No 2012 Cataclysm but Bolon Yokte Is Coming....

[red_pill_junkie]

I've used the frog analogy plenty of times myself

Fighting is all well and good, but history has shown again and again that bloody revolutions don't accomplish ANYTHING. My country suffered one of the bloodiest revolutions of the XXth century, and only left the victors to enjoy the spoils of war, while the majority of the population kept on living as they had done so for hundreds of years.

Look, all I'm saying is that we can decide to look at the glass half empty, in which case one seriously risks getting snared by depression and decide to have a bullet for breakfast, OR you can choose to look at it half-full. Half-full doesn't mean you're going to be like all those numb people who are desperate to keep on running on their little hamster wheel in order to buy crap they don't need; half-full means you choose to be aware that there are forces of good out there trying to find the remedies of our ailing world.

If you've read Castañeda's books, then you'd know this is called a "controlled folly."

Have a wonderful Xmas, and may you find the hope to face the challenges for next year

Saludos,

Miguel.

 

[trainedobserver]

Ela,

It wasn't my intention to poke fun at you Ela and I confess to complete ignorance where Bolon Yokte Ku'h is concerned. You are absolutely correct, the Paracast forum is an excellent place for this type of discussion. Please pardon my inappropriate attempt at humor.

 

[SoCalGNX]

Their own mess? Only mess here existing is thanks to - humans. So they better behave properly. God created misery? Bacterias? Predators? O no, he is not sick bastard. He/She created pefrection He/She maintained with other Gods via Brahma (pandora box), Vishnu (mainteinance) and Shiva (police) and it was perfect. But humans went in mutiny saying they do it better. Look what they have done. All negativity is humans and villans created, not Gods. And God wont clean after you, you are old enough to maintain your behind yourself.

Sorry that you did not "get it". My comment has obviously been misinterpreted by you. Might try to reread it so you can understand it.

 

[SoCalGNX]

Is that what is Paracast is all about? Who is going to be cooler in joke making or satire producing? Irony and sarcasm? I came here to talk about Bolon Yokte Ku'h coming back. To talk about electromagnetic fields (nice book is "Field" of Lynn McTaggart, or mentioned before "Hands of light".), particles, magic - possibility of it - and alike. This is PARAcast. PARA themes. I might got it wrong. This is making jokes about paranormal. Than I apologize, I'm in wrong place, I indeed need information and somebody to talk about it. I'm sick and tired jokes made on my behalf while only I want to share knowledge, not some highschooler's hihi. If you think my notions are funny, than you might be - on wrong page. And you are trainedobserver? I'm psychologist, NLP trainer, vice champion (black belt) in martial arts, learned plenty from native Americans about healing, being in school for healers, doing and studying human electromagnetic fields - including voices, object movements (personally I can stick knives without glue on myself.). And I'm so much more than that (I write poetry, paint...). I know how to joke too. But after all this, I'm not in mood.

Actually we come here to enjoy ourselves. While we do have serious conversations about many things, most people here like the relaxed attitude. Perhaps you are the one on the wrong page.

 

[mike]

I cant find any reference to

National Geographic that scientists calculated probability that Universe created itself is equal to probability that hurricane

other than your own comments on other sites such as
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-202_162-57334597/relax-world-wont-end-in-2012-expert-says/

I can however find plenty of links suggesting the universe did not need a god to create it
Such as.....

British physicist Stephen Hawking's latest book is already making waves with his observation that science can explain the universe's origin without invoking God.
"Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing," Hawking and his co-author, Caltech physicist Leonard Mlodinow, write in "The Grand Design," which is due to be issued next week. "Spontaneous creation is the reason there is something rather than nothing, why the universe exists, why we exist. It is not necessary to invoke God to light the blue touch paper and set the universe going."

http://cosmiclog.msnbc.msn.com/_news/2010/09/01/5028472-hawking-says-gods-not-needed-so

The quote seems to be a variation on the watchmaker analogy

There are three main arguments against the Watchmaker analogy. The first is that complex artifacts do not, in fact, require a designer, but can and do arise from "mindless" natural processes (as in the "Infinite Monkey Theorem"). The second argument is that the watch is a faulty analogy. The third argument is that the watchmaker is arguably a far more complex organism than the watch, and if complexity proves intelligent design, then the question arises: who designed such a complex designer?

David Hume


Hume gave the classic criticism of the design argument in Dialogues Concerning Natural Religion and An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding. He argued that for the design argument to be feasible, it must be true that order and purpose are observed only when they result from design. But order is observed regularly, resulting from presumably mindless processes like snowflake or crystal generation. Design accounts for only a tiny part of our experience with order and "purpose". Furthermore, the design argument is based on an incomplete analogy: because of our experience with objects, we can recognize human-designed ones, comparing for example a pile of stones and a brick wall. But to point to a designed Universe, we would need to have an experience of a range of different universes. As we only experience one, the analogy cannot be applied. We must ask therefore if it is right to compare the world to a machine—as in Paley's watchmaker argument—when perhaps it would be better described as a giant inert animal. Even if the design argument is completely successful, it could not (in and of itself) establish a robust theism; one could easily reach the conclusion that the universe's configuration is the result of some morally ambiguous, possibly unintelligent agent or agents whose method bears only a remote similarity to human design. In this way it could be asked if the designer was God, or further still, who designed the designer? Hume also reasoned that if a well-ordered natural world requires a special designer, then God's mind (being so well ordered) also requires a special designer. And then this designer would likewise need a designer, and so on ad infinitum. We could respond by resting content with an inexplicably self-ordered divine mind but then why not rest content with an inexplicably self-ordered natural world?

 

[mike]

To cut long story short about Gods coming back or not, you can check comment I sent to Trainedobserver on basis he apologized for his humor, latest one. Have fun with cleaning behind.

It would be far easier for you to post a link to a reference to national geographic and scientists calculating the odds re hurricanes and 747 parts.

And even if you can, lets look at that claim in the context of it being proof of intelligent design of the universe.

These "scientists", did not run any experiments with hurricanes and 747 parts, experiments that yeilded data that allowed them to "calculate" the chances.
The best that could be said is its a hypothetical conclusion, and for every "scientist" who might jump to such conclusions, i can find another who will say the universe does not need a creator.
Big names like Hawkings, Hume and Darwin.

Comments posted here and elsewhere like

On National Geographic there were science talking of scientific prof God exists. They calculated that planet and all on it is created itself is equal to probability hurricane builds up Boeing 747 out of it parts placed on floor. That means below 0. So there was superior mind that created all this, they call Him/Her God. H/She created Earth and Universe.....

Are simply untrue, Can you name these "scientists" so we can check their credentials ?

The very idea that since a hurricane cant assemble the parts of a 747 means the universe isnt natural, and thus proof of the existance of god is laughable.
The same thing was said about the complexity of biological life until Darwin came along and made more sense of the puzzle.

Your quote sounds all very scientific until we deconstruct it, how did they "calculate" these odds ?, hypothetical conclusions like this are not science, its the same old lazy claptrap man has used since the first questions, god as a gap filler in knowledge.
The pattern is as clear as it is old and tired, they dont know how something as complex as the universe came to be, so god must have done it.
It is the oldest , smelliest form of human ignorance. Thank goodness we have real scientists giving us real answers these days, instead of superstitious gits , who rather than admit they dont know, lie and say they do know and the answer is god.

Thank you for reminding me this planet is still grossly overpopulated with ignorant primitives

 

[stonehart]

I really wish people would stop expecting some cosmic supper being be they god or alien to turn up and fix our shit up for us. For the sweet love of f**K get off your own ass and fix it yourself. It is our mess and our responsibility.

Sorry but I had to say that and as a side note people call me an atheist, well I am not I am non-theistic for to be blunt I do not think anyone has the answers after all my time in the study of religion.

There is a big difference between being a spiritual person and having a religion in "my opinion", the difference being that the religious is stuck in a box of conformity and dogma among other things that would be a post in and of itself. So I look to my growth as a person and let history and the actions of others be my guide not a god or gods.

I am not saying gods do or do not exist as no one has concrete evidence for or against such things, however if such is the case then they should be viewed as irrelevant or as the Buddha put it "A god can no more help you to break free from Samsara as you can help it. So to hold out for some cosmic messiah to come and sort us all out while the planet falls apart around our ears is nothing short of lunacy. Why? well as if that was not obvious, we have no solid evidence that such a being will come so get out there and be the change you would see don't wait for a god/alien to come and do it for you.

Sri Chinmoy once said "what is god if not the self", a very wise point of view for it puts the responsibility of the care of the world and others on our own shoulders not with some amorphous supper being/beings.

So "be the change you would see in the world"

Peace and have a safe and restful holiday

Stonehart

 

[mike]

And before i get ela's bleating about being picked on, or this is the paracast blah blah blah, If you know anything about the show/forum you should know making claims of proof, require proof of claims.

When you claim as a statement of fact that there is

scientific prof God exists

Without a single link to the source of this scientific proof, people are going to call you on it, whether thats proof of aliens existing or proof of gods existing.

 

[stonehart]

And before i get ela's bleating about being picked on, or this is the paracast blah blah blah, If you know anything about the show/forum you should know making claims of proof, require proof of claims.

When you claim as a statement of fact that there is



Without a single link to the source of this scientific proof, people are going to call you on it, whether thats proof of aliens existing or proof of gods existing.

I agree totally if you make claims back it up or it did not happen.

and if you need any more examples of why I have problems with organized religion and the blind belief in god/gods read this. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/25/us-iran-rights-stoning-idUSTRE7BO0F820111225

 

[Decker]

Hey Gang, I hate it when I appear ignorant but I read thru this attempting to get the gist of this thread. Would someone be so kind as to "clue me in?" I would very much appreciate it. Thanks. (I am popping in and out of here as I am cooking my Christmas day dinner. Since Vicki and I have been together, going on 24 years, I cook each Christmas and Thanksgiving dinner myself. I was just taking a break!!)

Decker

Oops, just realized that this is the last page. Two pages prior to this one. My Bad!! ...

 

[mike]

I agree totally if you make claims back it up or it did not happen.

and if you need any more examples of why I have problems with organized religion and the blind belief in god/gods read this. http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/12/25/us-iran-rights-stoning-idUSTRE7BO0F820111225

And then there is this

Mufa' Khathat

http://crombouke.blogspot.com/2010/01/mufa-khathat-cleaning-mess-up.html

 

[mike]

Hey Gang, I hate it when I appear ignorant but I read thru this attempting to get the gist of this thread. Would someone be so kind as to "clue me in?" I would very much appreciate it. Thanks. (I am popping in and out of here as I am cooking my Christmas day dinner. Since Vicki and I have been together, going on 24 years, I cook each Christmas and Thanksgiving dinner myself. I was just taking a break!!)

Decker

Oops, just realized that this is the last page. Two pages prior to this one. My Bad!! ...

Have fun with that
And no its not the egg nog.........................

 

[stonehart]

So, I believe what I write is proof enough. You don't want to read it is other problem.

That is not how this woks at all. If you make a claim then back it up with evidence or go home for such a statement as quoted above instantly renders all your arguments as suspicious and lacking of hard evidence to such an extent that most serious thinkers will not bother to read your post at all.
So back up the proof of God you state with real scientific evidence and peer reviewed papers by reputable scientific establishments or you have nothing.

Most of the post I read made little or no sense to me at all but I did pick up on the use of the Bible as some evidence and as such I would like to explain why it should not ever be used as evidence at all.

The Reason the bible is not evidence is that it is a book that went through thousands of edits to such an extent that the modern version you read now bears little or no resemblance to the original. From my own fourth year work on the origins of Christianity I can tell you that the first version was assembled by one British-born Flavius Constantinus (who you would know as Constantine) who authorized the compilation of the writings now called the New Testament around 336CE from many other older works ascribed to other religious traditions. In short this means that the scribes that authored of the New Testaments under the authority of Constantine compiled a work that encompassed many of the local traditions of the time from both the Middle East and Europe to create the basis of the bible that you read today.


"In the light of new evidence it has become clear that the latter writings of the church do not represent historical realities. Even the Church agrees by stating:

“Our documentary sources of knowledge about the origins of Christianity and its earliest development are chiefly the New Testament Scriptures, the authenticity of which we must, to a great extent take for granted.”



Catholic Encyclopaedia, Farley ed., vol.iii, p. 712

I do not hold the bible as evidence for God and never will as its origins are that of a politically motivated work of propaganda.

So please provide the hard evidence you claim without the use of the Bible as this is clearly not the best choice for evidence nor is a mindless rant on personal feelings.

Is this post harsh? Well yes as I find the quoted statement academically dishonest.

 

[mike]

Stonehart is quite correct, Thats not how it works at all, The paranormal genre is fraught with liars and delusional people, in order to seperate the wheat from the chaff, more than "their word" is necessary.

You "claim" there is scientific proof god exists, but when asked to present the proof refuse to do so,thats a massive red flag to anyone reading, that you are less than honest intellectually and otherwise.
Indeed the church itself is opposed to "proof" of god's existance since such proof would remove the element of free will in choosing to have faith

In addition there have been a number of scientific studies which show prayer does not work

RESPONSIBLE religious leaders will breathe a sigh of relief at the news that so-called intercessory prayer is medically ineffective. In a large and much touted scientific study, one group of patients was told that strangers would pray for them, a second group was told strangers might or might not pray for them, and a third group was not prayed for at all. The $2.4 million study found that the strangers' prayers did not help patients' recovery.

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/11/o...3ff6eac0f51086&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

On October 2, 2001, the New York Times reported that researchers at prestigious Columbia University Medical Center in New York had discovered something quite extraordinary (1). Using virtually foolproof scientific methods the researchers had demonstrated that infertile women who were prayed for by Christian prayer groups became pregnant twice as often as those who did not have people praying for them. The study was published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine (2). Even the researchers were shocked.

But wait.......

The much-hyped Columbia University prayer study was flawed and suspicious from the start but now has been fatally tainted with fraud. The first-named author doesn't respond to inquiries. The "lead" author said he didn't learn of the study until months after it was completed. And now the mysterious third author, indicted by a federal grand jury, has pleaded guilty to conspiracy to commit fraud.

http://www.skeptically.org/kooks/id3.html

The actual scientific proof, is the opposite of your claim

Youve made a claim there is scientific proof for the existance of god, when pressed to provide links to that proof, you say oh my word is good enough.

Not here its not Ela, if that were so, Billy Meier would be the Prophet he claims to be....

If its your opinion god is real, thats fine. there are a few here who share that view.
But if you are going to claim scientific proof hes real, you need to provide the details of that proof, or retract the claim.

Or risk being lumped in with Billy Meier and the other BS'ing fraudsters

 

[trainedobserver]

The problem with the word "God" is that it is so indefinite and nebulous that it must be defined every time you use it for it have any justifiable existence in a discussion. What is the word attempting to describe in the given instance? In this case we appear to be talking about something called Bolon Yokte which doesn't show up at GodChecker.com (my favorite source for godly data.) According to Wikipedia "B’olon Yokte’ K’uh" is the name given in 2005 to a figure painted on a Mayan vase. I for one find it hard to take such things seriously as these things could amount to nothing more than ancient comic book characters depicting the allegorical tales of a lost culture. The trouble we have in looking at these types of records is that they are out of their time and place, removed from the context that actually gave them meaning in the first place. What modern society then makes of ancient writings, drawings, or any alleged sacred text is largely assumptive and highly speculative in nature as a result. Did or does "B'olon Yokte' K'uh" actually exist as he is being presented? It seems unlikely given the circumstances.

 

[stonehart]

You are here just to play smart, right?

Not even in the slightest, every word I said I mean or I would not have posted it.

Posted by Mike : " Thats not how it works at all, The paranormal genre is fraught with liars and delusional people, in order to seperate the wheat from the chaff, more than "their word" is necessary.

You "claim" there is scientific proof god exists, but when asked to present the proof refuse to do so,thats a massive red flag to anyone reading, that you are less than honest intellectually and otherwise."

Thank you Mike that was what I was getting at.

 

[stonehart]

Stoneheart, that is how it not works FOR YOU -

No that is how it works for research in general.

This is how it works in a nut shell.

1. An Idea is formulated and a premise is proposed
2. An argument from "evidence" is presented creating a working hypothesis.
3. this argument is then refined and tested until those that are working on it feel it is ready for per-review.
4. If the work survives per-review then it is now a new working theory

This is called THE SCIENTIFIC METHOD and you would do well to learn it.

 

[trainedobserver]

Well there you go, another case of disappearing posts. Now this thread, which was only slightly confusing, is now totally incomprehensible to those who haven't been following it and most who have. The Cosmic Gods are surely pissed now. If everyone comes down with urinary tract infections or something you'll know the cause.

 

[stonehart]

God is on leave until He/ She officially returns in 2012

This is a matter of faith and faith is not evidence.
Here is a little about me and why I find these sorts of posts so annoying.

At the age of 20 I went to engineering school and graduated three years latter after which I did my post grad in engineering. While I was looking for work in my chosen field I went back to University and began to study in fields of interest I have had for a long time such as Philosophy, Religion, Anthropology, and Sociology.
So when I discuss religion I do so from an educated position not one of faith. This is a very impotent position to take when engaged in the study of anything, you must not bring your own faith, bias, or preconceived conclusions into your work ever.

My main areas of study for my first three years where Buddhist philosophy and early Christianity, the latter of which was from an almost pure historical and phi-logical (study of language) angle. To understand either one of these schools of thought one must look to older religious texts such as the Vedic writing etc.

However in all my time of study I have never seen any one of the hundreds of religious texts I have read as proof of God, but more as proof of the human need for the belief in a higher power.

It is this that I see as the problem here, you are trying to make things fit a preconceived point of view and not let the facts speak for what they are (in this case what evidence as it is non existent at best).

PS. I still study these areas today from all angles and perspectives but it is the the tools of non involved detachment that Anthropology teaches you that have kept me as non-biased as possible.

So my advice is learn to use the scientific method gather evidence and present your argument for review, if you can do that then we will take you seriously for as it stands right now Trainedobserver was right in saying bat shit as the argument you present is one of faith not of evidence.

 

[trainedobserver]

Ok, I've not noticed that happening before. Not only are Ela's posts gone but all quotes of her used by other posters are gone as well. That is an annoying feature.