Can Advanced Technology Explain The Bible Stories?

[William]

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.

(SOURCE)

Keeping Knowledge Hidden?

Current Headlines:

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?

[Data]

A hammer can be used for many things including head-stoving.

Okay.

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.

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? To protect your emotional investment or to sweep up and discard the fractured mirror in which you caught a glimpse of 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. Don't make monsters of people, make people of monsters.

I would say THAT is "The difference of perspective" between the philosophies you and I currently support...

I know.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #89]

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.

[Data]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #89]

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.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #89]

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.

No. Unless you deny the database of science (and I;m sure you don;'t) that is the go -to kind of hypothesis, especially as research indicates and evolved process of consciousness,awareness and ethics, too, and a relationship between thoughts and brain activity. The onus falls fairly on you claiming Something Else to give a reason why that should be a valid alternate theory.

Creationists at least provide an argument for their claims.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #89]

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.

If I follow that correctly, there seem to be two claims - one is that there is ancient technology that was of a kind we can't match today. Daaniken popularised this idea with ancient Inca stonework, which is still a bit of a puzzle. But here, there is some reason to think that the people of the time could do more than we might suppose. And Daaniken made some daft claims, too.

The other argument is that this ancient technology, rather than the tools and machines of an ET civilisation visiting here, they had some magical or supernatural element, like cutting and shifting of huge stone blocks with the power of the mind rather than tractor beams on Flying saucers.

It is just adding one more unverified claim to the one that is still in dispute, not unlike the Bible - debunked in many ways, like the Gods from outer space platinum - working claim but still with some points that are being debated.

[William]

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.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #94]

No.

Yes.

Unless you deny the database of science (and I;m sure you don;'t) that is the go -to kind of hypothesis, especially as research indicates and evolved process of consciousness,awareness and ethics, too, and a relationship between thoughts and brain activity.

No. I am agnostic. You are describing the materialist position on the matter. That is a different position.

The onus falls fairly on you claiming Something Else to give a reason why that should be a valid alternate theory.

Again, No.

The onus is on me to evaluate the claims from both opposing positions, and if neither position's claims have clear supporting evidence, the onus is on me to remain agnostic about those claims.
This allows me to explore the alternatives and keep an open mind. Something which the dogmatic idea that "the "go to" or "default hypothesis" should be accepted as claimed by materialist philosophy, disables one from being/doing.

The belief-claim that "once people have had the trick explained to them, they won't be fooled by it again" is challenged by my asking for evidence that the brain is the source of human consciousness.
So, you can either explain the trick that clearly indicates folk need not contemplate alternate explanations, or alternatively produce the Nobel Prize-worthy paper ( or link us to it ) OR you can admit that that piece of the puzzle is still under investigation and the consequent dogmatism you are arguing, is simply a matter of jumping the gun.

Otherwise, I am unable to acknowledge any worthy point to your belief-claim.

Creationists at least provide an argument for their claims.

So what? So do Materialists. Nether has convinced me to abandon the agnostic position on the matter.

[TRANSPONDER]

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.

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #94]

No.

Yes.

Unless you deny the database of science (and I;m sure you don;'t) that is the go -to kind of hypothesis, especially as research indicates and evolved process of consciousness,awareness and ethics, too, and a relationship between thoughts and brain activity.

No. I am agnostic. You are describing the materialist position on the matter. That is a different position.

The onus falls fairly on you claiming Something Else to give a reason why that should be a valid alternate theory.

Again, No.

The onus is on me to evaluate the claims from both opposing positions, and if neither position's claims have clear supporting evidence, the onus is on me to remain agnostic about those claims.
This allows me to explore the alternatives and keep an open mind. Something which the dogmatic idea that "the "go to" or "default hypothesis" should be accepted as claimed by materialist philosophy, disables one from being/doing.

The belief-claim that "once people have had the trick explained to them, they won't be fooled by it again" is challenged by my asking for evidence that the brain is the source of human consciousness.
So, you can either explain the trick that clearly indicates folk need not contemplate alternate explanations, or alternatively produce the Nobel Prize-worthy paper ( or link us to it ) OR you can admit that that piece of the puzzle is still under investigation and the consequent dogmatism you are arguing, is simply a matter of jumping the gun.

Otherwise, I am unable to acknowledge any worthy point to your belief-claim.

Creationists at least provide an argument for their claims.

So what? So do Materialists. Nether has convinced me to abandon the agnostic position on the matter.

That is where you are doing it wrong. Nobody has abandoned the 'agnostic' position on the matter; not me, not the materialists, not the scientists. 'Agnostic' means 'we do not know.' It seems that the only one to have abandons the 'don't know' position is you, because - it must and has to be - you have convincing evidence to convince you it is at least as valid a hypothesis as the materialist.

Let's see your evidence. And before you say it, understanding of the way the world works, biological and physical science and the materialist default is all known and does not need further evidence as hypothetical or potential explanation. Your hypothesis whatever it is (some sort of Cosmic Mind I gather) is what requires validation, not the workings of the human brain.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #97]

Obviously we have different understandings of what is agnostic. Your "agnosticism" has it that there is a "Default position" ( Materialism ) and this particular thread subject isn't about debating that particular difference.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #97]

Obviously we have different understandings of what is agnostic. Your "agnosticism" has it that there is a "Default position" ( Materialism ) and this particular thread subject isn't about debating that particular difference.

You still don't get it. Agnosticism, (aside that we are ALL technically agnostic but we take 95% sure as 'known' or 'fact') is what we do with unknowns. "We don't know". That is the logically correct response and I'm sure you've heard it before. The logically inevitable result is not to invest credit (let alone believe) in any claim one way or the other. Theism and faith -claims habitually get this wrong by assuming the God - claim is the default.

Now if you are making a claim for a Cosmic Mind, even if there was no materialist default at all, the onus would still be on you to validate any such claim. That is how the logic of agnosticism work.
But there is a materialist default through research, validation and explanation which means you have to do even more work to show why your cosmic mind is a more credible theory than consciousness comes from the mechanics of the brain.

[William]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #99]

You still don't get it.

Start a thread on the subject if you want to and we can debate it there.