The best reasons to believe that there is a God

[dowmagik]

...or, youre a goddamn ape that thinks youre a lot more important than you really are...

[Ski Mask]

so millions have suffered atrrocities and unspeakable suffering cause god wanted to spice things up a bit. thats a belief system I can get behind.

[.hopeless.]

no one ever said that god gave a fuck about any of us.if ther IS a god.more than likely he's the kind that just put things in motion and then just let things happen.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

moons, study up on wtf a scientific theory is before you try to compare it to a claim of the supernatural.

 

faith is belief in a conviction when there is no evidence to support your position. a scientific theory is based on observations, experiments, and...EVIDENCE.

 

youre outta your element on this one, donny.

 

ha alright.

 

If there is no evidence to support your conviction, then that means the conviction doesnt exist? Than why do you feel that emotion? Because of social programming? Doubtful.

 

I would assert that conviction is also based on observations, experiments, and evidence.

 

You have observed what your action has resulted in, and also the results of similar actions of other humans throughout history. So you experiment with differant factors surrounding that action to see if you get the same result of conviction or not. If one way of doing the action has proven time and time again to yield conviction, then theres your evidence.

 

come out of said element with me on this one, bra. its all fun conversation!

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

...or, youre a goddamn ape that thinks youre a lot more important than you really are...

 

pfff hahahaha funny how things get personal when differing opinions arise...chill out bro its just a discussion!

 

im just throwin ideas out there anyway ha jsut to see if i got a reaction like that! Proof of the law that you dont bring up religion in conversations b/c they might wanna kill you afterward!

 

is all hope lost for adults that want to exchange ideas?!!! chill man

[MAR]

i would like to dispell the notion of a supreme creator, and bring people into the new age of living. I believe that it's quite possible that what we called God or Gods, were merely aliens... extra terrestrials, who put us on this earth, probably by mating with early man, thus creating "us in His image". Yes I stole my theory from a book, but so did you. At least I don't go waging wars over my belief system... and therefore it is superior.

 

Castro, Mao, Lenin, Pol Pot, and Hitler all killed in the name of eradicating religion. People will kill whether or they can come up with a reason for why.

and to mock, to give myself a feeling of intellectual superiority... you know, the kind of mental masturbation most introverted genius types indulge in.

 

If you're as smart as you think you are go make a difference in the world and stop wasting your energy.

 

why else?

 

oh and thanks for saying my thread has a purpose ;)

 

 

EDIT: that sounded dickish, but i'm not erasing. maybe you're right. this might be my cry for help and understanding of faith and religion in general. my purpose was to find out what drives people to believing whatever it is they do. if I can see how it affected you I may be open to it. see? sounds better now.

 

Haha. I wouldn'tve cared. Honestly means a lot to me.

 

 

To MAR,

 

It's only accidental in the philosophical sense of the word. That it could have happened another way. But it didn't.

That works backwards too. Prove that it could have happened another way.

 

I would argue that irrationality in existential arguments is a hard thing to even bring into it. Is it rational to believe in science? Is it rational to believe in god? What do the terms rational mean in each use there? For that matter what does the word belief mean in either use?

 

In regards to science most who "believe" in it would claim that the rational is that which matches a certain logic. That logic is the same logic which drives the scientific and mathematic engine. It's almost tautological to call a belief in science "rational" for one would have already had to agree to that particular use and meaning of rationality at all. However, for arguments sake, let us call "rational" here to mean a belief in something that confirms or disconfirms a scientific theory set forth by very particular rules for empirical observation.

 

The same goes in converse for a "rational" belief in a god. What is rational is simply what is consistent with one's existential frame work. What seems improbable in its potential for the Christian is blatant in its logical necessity to the Scientific Atheist.

 

The point of bringing up rationality is to open the notion that it is impossible to believe in anything at all. We make decisions based on acquired knowledge. That's why one person's solution to a problem might be different from another's.

 

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that religion and science can't coexist. Or that belief in a god is synonymous with belief in a religion.

 

The disputes between the use of rationality and belief in these two cases sort of highlights the problem that Science itself has when dealing with Intelligent Design. The misuse of scientific terms and concepts is so egregious to those that follow and conduct scientific study that it almost renders the community immobile when trying to form an intelligible response to ID's claims. But to the lay-christian it seems to be "Scientific" rigor that affords them the ability to claim that there must be a creator if there are gaps in the explanatory power of a given scientific theory.

 

In this case it attacks Evolutionary theory and the idea that there are "gaps in the fossil record."

 

Which is itself a ridiculous argument. Science has never claimed that the fossil record is the grail of evolutionary theory. Particularly in light of recent advances in molecular evoltionary theory. We are coming up with much more accurate and concise visions of the living spectrum through genetic matching.

 

Just the other day there were major revisions to theories regarding several different types of dinosaurs. Rather than thinking they were all different species, it turns out that several were just juveniles of another species, etc.

 

The point of bringing up rationality is to open the notion that it is impossible to believe in anything at all. We make decisions based on acquired knowledge. That's why one person's solution to a problem might be different from another's.

 

Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that religion and science can't coexist. Or that belief in a god is synonymous with belief in a religion.

 

Basically, the point is, science does not claim to know everything, and it is a built in function to predicate its own failures as a means of self revision. Religion updates itself in a much different way. The dogmas of the two may each require faith in their own ways, but the faith of a secular belief is tied to something much more earthly and real than any dogma of soteriology and omniscent, omnipresent and omnipotent beings.

 

Earthly? Maybe. Be careful lumping all religions in with each other, they are all very different.

 

 

 

 

moons, study up on wtf a scientific theory is before you try to compare it to a claim of the supernatural.

 

faith is belief in a conviction when there is no evidence to support your position. a scientific theory is based on observations, experiments, and...EVIDENCE.

 

youre outta your element on this one, donny.

 

Actually, he's not. If you stop for a second to consider what evidence is, you'd realize that it's purely observational. Observation is limited by our equipment and faculties. In short, there is nothing that can be truly called factual. Science as a whole challenges itself on a daily basis. When you subscribe to a theory, in essence, you are subscribing to a faith. There's nothing wrong with that, but you have to admit that it's pretty close to believing in a higher being.

 

Try to view it in the reverse, we can't prove God's existence because we don't have advanced enough equipment. As William Cowper said, "Absence of proof is not proof of absence."

 

Sorry about the red text, I didn't want to make a huge quote stack.

[lord_casek]

I've always liked Watts ideas. Call it the ghetto hippie in me.

 

 

What to tell children about God.

 

-Alan Watts

 

 

There was never a time when the world began, because it goes round and round like a circle, and there is no place on a circle where it begins. Look at my watch, which tells the time; it goes round, and so the world repeats itself again and again. But just as the hour-hand of the watch goes up to twelve and down to six, so, too, there is day and night, waking and sleeping, living and dying, summer and winter. You can’t have any one of these without the other, because you wouldn’t be able to know what black is unless you had seen it side by side with white, or white unless side by side with black.

 

In the same way, there are times when the world is, and times when it isn’t, for if the world went on and on without rest forever and ever, it would get horribly tired of itself. It comes and it goes. Now you see it; now you don’t. So because it doesn’t get tired of itself, it always comes back again after it disappears. It’s like your breath: it goes in and out, in and out, and if you try to hold it in all the time you feel terrible. It’s also like the game of hide-and-seek, because it’s always fun to find new ways of hiding, and to seek for someone who doesn’t always hide in the same place.

 

God also likes to play hide-and-seek, but because there is nothing outside God, He has no one but himself to play with. But He gets over this difficulty by pretending that He is not Himself. This is His way of hiding from Himself. He pretends that He is you and I and all the people in the world, all the animals, all the plants, all the rocks, and all the stars. In this way He has strange and wonderful adventures, some of which are terrible and frightening. But these are just like bad dreams, for when He wakes up they will disappear.

 

Now when God plays hide and pretends that He is you and I, He does it so well that it takes Him a long time to remember where and how He hid Himself. But that’s the whole fun of it-just what He wanted to do. He doesn’t want to find Himself out too quickly, for that would spoil the game. That is why it is so difficult for you and me to find out that we are God in disguise, pretending not to be Himself. But when the game has gone on long enough, all of us will wake up, stop pretending, and remember that we are all one single Self-the God who is all that there is and who lives for ever and ever.

 

Of course, you must remember that God isn’t shaped like a person. People have skins and there is always something outside our skins. If there weren’t, we wouldn’t know the difference between what is inside and outside our bodies. But God has no skin and no shape because there isn’t any outside to Him. . . . The inside and the outside of God are the same. And though I have been talking about God as ‘He’ and not ’she,’ God isn’t a man or a woman. I didn’t say ‘it’ because we usually say ‘it’ for things that aren’t alive.

 

God is the Self of the world, but you can’t see God for the same reason that, without a mirror, you can’t see your own eyes, and you certainly can’t bite your own teeth or look inside your head. Your self is that cleverly hidden because it is God hiding.

 

You may ask why God sometimes hides in the form of horrible people, or pretends to be people who suffer great disease and pain. Remember, first, that He isn’t really doing this to anyone but Himself. Remember, too, that in almost all the stories you enjoy there have to be bad people as well as good people, for the thrill of the tale is to find out how the good people will get the better of the bad. It’s the same as when we play cards. At the beginning of the game we shuffle them all into a mess, which is like the bad things in the world, but the point of the game is to put the mess into good order, and the one who does it best is the winner. Then we shuffle the cards once more and play again, and so it goes with the world.

[Ski Mask]

Science as a whole challenges itself on a daily basis. When you subscribe to a theory, in essence, you are subscribing to a faith. There's nothing wrong with that, but you have to admit that it's pretty close to believing in a higher being.

 

 

this is bullshit. when I subscribe to a theory it is because it has been demonstrated to be the most correct answer to a question. should a revised theory come along it would be tested and either accepted or discarded based on the results.

the scientific method is inherently open to change and revision. I don't think that you can call following these methods "faith" any more than you can call my belief that the sun will rise in the morning "faith".

[the.crooked]

MAR-

 

I do believe they can co-exist, but it really comes down to how one treats science.

 

But also don't dismiss the difference between co-existing and harmonizing.

 

I think it is very hard for science and many of it's conclusions to harmonize with religious dogma.

 

 

And yes, I am sensitive to the differences in various religions, etc. I have been speaking mostly in regard to the monotheistic, likely christian, idiom that was suggested by nsmbfan at the beginning of the thread.

 

 

As far as your comment on observation and faith, that raises a deep question of science that most don't deal with because they are too busy explainin to the lay-person what the word theory means...

 

 

Sorry, pointed, but like I said in my initial post there is a faith that is contained in science, particularly if you are a realist. If you maintain, however, that the only faith necessary to conduct science is that of the explanatory power of a given theory, then you are really displacing and limiting the faith in the ineffable required. In the former view of science you must have faith that unobservable particles are indirectly observed and thus exist in reality almost by proxy. The latter view maintains that it doesn't matter the particular existential status of a given element of a theory, but the overall theories ability to predict and account for new information.

 

One is more existentially based (which I think is the form most compare to reliigion and which your comparison of "faith" turns upon) and the other is much more functionally based (which in some ways avoids your counter to science's rejection of faith in a higher being).

 

As I am sure you can guess, I am of the anti-realist functionally based group.

 

This is, however, not a distinction in science that most people question their beliefs towards. Although, I do advocate a strong introspection for anyone maintaining the validity of science over religion: for it isn't the existential claims in science that will back their arguments.

 

 

Aldo, I think it's telling that Moon hasn't responded to me.

[dowmagik]

pfff hahahaha funny how things get personal when differing opinions arise...chill out bro its just a discussion!

 

im just throwin ideas out there anyway ha jsut to see if i got a reaction like that! Proof of the law that you dont bring up religion in conversations b/c they might wanna kill you afterward!

 

is all hope lost for adults that want to exchange ideas?!!! chill man

i wasnt mad or trying to attack you, im just sayin i get a kick in the pants out of the idea that we were 'created' so that god could have a relationship with us.

[MAR]

I like that Casek.

 

this is bullshit. when I subscribe to a theory it is because it has been demonstrated to be the most correct answer to a question. should a revised theory come along it would be tested and either accepted or discarded based on the results.

the scientific method is inherently open to change and revision. I don't think that you can call following these methods "faith" any more than you can call my belief that the sun will rise in the morning "faith".

 

But what if the sun didnt rise tomorrow morning?!

 

You believe it will because it has, but if it didn't then that would shake everything you know up. You can't claim that it wouldn't rise, because to do so would claim that you know everything, and then, you'd be some manifestation of a god.

 

I made a mistake before. I assumed that to be an atheist you need to believe in science, that's not true.

 

Let me just summarize my feelings on the topic.

 

No one can claim to know anything, all we can say is we don't know anything, and even to say that is flawed because perhaps we know something.

 

We are left with one option, and that's to admit we can't know anything and therefore we are all agnostic. If one claims they are atheist, that is a faith in a lack of god. If one claims they are religious, that is a faith that there is god. If one claims they are apathetic, that's a cop-out.

 

The only thing that bothers me about this atheist/religious debate is the need for both sides to convert the other. It seems pointless.

[the.crooked]

I ain't tryin to convince anyone.

 

We are all gonna die.

 

I could care less.

 

I'm merely, like always on here, trying to make sure certain terms are used clearly and that common misconceptions about science aren't advocated.

[Ski Mask]

We are left with one option, and that's to admit we can't know anything and therefore we are all agnostic. If one claims they are atheist, that is a faith in a lack of god. If one claims they are religious, that is a faith that there is god. If one claims they are apathetic, that's a cop-out.

 

 

I get what you're saying, but this is still off the mark. It comes down to how you define Atheism I suppose.

I consider myself an Atheist, I live my life as though god doesn't exist because all evidence points that way. It is possible he exists, however the likelihood of that being true are so small that I don't think it worth considering.

[MAR]

MAR-

 

I do believe they can co-exist, but it really comes down to how one treats science.

 

But also don't dismiss the difference between co-existing and harmonizing.

 

I think it is very hard for science and many of it's conclusions to harmonize with religious dogma.

 

 

And yes, I am sensitive to the differences in various religions, etc. I have been speaking mostly in regard to the monotheistic, likely christian, idiom that was suggested by nsmbfan at the beginning of the thread.

 

 

As far as your comment on observation and faith, that raises a deep question of science that most don't deal with because they are too busy explainin to the lay-person what the word theory means...

 

 

Sorry, pointed, but like I said in my initial post there is a faith that is contained in science, particularly if you are a realist. If you maintain, however, that the only faith necessary to conduct science is that of the explanatory power of a given theory, then you are really displacing and limiting the faith in the ineffable required. In the former view of science you must have faith that unobservable particles are indirectly observed and thus exist in reality almost by proxy. The latter view maintains that it doesn't matter the particular existential status of a given element of a theory, but the overall theories ability to predict and account for new information.

 

One is more existentially based (which I think is the form most compare to reliigion and which your comparison of "faith" turns upon) and the other is much more functionally based (which in some ways avoids your counter to science's rejection of faith in a higher being).

 

As I am sure you can guess, I am of the anti-realist functionally based group.

 

This is, however, not a distinction in science that most people question their beliefs towards. Although, I do advocate a strong introspection for anyone maintaining the validity of science over religion: for it isn't the existential claims in science that will back their arguments.

 

This is a cool post.

 

I think that science limits itself by thinking in "facts." The search for extraterrestrial life always amuses me. Why assume that all life will form in the same way that we have?

[Ski Mask]

The search for extraterrestrial life always amuses me. Why assume that all life will form in the same way that we have?

 

I don't think anybody does assume that, unless you're talking about pop culture. we try to communicate with other life in the methods we do because that is how WE communicate. we don't know any other way to try.

[Organic Therapy]

i would like to dispell the notion of a supreme creator, and bring people into the new age of living.

 

Why would you want to talk people down for believing in what they believe in? That's just an act of ignorance and arrogance. You're an atheist, I get it. I think we all get it, but it seems that you're wanting to portray your simple-mindedness to the rest of 12oz.

 

If you are bitching about theists wanting to disprove your idea of a God that you don't think exists, then why regurgitate what they're doing and forcing it upon them?

 

It makes no sense, it's just a circle that never completes itself.

Religion and science will always be head on with each other, and like I said to Ski Mask in a PM, science will always win. I hate to admit it, but the truth is the truth.

 

Theists cannot visually prove the existence of God but science can disprove it just for the fact that there is no manifestation of a visible human being.

 

My faith in God is up high, all though I don't follow some of the beliefs of my own religion, I still believe that he exists. The replication of a miniature Big Bang through CERN's technology furthers my trust that yes, God exists.

 

Notice how I used science to semi-prove and get across a point. If man can recreate the beginning of the universe, then why couldn't another being from another vast universe do the same?

 

The universe is ENORMOUS in size and we have yet to know if we are the only universe out there. Nobody knows how many of "us" there are. We cannot be that selfish that we think that we are the only beings in this world. It's just simply ignorant.

 

With that said I will answer your question, nsmb, to why I believe in the existance of God.

 

I just simply believe. I have found within myself that I have chosen the correct path to go on. I at anytime can stray from this path, but it's not what I want to do. Faith is exactly that, faith. And it's what I have, it's what helps me be close to the God I believe in.

 

I have many, many, influences from the atheist point of view due to many of my friends not believing in a higher power or wanting proof that one exists. We have had intellectual discussions as to why we believe and vice versa. Most of their responses are either it's just to absurd to believe in something like that or I need proof.

 

One's beliefs are personal and no one should interfere or bring them down.

 

Religion will never be expelled from humanity, it's impossible.

 

Welcome to the new age of living.

[MAR]

I don't think anybody does assume that, unless you're talking about pop culture. we try to communicate with other life in the methods we do because that is how WE communicate. we don't know any other way to try.

The search for water, planet size, and certain gases is NASA's main method of determining if there is (or could have been) life on another planet.

 

p.s.

 

[Ski Mask]

given the size of area we are searching, we have to narrow things down. we know what set of variables allow us to exist, so its only natural for us to try looking for that first. also, just about everything we know that we would reasonably consider "life" exists in similar circumstances to us. how else should we search?

[MAR]

Well, honestly, I find that most of what NASA does is a waste of resources.

 

I do however agree it's the most logical start for a search, but it limits your results.

 

Think sawed off shotgun vs sniper rifle.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

Im in OrganicTherapy's boat.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

i wasnt mad or trying to attack you, im just sayin i get a kick in the pants out of the idea that we were 'created' so that god could have a relationship with us.

 

yea i dont know if i necessarily believe it, but ive heard alot of people say things along those lines.

 

just tryin to throw in ish ive heard to hear differant perspectives, thats all

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

the.crooked:

The theory thing? Im a physics minor bra im quite aware of scientific correctness and definitions...

 

its just half the ish im sayin are the stances of people i have talked to in the past, never said thats how i feel("i" in my previous posts="them"). Just tryin to get good responses to all the standpoints in order to promote further discussions outside 12oz.

 

discussing this is wack anyway tho. noone is going to change anyone elses mind. fun to see reactions tho ha

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

dang it sorry for the posts fellas

the.crooked:

or the human mind grasp thing?

I agree with you on that--the human mind cannot possibly fathom eternity, or even the vastness of our own solar system let alone the universe.

But while the whole 'well our contention is' thing is the most likely conclusion based off the fact that it has yet to be disproven, it is still a 'we dont really know, its a guess, but we are fairly certain its this because experiments prove xy&z..yattayatta ' Definately the most likely truth, but we cannot control for every single one of the inconcievable factors that also 'may have been present'. Thats what all my professors have said anyway, unless i misunderstood or somthin.

 

their basic sum up in the debates that continue to this day in my classes is you dont know, i dont know, noone else knows, so whats the effin point. on to more theory testing.

[the.crooked]

Yeah,

 

I think that's the basic caveat:

 

Rather than get hung up on the minutia of the fact that science will never know fully, we should at least do what is useful in science.

[MoonsOfSulkendastron]

Thats all we can do, really.

[the.crooked]

thread over.

[nsmbfan]

holy fucking shit. a lot of responses, and well versed people.

 

science explains how, not why. i can agree to that.

 

religion is a fallacy, trying to explain the why. but even when I read "god created the heavens and earth", there was no clear reason as to why. boredom with infinite power?

 

I originally intended for this thread to bring out religious people and their convictions. Faith is fucked up and leads to controversy, more often than not. I live in the south. You can only imagine the pious group of fuckwits I see on a daily basis. This is cause for concern for me, because I fear stupid people in groups.

[nsmbfan]

I'm an atheist. when you interject this bit you lose me. if we're going to be scientific about things, why do you suppose we're aliens/intergallactic travellers? it sounds like a big heaping pile of bullshit to me.

 

because of the unexplained ancient evidence left behind by people from all over the world.

 

Chariots of the Gods - free PDF ebook download here: http://www.mediafire.com/?cyjtmieqzez

Erich Von Daniken

http://www.daniken.com/e/index.html

 

 

 

what I propose is that everything we know is based on observation. and before TV, people observed the skies. very much so. they toiled laborously creating massives structures in key astrological points on our planet. why? my guess is to appease "the Gods".

 

I barely understand most of what has been posted on here about physics, I have a high school education. Maybe I am bat shit insane, but if you can come up with a better theory as to why shit like THIS exists, I'm all ears:

 

OR

 

The truth is, you don't know. Science could explain how they were made. But why make a bunch of pictures in a windless, dry, arid, unforgiving landscape... that can only be viewed from hundreds of feet in the air? These pre-date any technology capable of flight, yet here they are.

 

And I can't find it right now, but also the map that was from the dark ages, showing north american and south america in rigid detail, accurately depicting rivers and mountain valleys... but here's the catch, the map was drawn as if looking at the earth from several miles up. It was sketched so that if you were to contour it around a modern GLOBE, the flat paper map would wrap around the globe and match up perfectly with everything. This thing was drawn as if the artist were looking down at the world, spherical. Hard to explain without seeing it. I'll hunt down a picture.

 

But fucks sake man, somethings going on here.

[the.crooked]

NSMBFAN-

 

There have been many arguments as to why "God" created earth.

 

If you are curious about them,

 

I suggest you look into The Ontological Argument.

 

This is essentially the various philosophical arguments for the existence of God from an a priori stance. That page even includes an argument for the non-existence of God.

 

However all of them are mired down by moral or value statements which as a foundational statement of the argument do not hold in all cases or interpretations.

 

One of the more interesting arguments for existence and God's creation of it, at least in my mind, is along the lines of Leibniz and his concept of possible worlds. God, in his infinite nature must create everything for it would be delimiting him and his powers were he not to. And because god is infinitely good, he must only make that which is infinitely perfect, or in this case, the best. Because of our existence, it stands to reason that this is the best of all possible worlds and thus the necessity of our creation stands on that point.

 

I'm prolly missing something in the argumentative line, but that's the general gist of it.

 

This is also where the idea of accidental and necessary functions arise (as I alluded to in my initial response to MAR). It is accidental in the sense that there is any other possible world that can be imagined, but it is necessary that this is the one that occurs.

 

The last point can be made from a myriad of positions (both secular and non). To the former, if one ascribes to the validity of science and of cause and effect, then the universe has necessarily ended up this way because each event affects the other. And it is simply so that it has occured this way.

 

A way to look at it is sort of like looking at free will in deterministic systems: "I know that I will come to a choice. What that choice may be, I can not say until I have made it. But I can assure you a choice will be made." There is an inevitability of the future that allows this concept to play out. So, accidental and necessary properties of existence are sort of moot, for anything has its hand in both; Things are accidental until they occur, at which point they become necessary.

 

The non-secular version of the argument is much like that of Leibniz's best possible world. Existence is the best it can be because of God's infinitely good nature. Plain and simple.

 

These are the moments where you can see MAR's vision of co-existence playing out.

 

To further that view, I think MAR should look into Spinoza's conception of God. For Spinoza, it was the playing out of an eternal existence that comprised what "God" is. His views are very closely tied to that of the secular version of accidental and necessary properties I spoke about earlier in the post.

 

If I weren't at work I'd draw out a diagram to sort of show how Spinoza's conception of time, space and action play into all this, but yeah. The store is flooding on the day before thanksgiving, and I have sale tags to print.

[the.crooked]

because of the unexplained ancient evidence left behind by people from all over the world.

 

what I propose is that everything we know is based on observation. and before TV, people observed the skies. very much so. they toiled laborously creating massives structures in key astrological points on our planet. why? my guess is to appease "the Gods".

 

I barely understand most of what has been posted on here about physics, I have a high school education. Maybe I am bat shit insane, but if you can come up with a better theory as to why shit like THIS exists, I'm all ears:

 

 

The truth is, you don't know. Science could explain how they were made. But why make a bunch of pictures in a windless, dry, arid, unforgiving landscape... that can only be viewed from hundreds of feet in the air? These pre-date any technology capable of flight, yet here they are.

 

And I can't find it right now, but also the map that was from the dark ages, showing north american and south america in rigid detail, accurately depicting rivers and mountain valleys... but here's the catch, the map was drawn as if looking at the earth from several miles up. It was sketched so that if you were to contour it around a modern GLOBE, the flat paper map would wrap around the globe and match up perfectly with everything. This thing was drawn as if the artist were looking down at the world, spherical. Hard to explain without seeing it. I'll hunt down a picture.

 

But fucks sake man, somethings going on here.

 

There is always going to be a certain disconnect between historic cultures and our own analyses of them.

 

I think it's fine that you have speculations about the creation, purpose and use of these structures, but just as you are claiming that we and science can say little on them, you should keep that in mind yourself.

 

I think all Ski Mask and I were saying is that speculative commentary is not going to get you anywhere in a scientific argument. That's all.

 

I too have somewhat out there views on these things, but I'm not gonna put them out there because it doesn't have dick to do with anything really. It's best to leave what you can't speak with some validity or certainty on out of arguments where there is more than enough to speak about aptly.