine) are you expecting EW-C to cite?
I am asking for the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law.
Given that courts usually don't accept magical, miraculous, or other types of supernatural explanations, isn't this a de facto embrace of "philosophical naturalism"? I mean, what if it was really a demon that assumed the accused's shape and brutally stabbed his wife to death in front of all those witnesses? Surely that's enough of a possibility to qualify as reasonable doubt, right?
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
quote:
You seem like a "selective naturalist" (not related to "natural selection"), who will require ironclad physical evidence for other people's pet ideas but dismiss any similar scrutiny of their own as "philosophical naturalism".
Could you please quote an instance of where I have dismissed scrutiny of my own "pet ideas". I am most intrigued to know where you got this idea from.
I was applying the term "pet ideas" to EW-C's annunaki hypotheses, but when don't you dismiss scrutiny of your own positions? That's your "philosophical naturalism" argument at its core: that your musings can appeal to magic or miracles or other supernatural explanations while everyone else has to present "the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law".
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
Proof that would satisfy a Court of Law?
Courts of Law don't necessarily seek cosmic Truth.
They seek a way out of a civil dispute.
EEWC
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
Given that courts usually don't accept magical, miraculous, or other types of supernatural explanations, isn't this a de facto embrace of "philosophical naturalism"?
Not at all. Given that "philosophical naturalism" rejects the role of intelligent agency in the causation of complex effects, then that philosophy is certainly not what barristers, juries and judges accept. If someone comes home and finds his house trashed, he doesn't assume that a bit of wind got in the house and caused the devastation. He assumes that a crime has been committed by a conscious and purposeful agent.
If a body is discovered with its throat slashed, the police generally don't assume that it was caused by some impersonal natural phenomenon. They assume a person committed the act.
As for the words 'magical', 'miraculous' and 'supernatural': you are just throwing these words around to give a certain impression that any explanation that is not limited to philosophical naturalism is somehow absurd and irrational. Arguments should not be based on the emotional impact of phonetics. Try defining these words (which I notice you never do).
Firstly, theism per se is not necessarily 'magical', because God works as a purposeful intelligent agent, and does not subvert logic. So we can forget the word 'magical'. 'Miraculous' simply denotes the operation of laws which can overrule the laws of physics and chemistry. We actually do this all the time when we make free will decisions, because we are overruling the determinism of natural laws. But, as humans, we are limited in what we can overrule, hence the fact we, of ourselves, cannot perform those acts which are normally associated with the term 'miracle'.
The term 'supernatural' (as I explained here) simply denotes "above nature", in the sense that there are dimensions of reality above the operation of the laws of physics and chemistry. The laws of physics and chemistry have not dictated this message that I am writing. If they had, then my ideas would be determined by nature, and therefore would be a legitimate part of nature. You would then, as a philosophical naturalism, have to accept that what I am saying is just as legitimate as your views. Are you, as a naturalist, going to argue with the laws of physics and chemistry? Are the laws of physics and chemistry 'wrong' in determining what I am writing? Therefore, thought itself is actually 'supernatural', in the sense that I have explained (but I suspect it will be difficult for many people to make that connection, because most of us have been effectively conditioned to interpret the word 'supernatural' in a certain way - largely thanks to being brought up on fairy stories in our formative years).
By the way... I assume that you reject the Big Bang theory? Technically - even within the philosophy of naturalism - it is 'super'-natural, because it is believed that the laws of nature that we recognise today were not those operating when this event occurred (see this article by Hawking, with reference to his view that... "the deterministic laws that govern the universe will break down in the Big Bang."). I assume also that you reject all notions of the multiverse, because that is also 'supernatural' thinking? Michio Kaku has said... "That there could be an infinite number of universes each with a different law of physics". And finally, no less a person than Richard Dawkins admits that the universe is "queerer than we can suppose", and that we with our limited perception of reality cannot possibly fully make sense of it (although that doesn't stop him making an exception of himself and dogmatically making assertions about reality as a whole! *groan*).
This is all evidence to show that philosophical naturalism is actually 'super'-natural when it has to grapple with difficult questions about the nature of reality. The model of the closed system of natural laws is simply inadequate to explain the very large, the very small, origins and, I would contend, much of the stuff of everyday life.
So if you really think that this philosophy is at the basis of all evidence based thinking, then you really need to think a bit deeper, my friend.
quote:
I was applying the term "pet ideas" to EW-C's annunaki hypotheses, but when don't you dismiss scrutiny of your own positions? That's your "philosophical naturalism" argument at its core: that your musings can appeal to magic or miracles or other supernatural explanations while everyone else has to present "the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law".
I repeat my question, which you have failed to answer: give me an example of where I have dismissed scrutiny of my "pet ideas" or "musings". You use the terms "magic, miracles and the supernatural" to imply that I resort to irrationality. Show me where I have done that. If you can't, then clearly your objection is invalid.
[ 22. May 2013, 09:19: Message edited by: EtymologicalEvangelical ]
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Given that "philosophical naturalism" rejects the role of intelligent agency in the causation of complex effects
"External intelligent agency", if you please. The actions of living things within the universe are perfectly consistent with naturalism.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
The actions of living things within the universe are perfectly consistent with naturalism.
Good. Then we are both right, because our thoughts (which are actions) are perfectly consistent with the operation of the laws of nature. Since my words are merely pixels - as are yours - and since "pixels can't be wrong", then logically we are both right!
Good, this naturalism lark, innit?
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
I think it's a strawman, EE. I believe the real issue is not that presuppositions can lead to bias (of course they can). It is about whether bias will inevitably corrupt professional research work. My answer to that is a resounding "no".
If in the process of professional research work, any of us finds our presuppositions being challenged, we have personal choices to make. What we can't do is deny the finding. What we then have to do is see what that finding does to us, what changes of mind may be necessary as a result.
In the end, I believe it is a matter of personal honesty. The general recognition that personal bias is normal is a good starting point.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
Then we are both right, because our thoughts (which are actions) are perfectly consistent with the operation of the laws of nature.
Depends what you mean by "right". Or for that matter, "true". On one level your analysis is absolutely correct, on another you're still missing a few pieces of the puzzle. But we've had this discussion before, and nothing will ever come of it because you refuse to entertain the idea that independent thought, logic or reason are possible in a naturalistic framework.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
But we've had this discussion before, and nothing will ever come of it because you refuse to entertain the idea that independent thought, logic or reason are possible in a naturalistic framework.
Refuse?
Far from it! I certainly do not refuse to entertain this idea. I have entertained the idea, thought it through and, on the basis of the evidence, come to a certain conclusion, namely, that independent thought, logic or reason are not possible in a naturalistic framework. Therefore some other explanation is required.
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
on the basis of the evidence
The inability to comprehend how something can happen is not evidence.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Marvin the Martian
The inability to comprehend how something can happen is not evidence.
So someone comes along and claims that such and such a phenomenon was caused by certain events. They have no evidence for it, but just their special pleading and dogmatic insistence. There is no logical connection between cause and effect, and, in fact, the cause is fundamentally contrary to the effect.
His hearer is unconvinced and says so. But instead of presenting evidence to support the theory, the theorist simply criticises the sceptic with the words: "your inability to comprehend how this has happened in this way, is not evidence."
Good one, Marvin.
You're doing well...
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Marvin the Martian
Interplanetary
# 4360
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
But instead of presenting evidence to support the theory
Name the evidence you would consider valid.
--------------------
Hail Gallaxhar
Posts: 30100 | From: Adrift on a sea of surreality | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Crœsos
Shipmate
# 238
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
I am asking for the kind of evidence that would stand up in a court of law.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
'Miraculous' simply denotes the operation of laws which can overrule the laws of physics and chemistry. We actually do this all the time when we make free will decisions, because we are overruling the determinism of natural laws.
"Your honor, we object to the prosecution's forensic report. The crime scene operated according to a different set of physical laws than the Coroner's Office, rendering their findings invalid."
I'm pretty sure no court would accept this argument.
quote:
Originally posted by EtymologicalEvangelical:
The key concept in question is intelligence and its application within nature, to intervene in and control natural laws.
Here's a rather mundane analogy to explain what I mean... If I grow a beard, then (assuming that I don't trim it or keep it tidy) I am just letting nature takes its course. It is natural for me, as a man, to grow a beard. This is just the workings of the laws of nature. But if I decide that I wish to be clean shaven, do I then just let natural laws "take their course"? Of course not. I use my intelligence (i.e. my faculty of consciously being able to control natural laws and select how they operate in a given context) to apply a razor (carefully!) to my face in such a way that I remove unwanted hair without leaving my skin raw and bleeding. In other ways, a certain degree of basic skill (intelligence) is involved in the process.
Now can anyone honestly say that when I perform the act of shaving myself, that I am simply "letting nature takes it course", and that this operation is as 'natural' as just doing nothing and letting my beard grow?
Given the number of animals that self-groom, I'm not sure what level of intelligence is necessary to regard such activities as sub-, un-, or supernatural. I also question the underlying assumption that beard hair is impervious to razors, combs, or other grooming implements unless someone performs an act of will to alter the laws of physics.
--------------------
Humani nil a me alienum puto
Posts: 10706 | From: Sardis, Lydia | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
EtymologicalEvangelical
Shipmate
# 15091
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Croesos
"Your honor, we object to the prosecution's forensic report. The crime scene operated according to a different set of physical laws than the Coroner's Office, rendering their findings invalid."
I'm pretty sure no court would accept this argument.
Well misunderstood.
OK, let's use another aspect of evidence...
If someone commits murder, could he actually help it, because the laws of physics and chemistry forced him to do it? If the philosophy of naturalism is true, then we shouldn't bother having a criminal justice system at all, because there is no such thing as moral responsibility.
I'm pretty sure no court would accept this argument.
But that is the logical implication of saying that every event is fully explicable by and reducible to the deterministic laws of physics and chemistry. (By the way, if philosophical naturalism is true, then what I believe about reality is simply the effect of the laws of nature, and so why are you disagreeing with me? Do you disagree with nature? Or perhaps you don't accept that naturalism implies determinism? If so, then how can you believe that our entire lives are completely controlled by impersonal laws, namely, the non-intelligent laws of nature, which is what naturalism implies?)
Of course, forensic evidence depends on the naturalistic method. Quite right. I have never disputed the role of the empirical method. But your obsession is to make this method almighty and omnipotent, and to try to explain everything by it. I am trying to get through to you that there are aspects of evidence which are not reducible to mere material reactions. Would you say the concept of, for example, 'motive' is reducible to mere chemical reactions? If so, I would be fascinated to see quite how that is supposed to work.
quote:
Given the number of animals that self-groom, I'm not sure what level of intelligence is necessary to regard such activities as sub-, un-, or supernatural. I also question the underlying assumption that beard hair is impervious to razors, combs, or other grooming implements unless someone performs an act of will to alter the laws of physics.
I must remember to try the naturalistic non-intelligence method of shaving some time. I must also remember not to experiment with a cut throat razor. I rather value my life, thank you very much!
--------------------
You can argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome': but you neither can nor need argue with a man who says, 'Rice is unwholesome, but I'm not saying this is true'. CS Lewis
Posts: 3625 | From: South Coast of England | Registered: Sep 2009
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Jade Constable:
It may be different in your part of the US, but over here, my school textbooks did deal with the history of the Earth from before 5000 BC. Not human history, no, but history nonetheless. [/QB]
According to Sumerian records, the Annunaki first arrived here looking for gold to mine 450,000 years ago. That's a long way from the 5000 years we are officially told about.
And Anthropologists trace and track similar lines of thought and architecture through culture-after-culture on this planet, that all seem to have a common origin.
Em
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
According to Sumerian records, the Annunaki first arrived here looking for gold to mine 450,000 years ago.
As translated by Zecharia Sitchin. Here's a view from the sceptics dictionary. And, again, here's the Wiki article re Sitchin.
Emily, you are asserting something as facts from the Sumerian records things which cannot be substantiated from those records by translators more competent than Sitchin.
We've been here before. Sitchin's work has been discredited. You continue to assert as truth the fruits of his discredited work.
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
mousethief
Ship's Thieving Rodent
# 953
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Barnabas62:
We've been here before. Sitchin's work has been discredited. You continue to assert as truth the fruits of his discredited work.
Discredited by whom, though? People under the influence of the Annunaki! You can't trust those people.
--------------------
This is the last sig I'll ever write for you...
Posts: 63536 | From: Washington | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Barnabas62
Shipmate
# 9110
|
Posted
Well mousethief, I think your tongue is firmly in your cheek but I know that is exactly the argument which can be advanced by anyone who believes this stuff.
Objective tests are available, however, and have been applied. Look at the Wiki article re translations and interpretations of ancient texts, astronomical and scientific observations, and literalism of myth. Then look at the list of references at the end of the Wiki article.
What do you think, mousethief? We could "check the arithmetic" by following up the references. Or we could accept that the academic criticisms are sufficient to make a considered judgment of "unfounded speculation based on inaccurate assessment of the content and meaning of ancient writings".
Or we could go out to the pub, have a chuckle and agree that "unfounded speculation" doesn't really get near to how barking-mad this hypothesis is. But at least we can have confidence that "unfounded speculation" is a reasonable conclusion.
[ 22. May 2013, 20:11: Message edited by: Barnabas62 ]
--------------------
Who is it that you seek? How then shall we live? How shall we sing the Lord's song in a strange land?
Posts: 21397 | From: Norfolk UK | Registered: Feb 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
How did the Annunaki get here? Where are they now? They came here for gold. Why? Where from? If we become successful interstellar travellers then we will be master bioengineers long before that and easily able to microbially extract gold from seawater or backyard slurry. So how were they successful interstellar space farers and third rate miners?
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
The Rhythm Methodist
Shipmate
# 17064
|
Posted
Aw, thanks a lot, Martin! Just when I was buying into this picture of aliens clad in dungarees and battered helmets - clutching rusty picks and Davey lamps - you had to spoil it all with your cynical practicality. Shame on you!
Posts: 202 | From: Wales | Registered: Apr 2012
| IP: Logged
|
|
Martin60
Shipmate
# 368
|
Posted
Hypocrite that I am ...
--------------------
Love wins
Posts: 17586 | From: Never Dobunni after all. Corieltauvi after all. Just moved to the capital. | Registered: Jun 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Martin PC not & Ship's Biohazard:
How did the Annunaki get here? Where are they now? They came here for gold. Why? Where from? If we become successful interstellar travellers then we will be master bioengineers long before that and easily able to microbially extract gold from seawater or backyard slurry. So how were they successful interstellar space farers and third rate miners?
Sitchin's translation of Sumerian records is accepted by other translators of Sumerian.
The labels "myth" or "hoax" are applied to many true facts not politically aligned with public teachings of Masonry or Non-Disclosure statutes of ET Treaties like the Greada Treaty 1954 signed by Eisenhower.
And people accept those labels without thinking.
I find Wikipedia's STORY about my sire to be almost wholly without substance, so I don't put much faith in their info-stock.
Emily
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
Actually I didn't put my direct answer ...
My direct answer is, I don't believe Wikipedia's label, "myth."
My knowledge of Annunaki History comes from Book of Enoch, Bible Genesis chapter six, Sitchin's translation of Sumerian records, and my own private Source and Guidance.
Those I do believe.
What we believe to be true is simply what defines our perspective at any moment.
When I have a reason to change what I believe, I'm not afraid to question what I know.
Em
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Jon in the Nati
Shipmate
# 15849
|
Posted
So if you had to make a guess, EEWC, as to how many people worldwide have knowledge of the facts you allege (aliens, treaties, gold mining, HIERARCHICAL SOCIETIES!!!, etc.), and are authorized to have such knowledge, how large would you say that number is? For instance, how many people in the United States government might you guess are privy to this knowledge?
I'm just asking for a guess, a wild speculation perhaps...
--------------------
Homer: Aww, this isn't about Jesus, is it?
Lovejoy: All things are about Jesus, Homer. Except this.
Posts: 773 | From: Region formerly known as the Biretta Belt | Registered: Aug 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
Astronomers know; they've been bought into silence. I have contacted two that deliberately obfuscate their data.
Part of the Military knows for fact and another part, by Remote Viewing.
The National Reconnaissance Organization knows (I check in with them). Obama knows some, but not the motives of Annunaki negotiators, who are tricky.
QE2 and a handful of the European 300 families know about it, including the Vatican since way back in the 1980s when they built more observatories.
The Japanese (JAXA) and Chinese know some of it.
The Germans and Norwegians who administer the south pole know a lot, and they've worked with the Annunaki more and longer (since the 1920's) than anybody else has.
That's my sense of, how far this knowledge gets.
Em
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg: Astronomers know; they've been bought into silence.
Darn! I stopped studying Astronomy after my first year in University. I should have continued and gotten my part of the bribe.
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
Maybe bribery maybe blackmail.
If certain information is politically non-PC an astronomer can't get his grants renewed.
That's simple fact these days.
Em
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg: Astronomers know; they've been bought into silence. I have contacted two that deliberately obfuscate their data.
Just another question: how do these astronomers find out about Niburu, and how do they learn that they shouldn't talk about it?
Like I said, I dropped out of Astronomy after my first year. During that year I didn't learn about Niburu, it was just Stellar Physics and Galactic Dynamics and stuff. I suppose that I wasn't let in on the secret, because I wasn't advanced enough in Astronomy yet?
So, how does it work? What would have happened if I had continued my studies? I can imagine the following scene:
It's the fourth year in my Astronomy studies. I'm on my way to Practical Observation class, like every Thursday this year. When I get there, our old familiar professor looks slightly nervous. A man in suit whom we don't know is sitting in the corner of the room.
Our professor clears his throat and says: "There's something we need to tell you. Soon, all of you are going to study the Cosmos on your own, pointing your telescopes to various places in the sky. We can't risk that you'd find out by accident and we'd be forced to ... intervene."
One by one, we're led to the University's telescope. When it's my turn, I swallow and look through they eyepiece. There, in the middle of my vision, is Niburu in all its glory. While I try to regain my breath, I suddenly feel a warm hand on my shoulder. I don't have to look around to know who it is.
"LeRoc, we need to talk about your financial future", the man in the suit says.
Is it like this?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by LeRoc:
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg: Astronomers know; they've been bought into silence. I have contacted two that deliberately obfuscate their data.
Just another question: how do these astronomers find out about Niburu, and how do they learn that they shouldn't talk about it?
Like I said, I dropped out of Astronomy after my first year. During that year I didn't learn about Niburu, it was just Stellar Physics and Galactic Dynamics and stuff. I suppose that I wasn't let in on the secret, because I wasn't advanced enough in Astronomy yet?
So, how does it work? What would have happened if I had continued my studies? I can imagine the following scene:
It's the fourth year in my Astronomy studies. I'm on my way to Practical Observation class, like every Thursday this year. When I get there, our old familiar professor looks slightly nervous. A man in suit whom we don't know is sitting in the corner of the room.
Our professor clears his throat and says: "There's something we need to tell you. Soon, all of you are going to study the Cosmos on your own, pointing your telescopes to various places in the sky. We can't risk that you'd find out by accident and we'd be forced to ... intervene."
One by one, we're led to the University's telescope. When it's my turn, I swallow and look through they eyepiece. There, in the middle of my vision, is Niburu in all its glory. While I try to regain my breath, I suddenly feel a warm hand on my shoulder. I don't have to look around to know who it is.
"LeRoc, we need to talk about your financial future", the man in the suit says.
Is it like this?
Not one bit.
1. Focus.--There's a certain class of people who own the companies that produce telescopes. They are produced to certain specifications, which never vary. Only expensive telescopes have an adjustment for focal-length. Otherwise, it is assume the focal-length will be "infinite". This guarantees that focus on planetary bodies WILL MISS, EXCEPT FOR FOCUS ON THE TEXTURE OF THE SURFACE OF THE PLANET, WHICH WILL BE VERY FINE, ALWAYS. There is no provision for seeing "inside" a transparent surface; in fact, I have never ever seen a description of a heavenly body described as "transparent" even though I find transparent surfaces all the time because I look for them.
2. Resolution.--The same class of telescope manufacturers has influence over the "grain" of images for the internet which was set at 72 pixels per inch, although the photographic standard is 300 pixels per inch. This GUARANTEES that images will be "rough-hewn" and not "fine grained." And this fact provides opportunities for mis-scaling and rotating images, to diffuse details.
3. Established Distances & Dimensions.--These are historically {SET} and they cannot be questioned. The method for establishing planetary distances is said to have been "discovered" centuries ago. Never mind, they were inaccurate then, and they're inaccurate now--GROSSLY OFF BY thousands of percent. An example. Our Moon is described by NASA as 2100 in diameter, 226000 miles out. What if I told you it's only 10.8 miles in diameter, only 50000 miles out? That is the order of magnitude of errors in CONVENTIONS in the Astronomy discipline.
http://lro.gsfc.nasa.gov/moonfacts.html
For starters.
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
As a Xeroid, my job was to make my customers' copies clear and readable.
Sometimes people rotated their original on the glass, so it was skewed.
Sometimes they ran out of ink, so it was too light; to a cleaning problem, too dark or all dark.
Or if it were a color copier, things came out the wrong color.
We had "registration" problems, copies came out the wrong size, stretched or sqeezed.
These are the sort of faults I find in space images coming out of NASA, ESA, JAXA, APOD and LPOD ... same stuff all the time.
And when you see different faults, different images OF THE SAME SERIES, you begin to realize, somebody's messing with these ... ON PURPOSE.
You do.
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
Emily Windsor-Cragg, first you say that all the astronomers in the world are bribed or blackmailed, and then you say that it's actually that all the telescopes are skewed to produce false images. Which is it? Why does the story keep changing?
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Emily Windsor-Cragg
Shipmate
# 17687
|
Posted
My story isn't changing at all.
The Annunaki negotiated a Treaty that says, Non-Disclosure trumps Law.
Everybody involved in the process of astronomical information had to be managed and controlled.
The process had to be frozen in place, and no improvements permitted in visual technologies for space shots (satellite fly-bys excepted, but for other reasons).
I have a 1968 photo of the Moon crystal clear; after that Apollo "photography" including "one small step for mankind" has been worse than abysmal.
We have satellites that can read a car license plate on the ground, but we can't see buildings on the Moon or Mars. This is pure poppycock driven the Treaty.
So anything goes. If an astronomer gets too curious as Dr. Harrington did, off him! Fire him, penalize him, lose his grant--whatever it takes to keep the Treaty with the Annunaki inviolate.
You don't wanna piss people off whose technologies are a million years ahead of your own ... now do you? That's where the Annunaki stood until recently ... when Karma came home to them too.
But anyway, I don't think so. We don't want to alienate our Progenitor Cousins, for many reasons.
I could do a whole dissertation on the incidental and deliberate "digital image errors" that are made in order that the Treaty stands clean.
Posts: 326 | From: California | Registered: May 2013
| IP: Logged
|
|
LeRoc
Famous Dutch pirate
# 3216
|
Posted
quote:
Emily Windsor-Cragg: If an astronomer gets too curious as Dr. Harrington did, off him! Fire him, penalize him, lose his grant--whatever it takes to keep the Treaty with the Annunaki inviolate.
Surely that can't be enough. Then you'd have an astronomer who would have every reason to hold a grudge against the Annunaki, since they cost him his job. He already lost his job, so he doesn't need to be afraid of that anymore. Why wouldn't he spill the beans after being fired?
--------------------
I know why God made the rhinoceros, it's because He couldn't see the rhinoceros, so He made the rhinoceros to be able to see it. (Clarice Lispector)
Posts: 9474 | From: Brazil / Africa | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Lothiriel
Shipmate
# 15561
|
Posted
There's so much there to choose from -- where to begin? I'll go with this:
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
We have satellites that can read a car license plate on the ground, but we can't see buildings on the Moon or Mars. This is pure poppycock driven the Treaty.
But the simplest conclusion to draw from this is that there are no buildings on the moon or Mars. I've looked at some of your photos that were supposed to show buildings on Mars, but I don't see a darned thing other than bare rock, and not even a rock formation that remotely resembles a building.
Has anyone ever agreed with you that they see in your photos what you're seeing?
--------------------
If you want to build a ship, don't drum up the men to gather wood, divide the work and give orders. Instead, teach them to yearn for the vast and endless sea. St-Exupery
my blog
Posts: 538 | From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Mar 2010
| IP: Logged
|
|
Gee D
Shipmate
# 13815
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Emily Windsor-Cragg:
The Germans and Norwegians who administer the south pole know a lot, and they've worked with the Annunaki more and longer (since the 1920's) than anybody else has.
That's my sense of, how far this knowledge gets.
Em
The South Pole is not administered by the Germans or the Norwegians, separately or together. The whole of Antarctica is administered under the Antarctic Treaty, which came into force in 1961. Norway was an original party to the treaty; the 2 Germanies acceded to it rather later, and upon unification the present republic became a member.
[ 23. May 2013, 01:51: Message edited by: Gee D ]
--------------------
Not every Anglican in Sydney is Sydney Anglican
Posts: 7028 | From: Warrawee NSW Australia | Registered: Jun 2008
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Printer-friendly view
