Are you sure you've got this right? Because this seems really far out to me. If nobody can translate, how the heck do you know that it has anything to do with aliens, of all things?

Well what i mean , is they just translated some parts... the book, is very deteriorated to Translate more.. but its seems that this book describes some geometrical techniques and some knowledge, that they had before us. But as i said the book is very dirty and damaged.. and no one wants to read it, its hard, and time consuming.. But from what they read they descibre Aliens and spaceships etc ...

I saw that on a Documentary Program, i download in a torrent. Thats talks not only about Mayan but other cultures like those Chinese, and its books (scripts)

Its like the Archimedes Google Project you know? Very bad conditions...

If it's dirty, damaged, and we only understand about half of the language it's written in, then I find it hard to believe that we can understand so much about this text.

so if google is god, and we use google does this mean we use god?
and google was man made, and cant exist without any serious business plan so god is a man made corporation that needs to rely on the economical strength of its customers to ensure a further relevance over the course of time.

that means that prior to google there was either another deity considered god like for example peanut butter jelly or the great wall of china, which, ironically, has nothing to do with google (anymore) so one god was recast with another one similar to the terrence howard/don cheadley thingy in iron man 2 just that dark chocolate who was a god prior to google aswell is far better than google in my own eyes but im more of a don cheadle supporter than terrence howard. i also dislike the raimi spider-man movies but that goes too far off into other territory.

anyway, i support the theory that google is god since that really is not as far fetched as an omnipotent being which defies the logic and physics of space and time to create a planet full of slaves in seven days yet he needs their love although he can easyly send us all to a hell his firstborn slaveangel created to fuck with him wichich makes no sense whatsoever.

i really really like dark chocolate...

I'm not judging your view, so please don't get me wrong, but agnosticism for many just means being 'undecided' on or 'uninterested' in the God topic. It has really very little to do with arguments that are potentially true at both sides as you say.

In fact, it's easy to challenge your 'science can't prove God' argument as being relevant and valid in the exact same sense, but this time against God.

There's this old mockery in which someone wonders how God can be both omnipotent and all powerful when God obviously can't create a stone too heavy for him to lift, but at the same time being able to lift it anyway.

As for the science can't prove God argument, science at this point in time can't rule out the potential existence of God(s) indeed, but science can still speculate with what we do know and to be honest that doesn't really leave a whole lot of room for a God to exist (unless perhaps you believe in God in the pantheistic sense). The more science figures out about our universe and how it came into existence, the further back in the past a God would have to be placed to make sense, assuming it would make sense at all, which I personally seriously question.

Also don't forget the whole 'faith trade' in religion, which in practice means science BY DEFINITION (according to religious people) has a literally different understanding or definition of 'truth'. This means any kind of proof from whichever of the both perspectives, won't be recognized by the other.

You don't need to be open minded to see that in itself is nuts if all you're trying to do is a more objective kind of truth-finding. Science requires evidence, religion requires faith. It's a mute point to argue about how both at many times totally ignore this simple fact. It still doesn't mean one isn't bluntly wrong though!!



The irony in all this is that the concept of modern day Gods in the Christian or Islamic sense can not exist without ignorant worshippers that believe in organized and highly profitable religion. A shame really, especially if there's some truth in there, having to literally pay for it would have been the last thing a God would have demanded.

At the very beginning mankind consisted of very much pantheistic nature-loving people. For a good reason, we could see and understand the sun's relevancy and so forth.

Obviously that's far closer to the truth, but I'm thinking oppression, mental/social control, war and what not were worth trading it in for deism... :s



Exactly!

because the book is stacked and some pages are yet more less intact,but other parts you cant read at all

MMike's description of time not being constant and so on is not uncommon as a scientific concept (or at least the general gist of it), and this is why: Science attempts to describe natural phenomena without using "God" as a reason; either the chain of cause-and-effect needs to have begun with something that is not bound by the limits of cause-and-effect (What caused the Big-Bang; what caused that? What was the first cause? "God" is an easy answer there), or time as we assume it works is an illusion and isn't as simple as a cause-and-effect chain, but instead best related to a curve with an asymptote at 0 -- never having a starting point.

PHeMoX, I don't know what's unusual about Joozey being agnostic on the basis of neither side disproving the other. Most people I know who are 'uninterested' in the topic assume that God has been proven not to exist, and are atheists. Few people I know describe themselves as agnostic, and those who do have logical grounds for their position.

Unfortunately your argument about all religion being a system of control is as uneducated as ever. Like I've told you before, the picture of a highly profitable church is a very narrow view, with mostly Roman Catholicism in mind. The Roman Catholic church being representative of Christianity in general is a very typical view of the media and those who know of Christianity but little about it. But there's a reason there's a difference between "Protestant" and "Roman Catholic", and you'll find that many Protestant churches' only financial goals are to make ends meet, or to raise funds (or volunteering workers) for those in need around the world.

I have traveled around a fair bit, and only seen one Christian non-Catholic church that showed any indication that it was profitable: Hillsong.

The "official" scientific view (if their ever was one) would be at least agnostic, as nothing can be false for sure until it is disproven, and nothing can be described with 100% certainty as a law -- only theorized to likely hold true.

To bring the topic back to where it's meant to be, the church of Google is a funny joke. It's interesting that people react so strongly to it on the site -- if the "Church of Google" is a threat to their beliefs then there's something wrong.

When amy started this thread I had a look at the different pages, and it is quite funny

Commandment #6 is the funniest imho, but thankfully Google is always gentle with its correction!

Jibb

Exactly that.

I do know you're still the same person that denies any of those TV priests have anything to do with your Christian religion, so I think we both know where the truth's at. I was in fact talking about religion in a very broad sense and not only about money.

Calling me uneducated is childish at best here, where you're really just ignoring what is happening because according to you it's not part of 'your religion' (or you claim to never have seen bla bla bla).



What exactly are you trying to say here? I was neither attacking Joozey's belief, nor stating that agnosticism is wrong or something. I already explained what I did mean to say.



You're talking about two different things here though One is philosophical, the other scientific. Time as a metric concept that relates to our mortal lives and time space spread throughout the universe that influences the 'tempo' of things in a literal sense. (this can be measured and calculated)

I am pretty sure general consensus in the scientific world is that this time space is definitely not an illusion.

As for time space having a beginning (or end for that matter), we can really only speculate. If you can only see half of a circle at this point in time, you can not know if it's going to be a perfect circle or a spiral.

In general though on a very basic level, things set in motion tend to have a cause and it might very well be that big bangs, universes coming into existence and all that are reoccurring events. There's a whole range of theories already invented/proposed around this idea.

One thing to note is how potentially inter-dimensional or even multidimensional events can cause for things in this, but perhaps also other universes.

There seems to be an ever more 'optimistic' view on the whole multiverse theory.

As a relativist I totally agree, but when it comes to knowledge, that's actually totally irrelevant. One part of gaining knowledge, is designing theories and looking for clues that make them look valid. In extension to that, it's really too easy to disregard any scientific speculation when it's actually based on what we do know. It's the next best thing to objective truth, when in a sense such a thing doesn't exist. (Please don't tell me I have to explain to you how we indeed 'assume' we can see with our eyes what our brain tells us and very basic stuff like that; as reality really is that relative in it's most abstract sense. Science is where mankind shows it's true creativity, but its methodology makes sure it stays within a certain realm of logic.)

Within the frame of our existence (mankind's existence), it would be stupid to dismiss anything or everything, just because in a philosophical sense we can't prove it for a 100%.

That 'label' in itself is actually an extremely relative thing anyway, as we can not even determine when we've reached that 100%. 100% is everything of everything, but if we can't determine the unknown, how can we know that we didn't already uncovered the entire 100%?? It is obviously a description/definition that simply screams relativism.

All in all, it's really an argument that in practice we can't do to much with. In fact, look around you and see how perhaps not even 0.000000000....0001% of knowledge about our universe got us where we are now. From what we've accomplished already, I don't think theories or a lack of knowledge at some point in time were ever a true limitation to progress. We used the knowledge that we did have, to gain even more. Apparently that works!