Questions about Kealey

anonymous_sender wrote:You've mistaken the whole premise I see, but I dont blame you because it's obviously a complex topic, but not really. The consistency is simple; when we dream, we create new realities. The universe we live in is nothin more than a big fat dream that became realized. well a soul entity does not dream, it simply creates. It's only real when it's fully realized, well this universe is very 'real'. It's a rock that's sunken to the bottom of a great ocean of the mind.

Your post is staggering. Not just this segment, but the whole thing in general. I don't know how you've managed to come to any of these conclusions with such confidence. There's virtually no way you could possibly back up anything you said here that would merit such certainty.

anonymous_sender wrote:The evolution you speak of doesn't exist! there is evolution, but for one creature to go from a fish to a human would take more than a few billion years!.. it would take trillions. And maybe earth isnt even stable enough for that kind for operation! There are too many animals and mammals with such specific abilities that it seems unlikely they sprouted from the same source.

A well thought-out argument cannot be refuted!

You largely underestimate our planet's biological potential. Can figure it out? Aliens must've done it!

Is it a comprehension problem, or do you just like to be entertained by science fiction?

anonymous_sender wrote:Lets say perhaps that 'biological' life on Earth was created, and lets say that these alien beings are not biological beings. They run on spiritual energy, which explains their ability to travel through astral projection yadda yadda, or they can bend the basic rules of the physical universe to span a great distance, faster than light. This means that they are the 'gods' of the universe, and we biological humanoids are the lowest class slave race. We must exist elsewhere in the universe too, not because we evolved from the rocks of the earth, but because civilization exists many places, and civilizations built on the class system needs slaves. Let us imagine that an alien has no life expectancy, and when they are 'knocked' out of their bodies, they can just go back in. It seems clear that the creators of the universe were of the alien kind, and we are only good at understanding things from a purely logical way, for our brains are hardwired animalistic inventions to trap a soul.

"Lets say perhaps that..."
"lets say that these..."
"which explains their..."
"or they can..."
"This means that they are..."
"Let us imagine that..."

I hope you realize that you've structured your entire argument on some of the most loosely based points imaginable. There's no way you can build such a weak argument on such terrible foundations, then have the audacity to make the beginning of your ending point, "It seems clear that the..." NO! There's absolutely nothing clear at all about any of this!

anonymous_sender wrote:But don't tell me that imagination does not forego truth! it just so happens that the greatest minds were imaginative, often spiritual people, like Nikola Tesla. The highest functioning aspects of our brains are creative imagination.

Really? As far as I know, Tesla's spiritual beliefs were rather uncertain or at least not heavily pronounced in his life. He saw a connection between matter and wave functions of reality however...but that's still in a scientific context.

anonymous_sender wrote:thats not all I wanna say! Animals/biological life have a pre-programmed life expectancy. The general nature of the cycle of life on Earth, and the food chain seems pre-determined. There is something called a cell duplication limit. There are technical terms ill just avoid, but there is something in our DNA that which, when a cell duplicates (the general process of cell maintenance to keep a body regenerating, then there is something in the DNA that gets shorter every time your cells duplicate, and when this thing disappears, then cells stop regenerating..

CANCER cells and VIRUSes dont have limits!

cells which come from viruses and cancer have the potential to duplicate forever without a cap. It just seems to me that living beings on Earth were created.
[...]

I love how you incorporate aspects of the science of DNA...yet attempt to refute the basic science of biology. Science is only good for you when it fits your theories, right?

actually, i like science. I learn more science all the timez! itz wikkedd yoo as for your insults, they are like rubber bullets.. slow rubber bullets! waha!

"he saw a connection between matter and wave functions of reality however...but that's still in a scientific context."

he told people he knew about other worlds that he had been to. Your right it is still in the context of science, but different realities have different names. He was extroardinary, overlooked by the crooked masonic blasphemers that critiqued him for being the 'father of the new age' as they tried to label him. They didnt understand him so they tried to label him.

"There's no way you can build such a weak argument on such terrible foundations, then have the audacity to make the beginning of your ending point,"

It's a good thing im not looking to validate my views here or i might be irritated! But i expect nothing less! it is especially hard with the english language to demonstrate a clear idea. A clear idea doesnt mean having scientific proof though.. ive never been one to get my ideas across well verbally. It's not my highlight! nor do i find that other people get across ideas clearly with this language unless they are speaking in terms that everyone can understand. This is not my highlight. And I happen to know a fair bit about biology I've been reading lots. But it doesn't make me believe in the spiritual reality 'less'. When you read science you are reading the choice of wording decided by PHD's who are required to get an idea across 'clearly', in which they need universal terms that everyone knows and can understand. That doesn't mean that they know everything because their wording is 'universal' like you are making it seem.

by the way, i wasnt trying to 'argue' so i wasnt presenting an argument. Also, you seem like you're having a bad day. But it's not my fault, is it? It doesnt change a damn thing except for your own perspective.. an angry person hardly ever 'thinks clearly'. Perhaps you are more open minded with a hit of acid, or a dash of marijuana.

I do not choose science that fits my perspective, i change my perspective to fit my knowledge. That's the truth *wink*

anonymous_sender wrote:by the way, i wasnt trying to 'argue' so i wasnt presenting an argument. Also, you seem like you're having a bad day. But it's not my fault, is it? It doesnt change a damn thing except for your own perspective.. an angry person hardly ever 'thinks clearly'. Perhaps you are more open minded with a hit of acid, or a dash of marijuana.

I wasn't angry at all. If I were angry or not feeling well I wouldn't be posting. I usually only post after I'm feeling relaxed and have free time to kill. I wasn't taking things out on you.

anonymous_sender wrote:"There's no way you can build such a weak argument on such terrible foundations, then have the audacity to make the beginning of your ending point,"

It's a good thing im not looking to validate my views here or i might be irritated! But i expect nothing less! it is especially hard with the english language to demonstrate a clear idea. A clear idea doesnt mean having scientific proof though.. ive never been one to get my ideas across well verbally. It's not my highlight! nor do i find that other people get across ideas clearly with this language unless they are speaking in terms that everyone can understand. This is not my highlight. And I happen to know a fair bit about biology I've been reading lots. But it doesn't make me believe in the spiritual reality 'less'. When you read science you are reading the choice of wording decided by PHD's who are required to get an idea across 'clearly', in which they need universal terms that everyone knows and can understand. That doesn't mean that they know everything because their wording is 'universal' like you are making it seem.

I disagree with what you say here. Scientists have no intent on getting things across in a way everyone can understand. Peer review science research can often appear to look like mishmash to laypeople unaccustomed to that particular field. Maybe science based programs on television are clear and concise, but that's for obvious reasons..attempts at gaining an audience.

But to your underlined, I never at all ever said that anything was universal or absolute. And I don't see science as an endeavor that has any absolute certainties, but instead is strong in probabilistic assumptions. This is why science is always changing, cause they keep finding out new things as time goes on and have to redo the picture. And for me personally, after all the things I've experience, am willing to claim ignorance to grand cosmic mysteries, but I'll dabble in what I believe are the best possible assumptions available.

I find that religious people tend to think they already have all the answers in the world about everything...all the secrets of the universe are written in this book or tablet or scroll or whatever some random raving lunatic is ranting about. At least science admits when they don’t know something. They say all the time that their physics break down when trying to explain things like blackholes and the big bang mathematically. And that's space, there are still plenty of mysteries on earth lol!

But I would take a person more seriously when they admit that they don’t know something, rather than the person who thinks they know everything. Nobody knows everything and no one ever will. Once, you think you know everything, you stop learning. What I was trying to get across were nuggets of skepticism to an elaborate theory you confabulated with such confidence. Navigate your compass to the best possible estimates to these grand mysteries. Or believe whatever you want, I don't care. Just don't expect me to believe just anything that comes along the way.

You yourself could probably come up with a totally made-up, but clever, sci-fi/fantasy story, and just pass it along as if it were truth and facts about reality. And if you were cunning enough, you'd probably be able to find some people, somewhere in the world who you could convince to believe it.

Lucid Memes wrote:

anonymous_sender wrote:by the way, i wasnt trying to 'argue' so i wasnt presenting an argument. Also, you seem like you're having a bad day. But it's not my fault, is it? It doesnt change a damn thing except for your own perspective.. an angry person hardly ever 'thinks clearly'. Perhaps you are more open minded with a hit of acid, or a dash of marijuana.

I wasn't angry at all. If I were angry or not feeling well I wouldn't be posting. I usually only post after I'm feeling relaxed and have free time to kill. I wasn't taking things out on you.

anonymous_sender wrote:"There's no way you can build such a weak argument on such terrible foundations, then have the audacity to make the beginning of your ending point,"

It's a good thing im not looking to validate my views here or i might be irritated! But i expect nothing less! it is especially hard with the english language to demonstrate a clear idea. A clear idea doesnt mean having scientific proof though.. ive never been one to get my ideas across well verbally. It's not my highlight! nor do i find that other people get across ideas clearly with this language unless they are speaking in terms that everyone can understand. This is not my highlight. And I happen to know a fair bit about biology I've been reading lots. But it doesn't make me believe in the spiritual reality 'less'. When you read science you are reading the choice of wording decided by PHD's who are required to get an idea across 'clearly', in which they need universal terms that everyone knows and can understand. That doesn't mean that they know everything because their wording is 'universal' like you are making it seem.

I disagree with what you say here. Scientists have no intent on getting things across in a way everyone can understand. Peer review science research can often appear to look like mishmash to laypeople unaccustomed to that particular field. Maybe science based programs on television are clear and concise, but that's for obvious reasons..attempts at gaining an audience.

But to your underlined, I never at all ever said that anything was universal or absolute. And I don't see science as an endeavor that has any absolute certainties, but instead is strong in probabilistic assumptions. This is why science is always changing, cause they keep finding out new things as time goes on and have to redo the picture. And for me personally, after all the things I've experience, am willing to claim ignorance to grand cosmic mysteries, but I'll dabble in what I believe are the best possible assumptions available.

I find that religious people tend to think they already have all the answers in the world about everything...all the secrets of the universe are written in this book or tablet or scroll or whatever some random raving lunatic is ranting about. At least science admits when they don’t know something. They say all the time that their physics break down when trying to explain things like blackholes and the big bang mathematically. And that's space, there are still plenty of mysteries on earth lol!

But I would take a person more seriously when they admit that they don’t know something, rather than the person who thinks they know everything. Nobody knows everything and no one ever will. Once, you think you know everything, you stop learning. What I was trying to get across were nuggets of skepticism to an elaborate theory you confabulated with such confidence. Navigate your compass to the best possible estimates to these grand mysteries. Or believe whatever you want, I don't care. Just don't expect me to believe just anything that comes along the way.

You yourself could probably come up with a totally made-up, but clever, sci-fi/fantasy story, and just pass it along as if it were truth and facts about reality. And if you were cunning enough, you'd probably be able to find some people, somewhere in the world who you could convince to believe it.

yes i agree with everything that tyou said!

the confidence only comes from personal experience. i dont know everything and i too am always learning. However there are pivotal things that always remain the same.