There’s a Giant Flaw in Human History

stevevw said:

I don't understand what you are saying.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Heres how I see the issue of alternative and advanced knowledge on something like the signatures we see in the end result of what has been created with the examples shown.

Yes we can map out all the dimensions and tool marks and make arguements that there was a certain method that created them based on the gradual learning of machining techniques.

But this does not exclude for example that the ancients gained a deeper knowledge of the materials they worked with to be able to manipulate the material itself rather than using the conventional methods of gradually pounding of grinding rocks as the orthodoxy claims.

If the ancients could change the material nature of the stones then it would make it easier to work with the stone. If they could reconsitute stone altogether than this bypasses having to use the conventional methods.

In other words nothing about describing how machining works negates that the ancients had knowledge of how to manipulate nature in the first place.

In both cases we have an end result. But two different approaches as to how it was achieved. So all the measures and technique in machining does not negate the possibility of advanced knowledge in nature itself to manipulate it to achieve what looks like machining or could have been pounded or ground out the long and hard way.

One is smart and the other is labour intennsive and and takes an aweful lot of time.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Ok so based on that logic I guess you say that all knowledge from Christian belief is "make believe" because material sciences have attested throughout history that its make believe. Is that correct.

Because thats the logic we should be able to apply to belief in knowledge from God. That it must be false because material science says its false because it cannot be verified.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Heres how I see the issue of alternative and advanced knowledge on something like the signatures we see in the end result of what has been created with the examples shown.

Yes we can map out all the dimensions and tool marks and make arguements that there was a certain method that created them based on the gradual learning of machining techniques.

Click to expand...

But this does not exclude for example that the ancients gained a deeper knowledge of the materials they worked with to be able to manipulate the material itself rather than using the conventional methods of gradually pounding of grinding rocks as the orthodoxy claims.

Click to expand...

If the ancients could change the material nature of the stones then it would make it easier to work with the stone. If they could reconsitute stone altogether than this bypasses having to use the conventional methods.

In other words nothing about describing how machining works negates that the ancients had knowledge of how to manipulate nature in the first place.

Click to expand...

In both cases we have an end result. But two different approaches as to how it was achieved. So all the measures and technique in machining does not negate the possibility of advanced knowledge in nature itself to manipulate it to achieve what looks like machining or could have been pounded or ground out the long and hard way.

One is smart and the other is labour intennsive and and takes an aweful lot of time.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Ok so based on that logic I guess you say that all knowledge from Christian belief is "make believe" because material sciences have attested throughout history that its make believe. Is that correct.

Because thats the logic we should be able to apply to belief in knowledge from God. That it must be false because material science says its false because it cannot be verified.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

I am not saying its exactly like how Christians derive their knowledge from God. But to say that this knowledge is a reality and it cannot be tested in the way material sciences tests stuff.

I am only using the same logic that if there is knowledge for Christians that science cannot verify with their methodology. Then the same applies to ancient knowledge that is derived from the spiritual and transcedent beliefs they had. The stories that the ancients themselves tell to the world. That this knowledge was from the gods and advanced beyond what they knew.

Heres the problem I see. You say learn to deal with people who have a different belief. I do. The issue is is that you cannot deal with those who have a different belief. You dismiss it as unreal and conspiracy or whatever other name you want to call them when they offer such alternative beliefs.

I do accept material science but only up to a certain level. It cannot account for all knowledge of reality. Or how the ancients gained knowledge. Yet you dismiss any such knowledge because it does not conform to your prior metaphysical belief that all knowledge is empiricle and naturalistic knowledge.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

I am not saying its exactly like how Christians derive their knowledge from God. But to say that this knowledge is a reality and it cannot be tested in the way material sciences tests stuff.

I am only using the same logic that if there is knowledge for Christians that science cannot verify with their methodology. Then the same applies to ancient knowledge that is derived from the spiritual and transcedent beliefs they had. The stories that the ancients themselves tell to the world. That this knowledge was from the gods and advanced beyond what they knew.

Heres the problem I see. You say learn to deal with people who have a different belief. I do. The issue is is that you cannot deal with those who have a different belief. You dismiss it as unreal and conspiracy or whatever other name you want to call them when they offer such alternative beliefs.

I do accept material science but only up to a certain level. It cannot account for all knowledge of reality. Or how the ancients gained knowledge. Yet you dismiss any such knowledge because it does not conform to your prior metaphysical belief that all knowledge is empiricle and naturalistic knowledge.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Which brings us back to how people see the evidence based on their prior worldview. I have shown evidence. Its just that we see it differently and I would say that difference is not a matter of objective fact but belief.

For example I linked a couple of examples of signatures myself and others say looks like machining marks. Or at the very least not evident of the orthodox method claimed. Scientific testing has been provided to at least show that this is not the result of the orthodox methods.

Yet skepts who maintain the orthodoxy will claim these are the result of orthodox methods. I have posts claiming such and can show how this is even contradicted by skeptics themselves.

So already we have a difference in opinion and belief about what the observational evidence represents.

Secondly what about direct testimony from the ancients themselves. Just like the direct testimony of those who experience transcedent knowledge. Why is this not valid evidence. It would seem even better evidence than the science as it is a direct linked to what is actually happening.

Thats in your opinion and the very dogmatic epistemics we want to avoid. If there is such advanced and alternative knowledge then surely there is a science or method of determining what that is. Or if it is real.

Just like the sciences in human behaviour can determine that religious belief is a real aspect of human cognition and behaviour. The same with knowledge that transcends determinism and reductionist worldviews.

Once again I think this is what the thread is about. To question the orthodox and mainstream narrative which demands evidence based verification according to epistemic dogma.

How can we challenge the narrative if we are forced to play by the very epistemic rules that perpetuate that narrative.

I am talking about up to a certain level as far as the overall fundemental truth of what is reality. I am saying that we cannot know reality solely by material science or methological naturalism. So material science can give us a certain framing of reality in quantified terms such as matter, particles, chemicals, forces and fields.

Whereas we also have the qualitative aspects such as conscious experiences. Which includes abstract ideas such as phenomenal belief, amd all the transcedent phenomena and knowledge that comes with it.

The difference is I can accept material science for the role it plays. But also be open to something more fundemental beyond materialism. For materialis and atheist they are forced to narrow down the possibilities to only the material and naturalistic.

In that sense if the theory of everything or fundemental reality is something beyond the material then being open to all puts one in a position that will consider all aspects and be more likely to come close to whatever it is that is fundemental reality.

But to restrict this is only a physical or material reality for everything restricts the possibilities before we start to work things out. Thats the difference.

I don't want to discuss Christian beliefs. The only reason I mentioned this was to use an analogy of how there is such a thing as alternative knowledge gained about reality. If Christianity is real. That this in principle is an example and means that there can also be advanced and alternative knowledge throughout history.

Just like material sciences or methological naturalism cannot show that knowledge gained from Christian belief is unreal or non existent. The same principle applies to the ancients knowledge.

You cannot in principles no matter how much evidence you demand disprove lost or present alternative and advanced knowledge. Because in principle methological naturalism cannot even measure it. It does not know how to as it belongs to a completely different paradigm.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Secondly what about direct testimony from the ancients themselves. Just like the direct testimony of those who experience transcedent knowledge. Why is this not valid evidence. It would seem even better evidence than the science as it is a direct linked to what is actually happening.

Click to expand...

stevevw said:

Which brings us back to how people see the evidence based on their prior worldview. I have shown evidence. Its just that we see it differently and I would say that difference is not a matter of objective fact but belief.

For example I linked a couple of examples of signatures myself and others say looks like machining marks. Or at the very least not evident of the orthodox method claimed. Scientific testing has been provided to at least show that this is not the result of the orthodox methods.

Yet skepts who maintain the orthodoxy will claim these are the result of orthodox methods. I have posts claiming such and can show how this is even contradicted by skeptics themselves.

So already we have a difference in opinion and belief about what the observational evidence represents.

Secondly what about direct testimony from the ancients themselves. Just like the direct testimony of those who experience transcedent knowledge. Why is this not valid evidence. It would seem even better evidence than the science as it is a direct linked to what is actually happening.

Thats in your opinion and the very dogmatic epistemics we want to avoid. If there is such advanced and alternative knowledge then surely there is a science or method of determining what that is. Or if it is real.

Just like the sciences in human behaviour can determine that religious belief is a real aspect of human cognition and behaviour. The same with knowledge that transcends determinism and reductionist worldviews.

Once again I think this is what the thread is about. To question the orthodox and mainstream narrative which demands evidence based verification according to epistemic dogma.

How can we challenge the narrative if we are forced to play by the very epistemic rules that perpetuate that narrative.

I am talking about up to a certain level as far as the overall fundemental truth of what is reality. I am saying that we cannot know reality solely by material science or methological naturalism. So material science can give us a certain framing of reality in quantified terms such as matter, particles, chemicals, forces and fields.

Whereas we also have the qualitative aspects such as conscious experiences. Which includes abstract ideas such as phenomenal belief, amd all the transcedent phenomena and knowledge that comes with it.

The difference is I can accept material science for the role it plays. But also be open to something more fundemental beyond materialism. For materialis and atheist they are forced to narrow down the possibilities to only the material and naturalistic.

In that sense if the theory of everything or fundemental reality is something beyond the material then being open to all puts one in a position that will consider all aspects and be more likely to come close to whatever it is that is fundemental reality.

But to restrict this is only a physical or material reality for everything restricts the possibilities before we start to work things out. Thats the difference.

I don't want to discuss Christian beliefs. The only reason I mentioned this was to use an analogy of how there is such a thing as alternative knowledge gained about reality. If Christianity is real. That this in principle is an example and means that there can also be advanced and alternative knowledge throughout history.

Just like material sciences or methological naturalism cannot show that knowledge gained from Christian belief is unreal or non existent. The same principle applies to the ancients knowledge.

You cannot in principles no matter how much evidence you demand disprove lost or present alternative and advanced knowledge. Because in principle methological naturalism cannot even measure it. It does not know how to as it belongs to a completely different paradigm.

Click to expand...

Stopped_lurking said:

You have shown zero evidence for any transcendent knowledge. The vases are not evidence of that, vitrified stones are not evidence of that. You would have to show that transcendent knowledge is somehow a better explanation than the alternative hypotheses, but you haven't even proposed how that would be done. You are just saying that perhaps it could be the case, so what? The world might have been created last thursday, but with the appearance of being old. Sure it's possible, but it's a profoundly uninteresting observation. Stating the possibility doesn't give us any actual knowledge.

Click to expand...