They don't want us to know

[starise]

Starise I think your on to something.

 

[Randall]

I have several versions of the Bible including the Bibles on CD and Unger's Bible Dictionary ( get a copy if you don't already have one ). I have them as reference material because of the connection between religious mythology and ufology. However I do not have sufficient reason to believe that the Bible is the word of God, nor do I believe that the biblical God deserves status as a pinnacle by which we should pattern our behavior. If there is any truth to it, that God was far too concerned with the affairs of warring Middle Eastern tribes, receiving worship, and dispensing punishment.

 

[Trajanus]

Yes it does sound ridiculous to the material / reductionist, however so do flying saucers..

Nothing ridiculous about flying saucers. Given our own progress and the likelihood of life elsewhere, it's reasonable to suppose more advanced civilizations exist.

I would suggest what this may imply is that the known Universe in which we reside, reality and matter, are much different than what you might understandably consider.

On the quantum level, and add to that dark energy etc. Still, it doesn't mean reality is all inside the skull.

 

[Trajanus]

However I do not have sufficient reason to believe that the Bible is the word of God,

Vast understatement. If you read Ehrman, you'll see scholars have long been convinced the bulk of it was made up by humans, well after the events.

 

[Muadib]

Modern archealogy confirms the Bible as does science.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Modern archaeology disagrees with the bible on so many points it's incredible, so does science. I could recite countless examples but just a couple are: 1. No archaeological evidence of the Jewish exodus from Egypt as described in the Bible, no evidence of Egyptians ever owning Jewish slaves, period. None. None in their historical record, and not one shred of evidence has been dug up that proves Jews ever fled Egypt and spent 40 years in the desert. 2. Noah's Ark, there are many flood myths from around the world but there are also several cultures which have no historical recollection of some kind of giant global flood, even though we have records from their civilizations that correspond to the same time period. There's are also several lines of evidence from different fields that completely and utterly refute any type of global flood scenario. I think you've been listening to fundamentalist preachers spout garbage for too long my friend. Modern science and archaeology do not agree with many things in the bible.

 

[Trajanus]

This is complete and utter nonsense. Modern archaeology disagrees with the bible on so many points it's incredible, so does science. I could recite countless examples but just a couple are: 1. No archaeological evidence of the Jewish exodus from Egypt as described in the Bible, no evidence of Egyptians ever owning Jewish slaves, period. None. None in their historical record, and not one shred of evidence has been dug up that proves Jews ever fled Egypt and spent 40 years in the desert.

Sure, there is virtually no Egyptian linguistic influence on the language of ancient Israelites c 1000 BCE or so, even though many supposedly were in Egypt a long time. Imagine a group of immigrants living here for centuries, or even decades, without picking up any English. Also, there's absolutely no mention of the exodus in Egyptian records, even though they mentioned setbacks like the Hyksos and peoples of the sea. IIRC the only mention of Israel is on the stele of Merneptah c 1213 BCE, which claims a victory.

2. Noah's Ark, there are many flood myths from around the world but there are also several cultures which have no historical recollection of some kind of giant global flood, even though we have records from their civilizations that correspond to the same time period. There's are also several lines of evidence from different fields that completely and utterly refute any type of global flood scenario.

The Jews got the idea of noah's ark from the ancient Mesopotamian flood stories, during their exile in Babylon.

I think you've been listening to fundamentalist preachers spout garbage for too long my friend. Modern science and archaeology do not agree with many things in the bible.

Well said.

 

[SRL+]

Nothing ridiculous about flying saucers. Given our own progress and the likelihood of life elsewhere, it's reasonable to suppose more advanced civilizations exist.

On the quantum level, and add to that dark energy etc. Still, it doesn't mean reality is all inside the skull.

“Nothing ridiculous about flying saucers. Given our own progress and the likelihood of life elsewhere, it's reasonable to suppose more advanced civilizations exist.”

Fact: To the material / reductionist, flying saucers do not exist, (not unlike wood elves), because they have not been proven thru use of the scientific method.

“On the quantum level, and add to that dark energy etc. Still, it doesn't mean reality is all inside the skull."

Incorrect: New experiments carried out with huge molecules known as "Buckyballs", (Carbon 60 molecules), and crystals show that quantum reality extends into the macroscopic world we live in as well.

This is a short excerpt from an interview with former CERN scientist, Bernardo Kastrup. Here he addresses your observation, as you may find this worthwhile.

“Well, if you look at physics, every branch of science has a tendency to self-negate at some point. It happened with mathematics, for instance. The project of Hilbert with Principia Mathematica to ground all mathematics in very strict and clear axioms, that failed. Gödel has shown that logic is inherently limited or contradictory. So if you pursue any branch of investigation to its ultimate conclusions, to its ultimate implications, it backfires on you.

The same happened with Realism and physics in a way. Through the assumption of Realism we started looking at certain phenomena in physics, namely quantum entanglement, and through a series of experiments, for instance, from 1981 culminating in 2007-2008, we’ve shown that it is untenable to claim that the states of the physical world are independent of mind.

That has been published actually in Nature, I think. Nature, Volume 446, Spring of 2007. It’s a very cryptic technical paper but the conclusion is: Realism is either false or has to be redefined in a very counter-intuitive way, in which case you might ask yourself, “Why continue calling it Realism, anyway?”

So in a way, Realism self-contradicts if you pursue it to its ultimate implications. This is happening already although the repercussions are extremely limited to a narrow group of scientists that understand the esoteric mathematics and the esoteric physics behind it, which is a pity. So it’s a problem. There is a huge problem with Realism today. It’s not considered yet defeated but it’s quite precarious for it.”

 

[SRL+]

Where do I stand? The proposition, "They don't want us to know." presents an epistemological problem that in my opinion would best be addressed using elements of rationalism and empiricism, but not full blown transcendentalism ( I'm sure Kant would have something to say about this ). On your scale this would probably translate to a dualist position e.g. the boundaries that Starise mentioned are both material and a priori.

This isn’t my scale, as this “scale” has been around for a long...long...time.

 

[Randall]

This isn’t my scale, as this “scale” has been around for a long...long...time.

That was obvious. My usage was simply a means of referencing your explanation.

 

[SRL+]

That was obvious. My usage was simply a means of referencing your explanation.

Sorry...my mistake. I notice your avatar, it reads Ufology Society Intl. , is that your org?

 

[Randall]

Sorry...my mistake. I notice your avatar, it reads Ufology Society Intl. , is that your org?

I started USI and operate the website. Thanks for asking. Also, no apology necessary ( above ). It's not always easy to get the real tone of someone's comments.

 

[GeoShift]

I started USI and operate the website. Thanks for asking. Also, no apology necessary ( above ). It's not always easy to get the real tone of someone's comments.

That's why smiley,frowny faces LOLs and j/k-s need to be used. j/k LOL

 

[SRL+]

I started USI and operate the website. Thanks for asking. Also, no apology necessary ( above ). It's not always easy to get the real tone of someone's comments.

That's neat. How many international members would you say are in your society?

 

[Randall]

That's neat. How many international members would you say are in your society?

We have around 2200 registered members members in 22 countries, but I don't have an exact number because way back when I was getting setup on PC we had a drive failure that destroyed our entire database of Internet registrations. I'm much more tech savvy now. You can read more info on USI here.

 

[stonehart]

It is seems highly unlikely that all UFO phenomena can be attributed to a single source given the variety of the experience and the length of time it has been around. I think it could be a little bit of everything. That is to say they are a mixture of misidentifications, natural phenomena, psychological phenomena, and real manufactured objects.

Who are they? They are highly motivated, well funded, and mission driven, directed by another group not occupying the objects themselves. The manufacture of aircraft, space craft, or dimensional puddle jumpers all require engineers, technicians, financiers, administrators, project managers, janitors, component manufacturers, an educational system, as well as a tremendous supporting infrastructure. The workers have to eat, the water has to flow, the toilets have to flush. Let's not forget there is also a directing and planning body overseeing all of that at some political or military level of organization.

Where are they from? They come from and return to wherever the above support structures exist.

Why are they here? Whatever their purpose it does not involve or require our knowledge, consent, participation, or moral support. I'd say contrary to much of the speculation that gets batted around about their purpose and activity, it has little or nothing to do with human beings, our DNA, the ability to split atoms, or our evolutionary future. It almost certainly has absolutely nothing to do with our consciousness, collective or individual.

That has to be one of the most intelligent analysis of the subject I have read in a long time... thanks man

 

[Trajanus]

Fact: To the material / reductionist, flying saucers do not exist, (not unlike wood elves), because they have not been proven thru use of the scientific method.

There's ample evidence for them; it's not just a matter of witness sightings.

we’ve shown that it is untenable to claim that the states of the physical world are independent of mind.

The physical world long predated mind, yet it couldn't have been much different or we wouldn't be here.

 

[SRL+]

“There's ample evidence for them; it's not just a matter of witness sightings.”

I am not arguing whether or not aerial anomalies exist, what I was attempting to point out in the first place, is whether or not you base an opinion from a material / reductionist view, or an idealists view.

“The physical world long predated mind, yet it couldn't have been much different or we wouldn't be here.”

One would tend to think so. Once again, to the material / reductionist this would most certainly be true. However the idealist may look at it differently . I honestly don’t think anyone really understands what I was attempting to point out in the first place.

 

[Randall]

“There's ample evidence for them; it's not just a matter of witness sightings.”

I am not arguing whether or not aerial anomalies exist, what I was attempting to point out in the first place, is whether or not you base an opinion from a material / reductionist view, or an idealists view.

“The physical world long predated mind, yet it couldn't have been much different or we wouldn't be here.”

One would tend to think so. Once again, to the material / reductionist this would most certainly be true. However the idealist may look at it differently . I honestly don’t think anyone really understands what I was attempting to point out in the first place.

Much of what you say is very interesting, but perhaps the reason why nobody here seems to get your point is becuase you haven't really made one yet, at least not with respect to the topic of the thread. Or more precisely, you haven't stated it in terms that are clear enough for it to be indentified as such. For example, wanting to know someone's philosophical position is not the same as making a point. Suggesting that we frame "these questions" in philosophical terms is a suggestion, not a point. Telling us about physics experiments is sharing observations, not making a point. Is there some way you can synthesize your viewpoint into a single short paragraph that starts with, "They don't want us to know is a proposition that can be examined philosophically by ... ( your content here ).

Through the assumption of Realism we started looking at certain phenomena in physics, namely quantum entanglement, and through a series of experiments, for instance, from 1981 culminating in 2007-2008, we’ve shown that it is untenable to claim that the states of the physical world are independent of mind.

Having read about these experiments I don't see how the above is justified. It looks to me more like the results are being misinterpreted. It's not the conscious observation ( watching ) the experiment that causes it to change, it's the act of measuring it. But measuring and "observing" are being used synonymously by those who suggest that the mind plays a role in influencing the outcome, when in fact it seems to have more to do with the presence of the measuring device. For example, in the double slit experiment, in both outcomes there is someone sitting in the room watching. The difference is that in one version another detector is inserted into the experiment to try to measure what's going on.

 

[SRL+]

Think what you will.

 

[starise]

S.R.L. I think I understand what you were trying to point out. Preceptions are based on different approaches and that was all very well categorized. The approach to a solution can have many techniques and different outcomes, but I think that exchange was between others. I appreciated your thoughts on it.

I have several versions of the Bible including the Bibles on CD and Unger's Bible Dictionary ( get a copy if you don't already have one ). I have them as reference material because of the connection between religious mythology and ufology. However I do not have sufficient reason to believe that the Bible is the word of God, nor do I believe that the biblical God deserves status as a pinnacle by which we should pattern our behavior. If there is any truth to it, that God was far too concerned with the affairs of warring Middle Eastern tribes, receiving worship, and dispensing punishment.​

With all of those copies of the Bible, you must have read about His other attributes as well.I reached an entirely different conclusion on the matter. He was involved in those things you mention and in many more. A relationship with God is always an individual journey. We have free will to decide.

This is complete and utter nonsense. Modern archaeology disagrees with the bible on so many points it's incredible, so does science. I could recite countless examples but just a couple are: 1. No archaeological evidence of the Jewish exodus from Egypt as described in the Bible, no evidence of Egyptians ever owning Jewish slaves, period. None. None in their historical record, and not one shred of evidence has been dug up that proves Jews ever fled Egypt and spent 40 years in the desert. 2. Noah's Ark, there are many flood myths from around the world but there are also several cultures which have no historical recollection of some kind of giant global flood, even though we have records from their civilizations that correspond to the same time period. There's are also several lines of evidence from different fields that completely and utterly refute any type of global flood scenario. I think you've been listening to fundamentalist preachers spout garbage for too long my friend. Modern science and archaeology do not agree with many things in the bible.

I could go into great detail about your first point but I am pretty sure that it wouldn't change your mind. I could tell you the whole story about how the archealogists involved in this lie got the chronologies all wrong. I could go into detail about how when the proper time lines were found that there happens to be plenty of evidence to completely blow your story right out of the water but I doubt it matters to you.

Your second point is even more shakey. The science in this case is overwhelming that the earth was at one time covered with water and it destroyed all known life except for Noah and his family. I don't blame a lot of people for believing the opposite though because it has been taught by professors in a lot of our colleges for awhile now. FYI I was once one of the biggest skeptics out there when it comes to the Bible. I doubted what most of the preachers said. A lot of them are still out there spewing untruths. I decided to check things out for myself. I recommend not to take anything anyone says at face value. A lot of these comebacks are nothing more than canned comments designed by others to help someone who can't think for themself or someone who already has a pre concieved notion regarding it.

When faced with unsubstatiated rumours or more evidence to support an unpopular view most secular educators will always write the lesser of the two into their textbooks.This is a fact. Don't believe everything they teach you in college.

Vast understatement. If you read Ehrman, you'll see scholars have long been convinced the bulk of it was made up by humans, well after the events.

Actually the entire Bible was written by humans who acted a secretaries to God in writing what He wanted.Some of it was written after the events and some of it hasn't yet happened.

Sure, there is virtually no Egyptian linguistic influence on the language of ancient Israelites c 1000 BCE or so, even though many supposedly were in Egypt a long time. Imagine a group of immigrants living here for centuries, or even decades, without picking up any English. Also, there's absolutely no mention of the exodus in Egyptian records, even though they mentioned setbacks like the Hyksos and peoples of the sea. IIRC the only mention of Israel is on the stele of Merneptah c 1213 BCE, which claims a victory.

I already covered this.The research in question is looking at the wrong places and times. Wrong chronologies. You can find a lot of this stuff on the internet though.

FWIW I stated some of my own theories on what could be happening. I never once stated that I believed that everyone should be where I'm at in my observations . I am certainly free to have my own take on this. I am not alone in my views by a long shot,not that this really matters. I am past the point of feeling the need to prove anything to you about the Bible. If you choose to believe the lies it is your loss. The Bible defends itself quite nicely and doesn't need me to do it.It isn't referred to as a two edged sword for nothing. I intended this post to be about theories on who "they" are. I have my own theories which you may or may not agree with.I never intended this to be a discussion on whether the Bible is or isn't true.That was your idea.

If you persist in telling my why you think the Bible isn't true, then expect me to counter with the truth. I can't have my theories without the Bible being involved because part of what I think is happening involves the Bible. I'm not the type of person to mince words either so if you jump into it expect to read what I say in response.IOW you might not like it.