People seem to like to conflate the mysterious. UFOs and the Bible, for example. (SOURCE)
Thanks for taking the time to explain your preferred position on this matter otseng. I see you are unwilling to discuss alternate explanations, so there is no point in my continuing my critique in this thread any further.
To be clear, I am open to discussing alternative explanations for the shroud, but one has to actually propose an alternative, not simply claim it's some unknown future naturalistic explanation yet to be discovered.
NBC News https://www.nbcnews.com › ufos-aerial-phenomena
In its 33-page report, an independent team commissioned by NASA cautioned that the negative perception surrounding UFOs poses an obstacle to collecting data.
UFOs - latest news, breaking stories and comment
The Independent https://www.independent.co.uk › topic › ufos
The latest breaking news, comment and features from The Independent.
NASA says more science and less stigma are needed to ...
AP News https://apnews.com › article › nasa-ufos-inidentified-fl...
22 hours ago — NASA says the study of UFOs will require new scientific techniques, including advanced satellites as well as a shift in how unidentified ...
UFOs
Fox News https://www.foxnews.com › science › air-and-space
16 hours ago — UFOs · NASA appoints new director of UFO research in push to examine 'one of our planet's greatest mysteries' · UFO whistleblower balks at claim of 'alien corpses ...
UFO news headlines
9News.com.au https://www.9news.com.au › mysteries
Latest Unidentified Flying Object news, UFO sightings, videos and photos, and other unsolved mysteries.
Q: Does the idea of artifacts of more ancient and advanced species threaten the philosophies of Supernaturalism and Materialism?
Start a thread on the subject if you want to and we can debate it there.
There is no call to debate the way logic works. If you want to debate the rules of logic, take it to the philosophers. And we have a thread on the topic.
That knowledge only signifies how technological devices can be used. The question is, were such used re some of the bible stories and if so, were they used appropriately?
No.
"No"?
How do you know this?
Humans are no more evil than they are good, so calling humans "evil" is a type of judgmentalism and I try to remain consciously aware of my aim to reduce judgmentalism to zero ...no easy feat, but - I believe - a necessary one.
Why?
Because it is harder to love someone who is "evil" than it is to love someone who is "human".
To protect your emotional investment or to sweep up and discard the fractured mirror in which you caught a glimpse of yourself?
No.
Is that why you chose to see humans as evil? Because you see yourself (in an unbroken mirror) as "evil"?
How do you manage to follow the advise to "love others as you love yourself"?
People are evil. I'm a person. Not seeing the evil in people prevents you from seeing the evil in yourself, and so allows you to create more evil.
Are "people" evil or is "evil" a separate thing "in" people?
Did Jesus "see" the evil "in" himself and if not, did this "allow" him to "Create more evil"?
Don't make monsters of people, make people of monsters.
Is this advice contrary to "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."?
That knowledge only signifies how technological devices can be used. The question is, were such used re some of the bible stories and if so, were they used appropriately?
No.
"No"?
How do you know this?
Your wording. There was ancient technologies, of course, there were even such that we still have no idea how they worked and I've no doubt there were others we are unaware of altogether, but ancient means ancient and modern means modern. Spiritual means spiritual, not mechanical or technological. Your ideas are good and quite similar to some of my own (here I've just restarted) and (here from the distant past.) But they aren't scripturally supported as you present them, they're a potentially good storyline.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 2:19 pm
Because it is harder to love someone who is "evil" than it is to love someone who is "human".
Speaking of Hitler (in another thread, actually, but why not) you can make a monster of your enemies to justify your opposition to them. Tell the soldiers they aren't "human." But what that does is makes you think of yourself outside of the possibility of being someone else's monster. Hitler is our monster, Osama Bin Laden - monsters and boogey men we create to justify our means while oblivious to the monsters we become when we do that. So it's easier to love someone who is evil or human like you.
Data wrote:To protect your emotional investment or to sweep up and discard the fractured mirror in which you caught a glimpse of yourself?
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 2:19 pm
No.
Is that why you chose to see humans as evil? Because you see yourself (in an unbroken mirror) as "evil"?
Yes, that's what I was saying, but I don't want to sweep it under the rug of a reality I've created for myself or be oblivious to the reality that someone else creates for me.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 2:19 pm
How do you manage to follow the advise to "love others as you love yourself"?
That is how. All sin comes from one place. The candy bar I stole from the grocery store when I was a kid and Hitler's Blitzkrieg (Lightning War) or America's Operation Desert Shield. I love my enemies as well, though I won't allow myself to think of anyone as an enemy. I also hate people, which means, in the Biblical sense, I have as little to do with them as possible. God hates the wicked, but the hearts of men are wicked from the cradle to the grave and he wishes everyone to accept his offer of salvation from the wicked, the world. The world of Hitlers, Obamas, Trumps and the likes of me in my sinful nature.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 2:19 pm
Are "people" evil or is "evil" a separate thing "in" people?
Evil is a word that means as an adjective profoundly immoral and wicked and as a noun profound immorality and wickedness, especially when regarded as a supernatural force. In other words its common use means beyond what is normally considered bad, and the supernatural aspect of the use implies, to me, a superstitious connotation. So the word is often used in a judgmental or ignorant superstitious way. Since I don't make such distinctions, I don't use the word like that but realize that it can be taken as such. To me evil means calamitous misfortune. I may be a kind, compassionate, fair, thoughtful person but I'm still not as good as I was meant to be or I wish I were. I can't achieve perfection without Jehovah God's undeserved kindness and I hope to, but sometimes am not sure my old sinful self would want that. As the French phrase goes "Nostalgie de la boue" - "nostalgia for mud" or "nostalgia for the gutter." Humans are a dichotomous mess, huh? I can be a real monster too.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 2:19 pm
Did Jesus "see" the evil "in" himself and if not, did this "allow" him to "Create more evil"?
Jesus was free from that, but he could have failed, you know. Part of his mission was to demonstrate that Adam didn't have to sin. I think that he was well aware that he could fail and that he could become "evil" or "bad" sinful. He said why do you call me good, no one is good except God because he knew that was important part of why he was good, but also he sweat blood knowing the trials before him. Also his last words were Eli Eli Lama Sabachthani? My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? because he took on all of our sin and so in a sense did see that evil in himself dying as a criminal on the torture stake.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 2:19 pm
Is this advice contrary to "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."?
I remain agnostic re the statement-claim. The onus is on those who make claims either way to provide the evidence for what they believe is truth.
There you go.
It always seems that way, but is it? What's your claim and what's the evidence? Evidence is just what you think which means this is what I think because I think etc. I believe ancient technology was in the guise of the supernatural because I think (blank).
Onus? The evidence is that people use it as a not so clever hypocritical double standard. One person thinks ancient technology equals supernatural tricks so the evidence against it they won't consider. Placing the onus on someone else merely demonstrates your inability to properly evaluate the evidence you demand knowing it isn't acceptable to you.
I simply asked the question.
Q: Does the idea of artifacts of more ancient and advanced species threaten the philosophies of Supernaturalism and Materialism?
If someone believes it does or does not, then the onus is on them to provide evidence the one way or the other.
My interest is in how - if such were true - would that alter perception re conceptions.
For example.
If YVHV and Jesus were of ancient advanced technological artifacts, would this change the way people thought about - not only those two characters, but the subject of God/a Creator of the universe ( the created thing ) as well.
Your wording. There was ancient technologies, of course, there were even such that we still have no idea how they worked and I've no doubt there were others we are unaware of altogether, but ancient means ancient and modern means modern.
The question is.
Q: Does the idea of artifacts of more ancient and advanced species threaten the philosophies of Supernaturalism and Materialism?
"Modern" and "ancient" couple timelines.
For example, if and ancient species has survived to this day, it is also "modern" re "this day" while being much older that the human species.
This would also mean that what we humans regard as "modern" (re our technology) may be viewed by a more technologically advanced and older species as "defunct" or "outdated".
Spiritual means spiritual, not mechanical or technological.
If this is to define "spiritual" as "that which does not utilize mechanics or technology", then you would be "correct".
Definitions are often shown to be different than the (actual) thing being defined and "spirit" is even more difficult to define that "mechanics" or "technology".
Your ideas are good and quite similar to some of my own (here I've just restarted) and (here from the distant past.) But they aren't scripturally supported as you present them, their a potentially good storyline.
I don't see that this matters re the thread topic or the opening post question, since there is nothing supporting scripture itself, as these are simply stories.
I think the idea that advanced technology can explain the "good storyline" the scriptures collectively project, has merit and can be coupled with the idea that if advanced technology existed back in the day, then such can explain much.
Because it is harder to love someone who is "evil" than it is to love someone who is "human".
Speaking of Hitler (in another thread, actually, but why not) you can make a monster of your enemies to justify your opposition to them.
Yes. I can empathize with Hitlers position based upon what history has been made available to us re that and at the same time I can empathize with the positions of those who were the victims of the Nazi cultural-social-political ambitions which Hitler headed.
Those things (Nazi cultural-social-political ambitions) we can perhaps agree with, are "evil" but the humans influenced and affected by said evil? I think it would be more appropriate to define that as "stupidity through ignorance" than simply make out that the human being/all human beings is/are "evil".
I fail to see how a human might otherwise reach for something unattainable, if they cannot at first believe in themselves neither "good" or "evil".
Such as the following example.
Hitler is our monster, Osama Bin Laden - monsters and boogey men we create to justify our means while oblivious to the monsters we become when we do that.
Why not just say "Satan is our monster" since that is what Christians point to as the source of all evil?
And in that, why not say "Satan is the monster which was created to justify our means" and not be "oblivious to the monsters we become when we do that", and then - upon that realization, cease from "doing that" and not become monsters, or for that matter, "See" each other as "evil"?
So it's easier to love someone who is evil or human like you.
Why do you believe one has to become like something in order to love that something?
Is that why you chose to see humans as evil? Because you see yourself (in an unbroken mirror) as "evil"?
Yes, that's what I was saying,
So you see yourself as "evil" and consequently "see" everyone else "the same way".
And do you also love yourself as this "Evil" thing you are?
but I don't want to sweep it under the rug of a reality I've created for myself or be oblivious to the reality that someone else creates for me.
Not sure if that explanation was a justification on your part, but is sounds like it.
How do you manage to follow the advise to "love others as you love yourself"?
That is how.
Is it actually working?
Are "people" evil or is "evil" a separate thing "in" people?
To me evil means calamitous misfortune. I may be a good, compassionate, fair, thoughtful person but I'm still not as good as I was meant to be or I wish I were.
Okay. So you observe the image of your form in a mirror, and declare it a "misfortune" because what stares back is something which behaves "not as good as it should" and "not as it is meant to behave" even that it "wishes" it were.
Is this realization something intuited, or is it something inherited through misinformation in your early developmental stage?
Humans are a dichotomous mess, huh?
Speaking for your understanding of your "self", it comes across like that, yes.
Did Jesus "see" the evil "in" himself and if not, did this "allow" him to "Create more evil"?
Jesus was free from that, but he could have failed, you know.
Perhaps this view is filtered through that "dichotomous" stuff you mentioned.
Jesus was tempted by Satan. He could have failed? If Jesus was free from that, why those particular temptations? Perhaps Satan understood that Jesus really wanted to be the ruler of the world - since that was on offer.
Jesus decided not to take Satan up on the offer because with that came the condition, which was that Jesus serve Satan, so effectively it was a trick which Jesus managed to sus out - that he would not really be "the ruler of the world" but only a puppet to the "real" ruler of the world.
Thus, we could ascertain that "Jesus" was "free from that" in context to it not being "in him" to fall for such tricks, which would align with his claim that he was taught by someone far more intelligent than Satan.
So - re all that, if Jesus could Love himself that much, why can't we? You say it is "because of evil" and I say "remove the "evil" and find the love". Slightly different approaches...
My God, my God, why have you forsaken me? because he took on all of our sin and so in a sense did see that evil in himself dying as a criminal on the torture stake.
Therefore allowing me (and potentially you too) the ability to love my self rather than see myself as "Evil".
Don't make monsters of people, make people of monsters.
Is this advice contrary to "On these two commandments hang all the law and the prophets."?
It is not. It is the essence of them.
Then practice that (in the mirror as well as internally) - not only on your "monster" self, but once you have that sorted - do so with others as well.
Perhaps it will be easier for you to see these as "people" when you come to that conclusion about how you view yourself?
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
The question is.
Q: Does the idea of artifacts of more ancient and advanced species threaten the philosophies of Supernaturalism and Materialism?
I don't look at it like that. First of all, I don't like using broad terms like supernaturalism and materialism because they may involve more or less than the supernatural and material. They are temporal and subject to variations through interpretation, time, etc. Secondly, I don't consider variation in belief as a "threat" to what something is or was. It is what it is or was regardless of our interpretation. Also, my take on your personal belief doesn't negate your belief nor does your variation negate mine. It isn't necessary for us to think or believe alike to validate one paradigm. I like bjs1's sig quoting Darwin: Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
"Modern" and "ancient" couple timelines.
For example, if and ancient species has survived to this day, it is also "modern" re "this day" while being much older that the human species.
This would also mean that what we humans regard as "modern" (re our technology) may be viewed by a more technologically advanced and older species as "defunct" or "outdated".
That's an excellent point, actually. The potter's wheel, year-round agriculture, writing, bronze obviously. Yeah, you're right about that. See? Darwin got that right.
Data wrote:Spiritual means spiritual, not mechanical or technological.
If this is to define "spiritual" as "that which does not utilize mechanics or technology", then you would be "correct".
Definitions are often shown to be different than the (actual) thing being defined and "spirit" is even more difficult to define that "mechanics" or "technology".
Well, I think that anything can be spiritual, including the mechanical and technological, but when you apply something that is specifically spiritual or mechanical, technological etc. They can be spiritual but not by becoming something else. Like travel. You can say they traveled through the wilderness but you can't say this travel must have involved them levitating because they were spiritual people. It becomes nonsense. Likewise, the prophets, Jesus and the disciples healed people only through Jehovah's holy spirit, not some lost mechanical or technological artifacts. You wouldn't be accurate in going back in their time and explaining that we connect with one another through magic portals of communication. That isn't an accurate or truthful explanation of the internet.
Data wrote:Your ideas are good and quite similar to some of my own (here I've just restarted) and (here from the distant past.) But they aren't scripturally supported as you present them, they're a potentially good storyline.
I don't see that this matters re the thread topic or the opening post question, since there is nothing supporting scripture itself, as these are simply stories.
Well, we don't agree on that. They aren't simply stories to me. Nothing supporting scripture? Uh. That's another discussion, but I don't think you are conversant on the subject of the stories and I don't understand what that has to do with the relevance of my statement considering it wouldn't be necessary for advanced technology to explain mere stories. Even if they were simply stories, they weren't written in the manner you suggest by explanation. If they had been that would have been something else altogether.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
I think the idea that advanced technology can explain the "good storyline" the scriptures collectively project, has merit and can be coupled with the idea that if advanced technology existed back in the day, then such can explain much.
I never saw the Bible as interesting in that way. As poetry or literature. Maybe the mythology that has been mixed in with it over the ages inspires people to see it that way, but I think of it more like a boring and at times tedious history. At times it is infuriating and bizarre, but not really interesting stories from my perspective. Maybe that's part of the reason I don't see it the way you do. That and the fact that I see the technological in that way as well, but for some reason while reading your stuff I didn't get a lot of the mechanical and technological. I saw it as an exploration of possibilities. Very similar to watching Jordan Peterson's Bible series. Theologically he has nothing, and he seems to have some appeal to authority, scholars and mythological presuppositions but his perspective is unique in that it offers a different take on it from the psychological field of expertise. It's nowhere near accurate but it is interesting.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
Yes. I can empathize with Hitlers position based upon what history has been made available to us re that and at the same time I can empathize with the positions of those who were the victims of the Nazi cultural-social-political ambitions which Hitler headed.
Those things (Nazi cultural-social-political ambitions) we can perhaps agree with, are "evil" but the humans influenced and affected by said evil? I think it would be more appropriate to define that as "stupidity through ignorance" than simply make out that the human being/all human beings is/are "evil".
The problem is that your use of the word evil isn't inclusionary. Hitler and the people that supported him, either through stupidity or otherwise, weren't exceptional. The people who fell victim to that - Jehovah's Witnesses, homosexuals, Jews, Polish - are capable or have actually perpetuated the same "evil." You're using "evil" as a moral judgment from xenophobia and emotion rather than reason or reality.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
I fail to see how a human might otherwise reach for something unattainable, if they cannot at first believe in themselves neither "good" or "evil".
Perhaps you fail to see because you are idealistic to an impractical degree. Quixotic.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
Such as the following example.
But they are those things.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
Why not just say "Satan is our monster" since that is what Christians point to as the source of all evil?
Because Satan isn't our monster, we are our monster.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
And in that, why not say "Satan is the monster which was created to justify our means" and not be "oblivious to the monsters we become when we do that", and then - upon that realization, cease from "doing that" and not become monsters, or for that matter, "See" each other as "evil"?
Because in that case we only create a xenophobic inclusivity based upon our own idealism.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
Why do you believe one has to become like something in order to love that something?
Because that's the way it works.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
So you see yourself as "evil" and consequently "see" everyone else "the same way".
And do you also love yourself as this "Evil" thing you are?
No.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
Not sure if that explanation was a justification on your part, but is sounds like it.
Of what?
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
Is it actually working?
Q: Does the idea of artifacts of more ancient and advanced species threaten the philosophies of Supernaturalism and Materialism?
I don't look at it like that. First of all, I don't like using broad terms like supernaturalism and materialism because they may involve more or less than the supernatural and material.
So what? They are headings for particular positions folk hold and whether one is heavily into those ideas or not, doesn't change that. If arguments are given from those particular positions of philosophy, then they rightly should be identified as such.
They are temporal and subject to variations through interpretation, time, etc.
Then explain where these "variations and interpretations" might lead the materialist or the supernaturalist which are contrary to either of those positions.
Secondly, I don't consider variation in belief as a "threat" to what something is or was. It is what it is or was regardless of our interpretation.
So - if it is a case that Advanced Technological Artifacts is the explanation behind these stories, then that would remain "what is" while "what was" would have to be whatever beliefs folk had which were contrary to "what is".
"Variation in belief" isn't what the question is asking. One's "variation" can still have one being a total believer in either philosophy/philosophical positions, with both positions rejecting notions of ATA altogether and the question is whether the outright rejection is a response to a perceived threat re beliefs both positions foster in the supporters of said philosophies.
Also, my take on your personal belief doesn't negate your belief nor does your variation negate mine. It isn't necessary for us to think or believe alike to validate one paradigm.
I am nether a Materialist or a Supernaturalist, but observe well enough that both of those philosophical positions evidently are unable to support the other, and are consequently at war - and have been for thousands of years.
"Modern" and "ancient" couple timelines.
For example, if and ancient species has survived to this day, it is also "modern" re "this day" while being much older that the human species.
This would also mean that what we humans regard as "modern" (re our technology) may be viewed by a more technologically advanced and older species as "defunct" or "outdated".
See? Darwin got that right.
Not sure what your point is there. I have never argued that the theories Darwin presented are "wrong" and the thread subject and OP question are not implying that either.
Well, I think that anything can be spiritual, including the mechanical and technological, but when you apply something that is specifically spiritual or mechanical, technological etc. They can be spiritual but not by becoming something else. Like travel. You can say they traveled through the wilderness but you can't say this travel must have involved them levitating because they were spiritual people. It becomes nonsense. Likewise, the prophets, Jesus and the disciples healed people only through Jehovah's holy spirit, not some lost mechanical or technological artifacts. .
The above is what I mean by Supernaturalism. "Spiritual" becomes a catch-word for "things which otherwise cannot be naturally explained."
You wouldn't be accurate in going back in their time and explaining that we connect with one another through magic portals of communication. That isn't an accurate or truthful explanation of the internet
Exactly my point re natural explanations.
However, it might not make any difference trying to explain the truth about the internet, to those in the past because they do not have a knowledge-base to comprehend the meaning of the explanation and for the most part will simply refer to such in "supernatural" terminology.
And more to the point, it is not a case of time-travel but of ATA being active in that period of time, explaining both why folk resorted to supernaturalism to "explain" to themselves something they had no way of explaining in more natural terms and why they were not informed of the truth - that these supposed "spiritual" ("Supernatural") events were the product of ATA.
I don't see that this matters re the thread topic or the opening post question, since there is nothing supporting scripture itself, as these are simply stories.
Well, we don't agree on that. They aren't simply stories to me. Nothing supporting scripture? Uh. That's another discussion,
Everything is "simply stories" - even someone's journaling of events that they experience. It doesn't pay to become emotionally attached to anything blown out of proportion re that, either through supporting Materialist or Supernaturalist philosophies.
The goings on in this universe - specifically the local event planet Earth, is "Simply a Story." unfolding which human consciousness has been involved with in a role which can still be seen as a "bit part" compared to the overall time-line of said story.
But even so, when I use the phrase, I am careful to make sure I do not include the word "mere/merely" because that would imply a sense of insignificance and perhaps even purposelessness - and I am using the word "simple" to denote the more natural approach - without the more complicated layer of Supernaturalism mudding the waters...or the tendency of Materialism to underate the story of life on earth (and the universe in general) as "merely" insignificant/unremarkable/something to be indifferent about.
Indeed, the thread topic itself isn't treating the Bible stories as if they are fabrications of human imagination (fiction) and not all stories are fictitious anyway.
William wrote: ↑Thu Oct 26, 2023 2:43 pmQ: Does the idea of artifacts of more ancient and advanced species threaten the philosophies of Supernaturalism and Materialism?
No. Why keep asking me? I'm not going to change my mind.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
So what? They are headings for particular positions folk hold and whether one is heavily into those ideas or not, doesn't change that. If arguments are given from those particular positions of philosophy, then they rightly should be identified as such.
Okay. So, argue what those things mean perpetually then conform their original ideas to fit what they become which is not what they were, plus ideological narcissistic people with great intentions latch onto them like barnacles. And then nothing. There's nothing left.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
Then explain where these "variations and interpretations" might lead the materialist or the supernaturalist which are contrary to either of those positions.
I don't care about those people and I don't care about those things. They are nothing to me.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
So - if it is a case that Advanced Technological Artifacts is the explanation behind these stories, then that would remain "what is" while "what was" would have to be whatever beliefs folk had which were contrary to "what is".
Don't care.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
"Variation in belief" isn't what the question is asking.
Yes, it is. It's like me asking is Harry Potter really a economic developer with a pen instead of a wand.
The answer would be, don't be silly. In two thousand years it may be common "knowledge."
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
One's "variation" can still have one being a total believer in either philosophy/philosophical positions, with both positions rejecting notions of ATA altogether and the question is whether the outright rejection is a response to a perceived threat re beliefs both positions foster in the supporters of said philosophies.
Don't care. Doesn't matter.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
I am nether a Materialist or a Supernaturalist, but observe well enough that both of those philosophical positions evidently are unable to support the other, and are consequently at war - and have been for thousands of years.
To me, philosophy is just another word for liscense for stupid.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
Not sure what your point is there. I have never argued that the theories Darwin presented are "wrong" and the thread subject and OP question are not implying that either.
Read the quote.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
The above is what I mean by Supernaturalism. "Spiritual" becomes a catch-word for "things which otherwise cannot be naturally explained."
Lots of things can't be explained. Those are the things latched onto by the philosophical. Job security.
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
Exactly my point re natural explanations.
However, it might not make any difference trying to explain the truth about the internet, to those in the past because they do not have a knowledge-base to comprehend the meaning of the explanation and for the most part will simply refer to such in "supernatural" terminology.
That isn't the way I see it. You would see the same in someone who was born prior to the internet. Myself. The people who invented and developed it. It isn't magic.
Q: Does the idea of artifacts of more ancient and advanced species threaten the philosophies of Supernaturalism and Materialism?
No.
Therein are you saying that you can accept the notion is a valid one?
Why keep asking me?
For clarity, since you continue to post in this thread. The question isn't specific to "you" - but is meant for everyone.
I'm not going to change my mind.
About what? You haven't really explained what your position is on the question adequately enough for me to understand what your statement means.
As you declared in your previous post.
I never saw the Bible as interesting in that way. As poetry or literature. Maybe the mythology that has been mixed in with it over the ages inspires people to see it that way, but I think of it more like a boring and at times tedious history. At times it is infuriating and bizarre, but not really interesting stories from my perspective. Maybe that's part of the reason I don't see it the way you do.
So why are you even participating in this thread discussion? What is your argument, that it is relevant to the OP topic and accompanying question for debate?
William wrote: ↑Tue Oct 24, 2023 5:16 pm
About what? You haven't really explained what your position is on the question adequately enough for me to understand what your statement means.
As you declared in your previous post.
I never saw the Bible as interesting in that way. As poetry or literature. Maybe the mythology that has been mixed in with it over the ages inspires people to see it that way, but I think of it more like a boring and at times tedious history. At times it is infuriating and bizarre, but not really interesting stories from my perspective. Maybe that's part of the reason I don't see it the way you do.
So why are you even participating in this thread discussion? What is your argument, that it is relevant to the OP topic and accompanying question for debate?
Q: Does the idea of artifacts of more ancient and advanced species threaten the philosophies of Supernaturalism and Materialism?
No.
Therein are you saying that you can accept the notion is a valid one?
No.
Then your statement-answer is of no critical value in answering the actual question as it contradicts the other "no" answer you gave.
Re your earlier comment.
To me, philosophy is just another word for liscense for stupid.
Are you unaware that Christianity is also a belief-based philosophy and one which generically is based in a philosophy of Supernaturalism/Supernaturalist philosophy?
Would you be willing to admit that the idea of ATA's do indeed threaten the supernatural position Christianity has placed itself within, and that is the reason you (as a Christian) declare a firm "no" in answer to the OP question?
