• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Science cannot solve the final mystery

ecco

Veteran Member
Yes, you are right. I attributed some things which you didn't claim. This is how I do it. I acknowledge it. For those who what to read it, go back in the thread.

Now do you agree with this?
Science has limits: A few things that science does not do
Glancing through the list, yes, I agree with those points.

In terms of this thread, I don't believe we will ever be able to figure it all out.

It's entirely possible that energy/quarks are many levels above the "basic building block".
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I meant what I said but then you read far too much into it.

Religion is based on ancient science but that means neither that religion is superior to modern science nor that ancient science is superior to modern science. I meant that modern science is based in belief but that we can't see it because our language filters all sensation and perception through belief. Just because there is so much belief underlying and in modern science doesn't make it in any way inferior to ancient science.

What belief is science based on? What do you think we can't see "because our language filters all sensation and perception through belief"?

Ancient science had its assets and liabilities. Its chief weakness was that as knowledge and theory were added to the language, the language itself became geometrically more complex. It was making people tongue tied.

What good is a language that increasing portions of the population were incapable of using. First they invented writing to accommodate those incapable of understanding basic "English" and eventually there weren't enough literate individuals to even operate the state. They had to switch to the "pidgin" form of Ancient Language that was already being used by all the "dummies". It was a 1200 year process between writing and the "tower of babel". A few literate people lived on for centuries as the "Nephilim".

The most important thing here that people are missing is that consciousness is a gift given by nature to assure survival of the individual. Until modern language arose ALL CONSCIOUS THINGS were scientists just as all plants and animals (non-human) are today. It is logic manifested as consciousness and expressed as language which is science until the Tower of Babel. Now we humans must employ experiment to tie our beliefs to reality and to execute science because our language is still just as confused as it was in 2000 BC when the tower "fell".

We have completely botched everything because science and history were lost in a cloud of (metaphorical) dust. Chemistry became alchemy, language became stand up humor, and science became religion. Religion, however, better than the other confusions, accurately reflects ancient science. It continues to drift just like the 7 billion different languages we employ but at it's root is a science that was poor at creating technology but excellent at creating understanding. Indeed our Holy Trinity is a confusion of ancient "thought"; Knowledge > Creation > Understanding.

This is all pretty hard for people not because it isn't very well evidenced and completely logical but because nobody wants to believe it. The whole human race is polarized along lines that don't even exist and people value their opinions far too much to accept that all opinions are wrong and we are not even an "intelligent" species. We are just wordy and have just accumulated vast amounts of knowledge because we have had complex language for 40,000 years. Nobody wants to believe that most of our knowledge is actually incorrect or highly conditional on things that have little to do with reality itself. We believe we have virtually become Gods so we allow Peers to vote on the very make-up of reality. We are Homo Omnisciencis and conquer far off moon in a single bound. We imagine we have far more knowledge and power and wisdom than we really do so we make and maintain outrageous mistakes. As companies, brands, quality, and resources spiral down the tubes at ever increasing rates we give all the wealth to those who have engineered the madness and call the creators of the wealth "migrant", "laborers", "illegals", "untrained", and all manner of labels to avoid allowing them to have a share. Resources, capital, and loyalty no longer have value or meaning. Companies don't care if you buy their product or not because they're engineered junk and you have to buy something. The madness goes far beyond just the economy and touches every institution.

People just don't care so they don't notice Congress makes taxpayers pay the insurance for infrastructure built on beeches that Congress deems will soon be deep underwater.

People just don't care because people believe we know everything and any contradiction is merely apparent while they can watch the Packers, eat some Cheetos, and forget about everything else.

I'll let someone else address this if anyone wants to. I tried. But I know my limits.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
There is evidence and logic in every one of my posts but you can't see it. You see what you believe.
As I said:
Well, there ya go. Got no evidence to support your beliefs? Can't present evidence ya don't have? No problamo! Just assert you won't present any evidence because I wouldn't see the logic of your evidence.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
Try this on for size, what reality is, is like a line of positions within the line. You can't get outside the line, that is the objective part of it, but there is some leeway because there are different potions on the line , where in effect a form of cognitive and moral relativism kicks in. The problem is that there is no one position on the line, that is objectively better, because all positions are part of the line.

I know, but that is how I visualize cognitive and moral relativism. It is not that everything goes, but nor is, that is one single correct answer. I.e. how you view e.g. science can change the position on line.


I don't know.

But just as I keep saying over and over, we do all choose what we want to believe and then we see only what we believe and eventually becopme what we believe. I know experientially this is true. Everything I know says we are what we believe.

This obviously applies to me personally as well and when I was quite young I chose to believe (I accepted axiomatically) that there is a single reality and the job of all of us, science, philosophy, and experience is to determine the nature of this reality. Of course a lifetime has shown me there is a single reality because this was my assumption and modern human life is a giant circular argument.

I believe that there is a single reality is also accepted axiomaticaklly by all animals and ancient man and that Ancient Language was sufficiently complex as to create a somewhat advanced science based on a few simple axioms including the existence of a single fixed and unyielding reality.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
As I said:
Well, there ya go. Got no evidence to support your beliefs? Can't present evidence ya don't have? No problamo! Just assert you won't present any evidence because I wouldn't see the logic of your evidence.

You quoted my best evidence yet you can't see it!
 

ecco

Veteran Member
I think you are wrong and aren't trying to understand me.
At this point, you are probably correct. Your short posts contain nothing of substance. Your very long posts are so ****self-censored**** as to be meaningless, at least to me.


Science is based in belief or not. Our opinion has no effect on the reality.
I can agree with the second sentence.

God doesn't evaporate when an atheist walks in the room and He doesn't reform when a religious person comes in.

He doesn't do much of anything, does He? Perhaps He/They/Them don't really exist. That would explain a lot of things.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
You quoted my best evidence yet you can't see it!

Until you can accept that this might be evidence you won't see anything else.

Over and over and over I cite evidence and the logic that shows my interpretation of that evidence could be correct but most people see no evidence. This happens even when I start citing nuts and bolts facts and data because people are in the habit of dismissing evidence that doesn't suit their beliefs or for which they have other interpretations. If you can't get by square one you won't see anything else either.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
I can agree with the second sentence.

That is remarkable.

Would you agree then that if everyone believed you can add one apple and one apple that you'd have two identical apples? Would you agree that one apple plus one orange make two fruit even if the apple is actually an Apple?

He doesn't do much of anything, does He? Perhaps He/They/Them don't really exist. That would explain a lot of things.

It's hard to catch Him in the act of blinking in and out of existence (or much of anything else) lending weight to the argument he doesn't exist, but this doesn't explain the logic and possible intelligence behind the nature of reality suggesting He might exist. I'm satisfied with not knowing. Frankly I've never even been that certain that there is one reality and it exists like we perceive it. I made the assumption because I wanted something solid on which to base my generalism (nexialism)(personal science). Perhaps I live in the matrix or I'm actually dreaming. But I can predicate all my beliefs on the "fact" that if reality exists then my beliefs are likely true. If there is one reality then I might be right. If there is one reality it appears there may be at least two sciences based on two metaphysics and the only thing that differentiates humans from other life forms is our recently acquired language and experiment.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
I'll let someone else address this if anyone wants to. I tried. But I know my limits.

Most people have no clue what I'm on about. Many can agree with almost everything but they say "so what".

I believe it's not that difficult to understand the concept of a metaphysical language and from there the sky is the limit. Simply stated nothing is quite what it appears. Even experimental results need to be seen in a new light but most of this is above my pay grade. Frankly seeing modern science from an ancient perspective is quite difficult. Even simple science is tough from a binary perspective. We see not what's there but it's more like a mass delusion caused by language. "Delusion" might not be the right word; "mirage" is better. It's not real but it looks like something else. "Mirage" and "mirror" probably are similar because our languages are all derived from ancient science and share the exact same vocabulary as Ancient Language (after centuries of drift). I've got something by the tail that seems like a tiger but may be a polliwog.

Art Carney once said "as long as the bag's puttin' out, I'm puttin' in.". Well this interpretation of reality keeps making accurate predictions. I think it's a tiger and I'm puttin' in.

Twilight Zone Tuesday - Night of the Meek - Sci-Fi & Scary
 

gnostic

The Lost One
As I said:
Well, there ya go. Got no evidence to support your beliefs? Can't present evidence ya don't have? No problamo! Just assert you won't present any evidence because I wouldn't see the logic of your evidence.
In the 3 threads that I know of, including this one, he never presented a single piece of evidence when he sprout his Ancient Language or Ancient Science conspiracy theories; they all just his opinions.

And this forum, isn’t the only one where he rant and rave. Over there (the other forums and blogs) other people have also found him to be arrogant and deluded as he is here. Over these other places, like here, he tried to redefine words to his liking, playing word games.

I don’t people expressing their opinions here, or disagreeing with others, over this issue or that. But if their opinions are based on facts, then they needs to present evidences to back them up.

All cladking have done, is trying to his unsubstantiated opinions with more unsubstantiated opinions, that has become nothing more than circular reasoning.

The only smoke and mirrors that I see come from him.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
It's kindda funny really. I've proven that the pyramids were said by their builders to be not the tomb of the king but the king himself. I've debunked ramps. I've shown through a preponderance of evidence that ramps were not used to build the pyramids. I've proven that there were no words of "thought", "belief", or even taxonomic words in the Ancient Language and it breaks Zipf's Law. Egyptology is the very epitome of Look and See Science. It was established in the 1880's as such. It underlies most of the soft sciences and it is completely wrong (in all probability). Rather than addressing any argument at all they've pulled up the draw bridges to their ivory towers. For four years now they have the data that puts the lie to all of their assumptions but they will not publish it so the peers can see it!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Dr Hawass has specifically stated several times in the last four years that no data that doesn't support the paradigm will be released.

I merely stumbled on the truth. Anyone could have done it. It is unfortunate it was me and the nature of the truth is unfortunate since it paints Egyptology and, by extension, all soft sciences in a very poor light. If I could go back to 2006 I would be more careful of my footing and let some Egyptologist figure it out someday. I might never have known we are the stinky footed bumpkins that Egyptology believes the ancients were.

People would be aghast if they knew what was going on. For instance fully 5% of all sentences that appear to survive from the great pyramid building age specifically and literally say either that the king is the pyramid or that the king's tomb is elsewhere. One sentence is "He (the dead king) is the pyramid".

https://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/pyt/index.htm

Egyptology has interpreted the literal meaning out of every word.

These are all simple facts. The simple fact is I predicted the results of the tests they now refuse to publish and spent years cajoling them to do the tests.


None of this is relevant. What is relevant is the nature of our language and how it complicates seeing some things. The relevance is how our beliefs and assumptions are in part derived from language.


I will probably avoid responding to your posts in the future unless you ever say something that is relevant rather than your continuing word games. And maybe not even then. I get enough mean spirited clap trap that I don't need more.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
I'll let someone else address this if anyone wants to. I tried. But I know my limits.
He talks about ancient science, beaver science and bee science as if they are established facts that are widely recognized, but they mean nothing to me and are not established facts anywhere I know of. All I have gotten from his posts is that he does not like Egyptologists.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
Most people have no clue what I'm on about. Many can agree with almost everything but they say "so what".

I believe it's not that difficult to understand the concept of a metaphysical language and from there the sky is the limit. Simply stated nothing is quite what it appears. Even experimental results need to be seen in a new light but most of this is above my pay grade. Frankly seeing modern science from an ancient perspective is quite difficult. Even simple science is tough from a binary perspective. We see not what's there but it's more like a mass delusion caused by language. "Delusion" might not be the right word; "mirage" is better. It's not real but it looks like something else. "Mirage" and "mirror" probably are similar because our languages are all derived from ancient science and share the exact same vocabulary as Ancient Language (after centuries of drift). I've got something by the tail that seems like a tiger but may be a polliwog.

Art Carney once said "as long as the bag's puttin' out, I'm puttin' in.". Well this interpretation of reality keeps making accurate predictions. I think it's a tiger and I'm puttin' in.

Twilight Zone Tuesday - Night of the Meek - Sci-Fi & Scary
I definitely have no clue what you are on about.

I read this post and understand the words, but not what you mean by how you have strung them together. There is that claim about ancient science that means nothing.

I have yet to see anything that you have demonstrated, despite your claims to the contrary.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
In the 3 threads that I know of, including this one, he never presented a single piece of evidence when he sprout his Ancient Language or Ancient Science conspiracy theories; they all just his opinions.

And this forum, isn’t the only one where he rant and rave. Over there (the other forums and blogs) other people have also found him to be arrogant and deluded as he is here. Over these other places, like here, he tried to redefine words to his liking, playing word games.

I don’t people expressing their opinions here, or disagreeing with others, over this issue or that. But if their opinions are based on facts, then they needs to present evidences to back them up.

All cladking have done, is trying to his unsubstantiated opinions with more unsubstantiated opinions, that has become nothing more than circular reasoning.

The only smoke and mirrors that I see come from him.
It's an ancient science thing. We will never understand.
 

ecco

Veteran Member
In the 3 threads that I know of, including this one, he never presented a single piece of evidence when he sprout his Ancient Language or Ancient Science conspiracy theories; they all just his opinions.

And this forum, isn’t the only one where he rant and rave. Over there (the other forums and blogs) other people have also found him to be arrogant and deluded as he is here. Over these other places, like here, he tried to redefine words to his liking, playing word games.

I don’t people expressing their opinions here, or disagreeing with others, over this issue or that. But if their opinions are based on facts, then they needs to present evidences to back them up.

All cladking have done, is trying to his unsubstantiated opinions with more unsubstantiated opinions, that has become nothing more than circular reasoning.

The only smoke and mirrors that I see come from him.
Yeah, I've pretty much given up responding to his posts.
 

cladking

Well-Known Member
There is that claim about ancient science that means nothing.

This is what I'm up against. The term "ancient science" doesn't even appear in the post you quote.

I can't elaborate on, defend, or explain something I never said.

Perhaps you are referring to my claim (in other posts) that ancient science exists and language is its metaphysics. How am I supposed to know? If this is it you'll need a specific question or argument. How about them Bears?
 
Last edited:

cladking

Well-Known Member
I have yet to see anything that you have demonstrated, despite your claims to the contrary.

Most of my theories are not relevant in this thread. If you really care to engage in debate and see the evidence I suggest you try the "Ancient Reality" thread where it is relevant. Debunking ramps and showing the inanity of the concept that the pyramids could only have been built with ramps was done years ago yet Egyptology still hasn't backed off all the way. Now days they are more likely to say they don't know how they were built but ramps are the most probable. Then they continue to ignore the fact they are debunked while making feeble attempts to tear down the debunkment plank by plank and looking very silly in the process.

The nature of our language and how it relates to science and metaphysics is, I believe, relevant here. Humans have always been language because we use it not only to accumulate knowledge over the generations but also to think. We are constrained by our nature but we can't see that our nature is built on language. By the same token language imparts assumptions about reality which defines how we think and construct models. Babies are taught to see reality and this is largely through language as they get older. Every question then is about ourselves, and from the perspective of those who think like us some things are simply as invisible as a sheet of paper on edge to a one eyed man.
 

gnostic

The Lost One
Just more conspiracy theory, strawman argument and things about Egyptology which have nothing to do with the topic of this thread.

Plus Egyptology was never “science”, and you debunking ramps have nothing to do with science.

All you are doing is changing the subject, and making the topic about you and your new age woo.
 

Dan From Smithville

He who controls the spice controls the universe.
Staff member
Premium Member
This is what I'm up against. The term "ancient science" doesn't even appear in the post you quote.

I can't elaborate on, defend, or explain something I never said.

Perhaps you are referring to my claim (in other posts) that ancient science exists and language is its metaphysics. How am I supposed to know? If this is it you'll need a specific question or argument. How about them Bears?
You must have missed it, because here it is.

Most people have no clue what I'm on about. Many can agree with almost everything but they say "so what".

I believe it's not that difficult to understand the concept of a metaphysical language and from there the sky is the limit. Simply stated nothing is quite what it appears. Even experimental results need to be seen in a new light but most of this is above my pay grade. Frankly seeing modern science from an ancient perspective is quite difficult. Even simple science is tough from a binary perspective. We see not what's there but it's more like a mass delusion caused by language. "Delusion" might not be the right word; "mirage" is better. It's not real but it looks like something else. "Mirage" and "mirror" probably are similar because our languages are all derived from ancient science and share the exact same vocabulary as Ancient Language (after centuries of drift). I've got something by the tail that seems like a tiger but may be a polliwog.

Art Carney once said "as long as the bag's puttin' out, I'm puttin' in.". Well this interpretation of reality keeps making accurate predictions. I think it's a tiger and I'm puttin' in.

Twilight Zone Tuesday - Night of the Meek - Sci-Fi & Scary
See. Right there in bold.
 
Top