Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Could You Believe If A New Genesis Theory Could Be Proven Logically?

page: 2
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 02:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by Wertdagf
reply to post by NorEaster
 


Theres a reason that several religions that share the same text all behave differntly.... and it has a alot to do with their economic situation. Its hard to have somone living a comfortable life believe that killing themselves is for the best...

But i agree that all religion is a disease... a disease found in poverty.

Im not sure if youve done any research on abiogenesis but there are several leading theorys that explain quite well the origins of life. In a matter of a few years religion will be gone.


Obviously life did emerge from what had already emerged as material. That's a nobrainer, at least concerning any realistic approach to progressive development. What pulled that development forward isn't as readily apparent for most, but the imperative expressions do exist and are still actively affecting everything that works to persist. Still, that's a very small slice of what I'm referring to here.




posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 02:58 PM
link   
reply to post by Barcs
 



Here's a link to some folks you might like to look into.

www.worldnpa.org...

They're scientists who've determined that modern science is exactly like I've described, and is extremely dogmatic in how it finds new truth.


I think you may have overlooked this bunch of scientists who will disagree with you on your view of the hierarchical nature of the modern scientific/academic community. There are some fringers in that group, but also some very well regarded professionals. You can fight with them about this, since I honestly haven't got the patience or the interest in your community to take on your demands. To me, authoritarianism savages the pursuit of knowledge and truth regardless of what kind of robes it dolls itself up in.

As far as the nonsense that passes for Quantum Mechanics and has become associated with Theoretical Physics as a direct result, I agree with Einstein. It's the lack of science's capacity to develop a means of moving out of the laboratory and into the relative confines of practical theaters of reality (where all phenomena exists in full contextual identity, and is therefore capable of being fully and authentically examined) that allows that sort of self-promoting recklessness to seize popular authority over questions that can't be answered under a microscope. The mainstream scientific community's adamant dismissal of recent technical efforts to research any empirical evidence of paranormal activity is just one very obvious example of this mindset.

Here's a video documentary of a 5 year study, conducted in a small village in England that produced over 1,000 hours of video and audio evidence, involved hundreds of trained scientists and professional skeptics (including the most prestigious debunking organization in the world - www.spr.ac.uk... - who participated for two years as a constant control function), and yet the report they published (peer reviewed and all) received no attention, and the research remains shunted to the fringes of professional science.



If you watch that documentary, you'll probably never notice anything significant about any of it, and that's what's wrong with what's become of science and the scientific method. Believe me, I'm not anyone to embrace the mystical (at all), but I do remain free to be convinced by clear and compelling evidence.

edit on 6/2/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 2 2012 @ 08:41 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

I think you are overly generalizing people. And I think you shouldn't separate religion and science the way you do, because the way I see, some people's religion is science, and some religious incorporate scientific findings into their religion.

Lets face it... Some people seek a new genesis explanation and some don't. Some people care and some don't. Some who care, do so for reasons other than other peoples reasons. Same goes for those who wouldn't accept a new explanation - and the reasons are as varying as people's belief systems.

In short: I don't think a new genesis explanation would be widely accepted if it isn't based on anything religious or scientific or it's not backed by people we respect.

 

Also, I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but I think we shouldn't dismiss people's ideas just because they might be considered "crazies". I think that if all known phenomenon can be best explained by us not existing, in a physical sense of the word, then we shouldn't just dismiss it as crazy, even if the people who make the claims show signs of extreme psychosis.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 08:24 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by NorEaster
 

I think you are overly generalizing people. And I think you shouldn't separate religion and science the way you do, because the way I see, some people's religion is science, and some religious incorporate scientific findings into their religion.


Of course, I'm speaking in broad generalizations since I'm trying to encapsulate a large notion within a very small presentation. Still, it is very obvious that science and religion approach the human condition from extreme ends of the available spectrum, and I don't expect to get a lot of opposition from a lot of people when I suggest such a thing. There are a relative handful of people who attempt to synthesize these two angles of approach, and we all know that already. Those attempts are sometimes interesting and sometimes pretty cynical, and make for fun YouTube viewing from time to time.

In truth, deliberately and artificially dicing up what constitutes the whole of what it means to be a human being is what has brought the modern human race to the degree of intense psychological stress that we all discuss on this site each and every day. Violence and hatred have been a constant presence within human civilizations since the very first city state emerged. Corruption and greed are also nothing new. What is new is the building need for all of this - the good, the bad, and the god-awful ugly - to make sense in a way that actually makes sense, as opposed to making sense in a way that serves a specific narrative that's been handed down by people who (let's face it) couldn't have passed a 9th grade natural science test, even if they'd been given a cheat sheet with the answers.

Sentience is a powerful survival tool, but if a viscerally acceptable narrative of self isn't available, that sentience can become increasingly debilitating. A definite distraction at the very least, and this is what drove the ancients to inventing theologies and superstitions. Now, with the help of our own technological accomplishments, we've handily debunked the logical plausibility of every single traditional narrative that exists, and what we're left with is a confusing assortment of patchwork assertions that either
  • double-down (a common stress response) on what has already been completely discredited, (this is why religious and spiritualistic fundamentalism is so virulent in so many parts of the modern, literate world, and in a seemingly direct violation of what should be an increase in intellectual and cultural sophistication)
  • frantically combine and dismiss disparate aspects of both extremes in increasingly confusing attempts to fabricate an explanation for one traditional narrative or another that doesn't mock the brain's need for logical consistency within its own understanding of itself and its place with a version of reality that is also logically consistent, or
  • belligerently insist that reality is an illusion, logic is a human contrivance and that the human intellect is the Alpha and Omega creator force behind all that exists and has ever existed.

The bitch is that each of these efforts leaves the logic-driven human brain stressed, because the whole of what each modern brain has been exposed to as incontrovertible reality clashes with every one of these attempts to replace or rehabilitate what has already been dismissed as discredited ignorance. For most people, the only recourse is to focus on immediate satiety - enter greed, sexual excess, hyper-competitiveness, consumerism, eating disorders, gambling, drugs, recreational violence - to bury their brain's need for a belief that it knows what it is and how it came to exist, beneath a constant flood of quick distractions.


Lets face it... Some people seek a new genesis explanation and some don't. Some people care and some don't. Some who care, do so for reasons other than other peoples reasons. Same goes for those who wouldn't accept a new explanation - and the reasons are as varying as people's belief systems.

In short: I don't think a new genesis explanation would be widely accepted if it isn't based on anything religious or scientific or it's not backed by people we respect.


Most people have no idea why life sucks so much for them. Not that they need faith or religion or enlightenment, but that, viscerally, they each need to have a core reality narrative that makes logical sense to the brain that works to configure each thought, response, reaction, emotion, and whatever else is needed to survive from instant to instant. Before so much breakthrough knowledge and incontrovertible information was so ubiquitous, the modern person's brain had the ability to rationalize a logical path through such reality dissonance, but that was before the Internet and instant global communication technology.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 08:41 AM
link   

Originally posted by Bleeeeep
reply to post by NorEaster
 

Also, I'm not sure if you were being sarcastic or not, but I think we shouldn't dismiss people's ideas just because they might be considered "crazies". I think that if all known phenomenon can be best explained by us not existing, in a physical sense of the word, then we shouldn't just dismiss it as crazy, even if the people who make the claims show signs of extreme psychosis.


Crazy is as crazy insists. I spend a lot of my time here on the Metaphysics, Philosophy forum, and just wandering through that place can alert you to the fact that there are a lot of strident declarations concerning what is real (or that reality is abhorrent to some firmly held belief of some sort - of course, backed up by a YouTube clip) that make no sense whatsoever when fully fleshed out (which, apparently indicates a complete failure in human potential associated with any person who has fully fleshed out the specific declaration and found it completely helpless beyond the confines of a very strict ideological application) I don't know. Maybe I should be much more cynical, and suggest that these folks are liars, and not crazies? Maybe you're right, and I am judging them inaccurately?

By the way, I also suffer from OCD, although the medication I take (fluvoxamine) does mitigate any repetitive behavior symptoms. I see the need for precision as helpful when researching and writing, and as long as I don't let the serotonin levels drop, the nastier aspects of the disorder keep their distance. Try combining that with inattentive ADD (which I also have) and you end up with a fascinating life story that features quite a body count (metaphorically speaking, of course). Adderall and fluvoxamine are quite a cocktail. I recommend it - under a trained physician's care, of course.
edit on 6/3/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:14 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I think you have effectively ruled out every possible new genesis explanation, and yet none at all. That is to say, you want to rule out what we know is false, but we can't because we do not know anything to be true. That's not just some physiological mumbo jumbo either.

I think if you want a unifying explanation you should look to quantum mechanics. The fact that certain particles can exist in two places at once and others become a wave instead of a particle, because we are not focusing on them, should tell you we do not exist as we think we do.

I think if there is to be only one theory then it should be that we are in a computer program that we can alter with our minds and bodies by storing information to it and then said information is simultaneous reread to manifest our reality. This would allow for God, and scientific laws, and ghosts, and miracles, and chi, and magick, and and aliens, and anything you can possibly dream of, and at the same time, it is the only way that any of them can be explained properly.



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 11:23 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I watched the beginning and so far all I see is things that could easily be faked. You mentioned it was peer reviewed, but it was not, it was organized by alleged mediums, not by scientists. They have a vested interest to lie and fake something like this to improve their business. It hasn't been published in any peer reviewed journal. Sorry, that's not science. Has any scientist actually repeated these results, tested the equipment they are using, or investigated independently? You're mad because science hasn't given credence to people "speaking to the dead" through an old radio on a youtube video?


You can fight with them about this, since I honestly haven't got the patience or the interest in your community to take on your demands. To me, authoritarianism savages the pursuit of knowledge and truth regardless of what kind of robes it dolls itself up in.

I'm honestly not sure what you're talking about here. I'm not demanding anything, I was asking for the scientific evidence for your claim that certain science has been ignored. Knowledge is the key. The main reason I'm here, is to learn.

Philosophy is interesting, but it's not science.
edit on 3-6-2012 by Barcs because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 3 2012 @ 01:38 PM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


If it was airtight and completely plausable you would have no choice but to accept it. If it was that certain i dont think it would be classed as atheory anymore.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 08:14 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 

The trouble with your initial premise is easily diagnosed: you think that if a story is logically consistent it should be believed. I know you from our former conversations, NorEaster, and I know well how cruelly this error has beguiled you from the truths you seek.

No 'genesis theory' can ever be proved beyond doubt, because it all happened so very long ago. We can make up stories about it, more or less logically watertight, but we cannot establish any of them beyond doubt. The best we can do is make up a theory that fits the facts we already know, and then test it against whatever new facts we discover to see whether they contradict and thus falsify the theory.

The scientific narrative concerning the origins of the universe, life and mind fits the known facts extremely well, and has done so for about 150 years, accommodating new discoveries without need for a radical overhaul, yet evolving and growing all the while. It is based, not on some watertight 'theory', but on observation and deduction from what is observed. Yet it is as logically consistent as any hypothesis made up from whole cloth.

There was no 'truce' between science and philosophy that divided up the realm of human experience into the empirical and the logical. This is how it people who want their wishes to come true think history happened, but it is not so in fact. Science and philosophy are territories equally inhabited by empiricism and logic. What you are demanding is a theory that incorporates what is not known but merely hoped for, in order to satisfy itches unscratched by reality. Sorry, but that option is not in the catalogue.

No doubt you will attempt to draw me into an argument concerning the nature of what is known, on whether mind precedes matter or vice versa, and so on. I will not be drawn. The views you have expressed about quantum mechanics on this thread reveal that you are still trying to fit the world into your picture of it rather than trying to fit your picture to the world, and I am done with people who think like that. You are, by the way, mistaken about Einstein; he did not reject quantum mechanics – he could hardly have done so, being one of its founding fathers – but only one aspect of it, namely nonlocality. He has since been proved resoundingly wrong.

edit on 4/6/12 by Astyanax because: it needed to be less boring.



posted on Jun, 4 2012 @ 09:18 PM
link   

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by NorEaster
 

The trouble with your initial premise is easily diagnosed: you think that if a story is logically consistent it should be believed. I know you from our former conversations, NorEaster, and I know well how cruelly this error has beguiled you from the truths you seek.


Ha! Cruelly beguiled, am I? How precious of you.


No 'genesis theory' can ever be proved beyond doubt, because it all happened so very long ago. We can make up stories about it, more or less logically watertight, but we cannot establish any of them beyond doubt. The best we can do is make up a theory that fits the facts we already know, and then test it against whatever new facts we discover to see whether they contradict and thus falsify the theory.


Anyone who thinks that establishing the true nature of existential genesis is accomplished by cobbing together a theory that attempts to logically prove a story about something that happened a long time ago, has no idea how to even begin the effort to determine - or even understand (if already determined) - the true nature of existential genesis. You just blew me away with that paragraph.

Hell, I don't even see any point in reading the rest of your post. Seriously. We're not even located within the same time zone on any of this. I guess that I'm not as interested in convincing you or anyone else that I've done the required work and opened up a very new way forward here as I was a while ago. This was just a quick question thread in a "genesis" forum to see if there is any interest in this sort of question, since I already know that there's very little interest in the topic within the Metaphysical/Philosophical forum where I've usually done my time on this board.

I think I found out what I wanted to find out, so you can concern about someone else's sad and haunted efforts to solve an intractable riddle. You go ahead and light a candle for me if it'll make you feel better. Not that I think that melting wax actually does anything other than make wax melt, but whatever works for you.

Getting sympathy from one of you for trying to share what I've discovered here is like getting petted by a homeless guy. Pretty funny actually.

Namaste, baby.

edit on 6/4/2012 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 5 2012 @ 12:28 AM
link   
reply to post by NorEaster
 


I guess that I'm not as interested in convincing you or anyone else that I've done the required work and opened up a very new way forward... Getting sympathy from one of you for trying to share what I've discovered here is like getting petted by a homeless guy. Pretty funny actually.

You should have told us it was you own genesis theory you were selling!


I thought you just wanted to discuss whether it was possible.

It isn't, y'know.


edit on 5/6/12 by Astyanax because: of sympathy for the homeless.






top topics



 
4
<< 1   >>

log in

join