The CIA Likely Has Evidence if God Exists or Not

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: Annee
The difference is why I find Monroe more compelling.

I am open to the possibility of the Terra Papers but it is just more of a stretch than what Monroe put out. The warring factions in the Terra Papers just seems like a human storyteller's trope. It is almost like the whole good vs evil of just about every religion.

Monroe lays earth out more like an amusement park, where you visit, avatar style, and some are so hooked by it that they don't want to leave and keep trying out different characters.

That would certainly imply a creator or even a team or teams of creators and operators that are not God, with a capital G.

I support the avatar computer game possibility also. I refer to my personal programmer as Frank.

I've been following this stuff for so long -- I'm familiar with concepts, but not specific people.

Suppose the "War in Heaven" was a real war between rival planets and it was a Federation of Planets that made the decision to give human's free will and not control them. What if the contract has an end date.

I see more politics than a story of good vs evil.

originally posted by: Annee
I see more politics than a story of good vs evil.

I didn't say Morning Sky's story was about good and evil, just that it seems to be full of writer's tropes: a repetitive use of a word, plot device, theme, image, or figure by an author.

I'm watching a video of one of his workshops and right off the bat he explains how Ishtar/Isis wanted to ascend to the throne and control everything so she conspired with her twin brother to dethrone the grandfather but failed and Fin, the brother, was exiled to the moon, so she then went on to figure out another way.

Marry the brother of a higher royal, Marduk/Amen-Ra, when he heard of this they went to arrest her but she had killed the younger brother, set up an ambush and planted the evidence to frame Marduk/Amen-Ra. He hides in a pyramid and then ascends to the heavens.

This is what I mean, this story is just so familiar/typical in the human power struggle among royals. It is just so Game of Thrones like.

Not only that but these are earthlings, although maybe not humans, and what do things like "exiled to the moon" and "ascended to the heavens" mean?

He then talks some more and then says Marduk/Amen-Ra returns with back-up provided by a reptile queen and becomes the one true Sun God, the son of the true god and at this point I'm thinking, this guy is working the crowd. I bet at least 75% of the world's population has no idea who/what Ra is but this group who are likely into crystals, pyramid power and lay lines and that type of stuff do. From then on it is Qanon style shifting of letters to make connections.

I mean it even gets kinda Scientology like when he claims Star Wars is this story implanted in the mind of George Lucas while he was sleeping.

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: visitedbythem
Not now, but when he was rubbing elbows and briefing the vice president he was part of that crowd.

The god bless you part is about politicians at least acting like they believe in god, maybe some do, but what does playing the role of the "science" guy in those circles, like your dad or fauci have to do with the existence of god?

Because they know the truth.

As for Fauci, he was raised Jesuit. You know the Jesuits, the guys with the giant telescope named Lucifer.

a reply to: daskakik

I think that’s getting into “own thread” territory.

a reply to: visitedbythem
But it was still the science guy role in the swamp.

Second.

originally posted by: Annee
I think that’s getting into “own thread” territory.

Maybe, but neither of us is into making threads.

Besides, I think the idea of what the CIA might know could be anything.

Anyway, I was just sharing some of the things that popped red flags for me from that talk. I know that a central piece of his ideas is not to go into the light after passing. Do a 180 and you won't end up as a human back on earth. What if that is right and that is what the CIA knows?

Also, I can see a similarity in that idea and what Monroe says, at some point the shiny bait (the light) just doesn't draw you in, you get bored of the amusement park.

ETA: Although Monroe does posit it more like a school for souls. Maybe graduate instead of get bored, or maybe they are analogous.

The evidence for God's existence is freely available for all to see and ponder on. There's nothing for the CIA to keep secret. “Because what may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable.” (Romans 1:19,20)

Some examples:

Molecular Machinery of Life

The Encyclopædia Britannica on inductive reasoning:

"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

Established (observed) fact #1: machinery is the product of engineering/creation.
Established (observed) fact #2: life is made up of "molecular machinery", a.k.a. "biomolecular machinery" (and referred to as such in scientific literature).

(General) Conclusion by induction: the biomolecular machinery that makes up life is the product of engineering/creation, hence life is the product of engineering/creation.

This conclusion has logical implications concerning the required attributes to perform the act of engineering/creation and any proposed causal agency or agent.

“As in Mathematicks, so in Natural Philosophy, the Investigation of difficult Things by the Method of Analysis, ought ever to precede the Method of Composition. This Analysis consists in making Experiments and Observations, and in drawing general Conclusions from them by Induction, and admitting of no Objections against the Conclusions, but such as are taken from Experiments, or other certain Truths. For Hypotheses are not to be regarded in experimental Philosophy.”
- Isaac Newton (from Philosophiæ Naturalis Principia Mathematica)

originally posted by: whereislogic
"When a person uses a number of established facts to draw a general conclusion, he uses inductive reasoning. THIS IS THE KIND OF LOGIC NORMALLY USED IN THE SCIENCES. ..."

Funny how someone in a thread I was on said science often gets things wrong.

So, you want to claim you use science to prove god, like others here, but if it can be wrong so can you/they because of bias.

The thing is that science can drop Darwin to the curb, if that is what the data shows, but the religious side, from what I have seen first hand, are not willing to accept new data let alone...

originally posted by: Muldar
[snipped]

It's much more likely God exists rather than the above is true. And even more likely that CIA knows God exist/doesn't exist and have evidence for it.

Wrong, there are people actually doing that, whether it makes sense or not.

Proof of god, not really.

I've experienced OBEs for about 40 years. They seem real to me, do I have proof? No, I understand that I can't offer proof. Theists and I are kinda in the same boat but I'm not trying to claim that I have proof. I'm not asking you to take my stories just on faith.

Someone getting sex reassignment, that is more true than either of our positions regarding god or obe's.

That’s not a question that can be answered by anyone but yourself. a reply to: wiredcerebellum

a reply to: daskakik

Scientists may get things wrong, not science (from the Latin scientia, meaning knowledge) itself. By definition science cannot be wrong, cause if something is wrong it's simply not science. If in spite of that it is still falsely/incorrectly called knowledge/science, the term pseudoscience applies (as is the case for evolutionary philosophies, string theory, M-theory and the multiverse hypothesis/idea, to name a couple of popular examples that are often perceived as "science", scientific theories or scientific hypotheses).

An unverified hypothesis, regardless if you want to count this as a scientific hypothesis or otherwise, is also not science/knowledge. Essentially, knowledge/science means familiarity with facts/realities/certainties/truths* acquired by personal experience, observation, or study. *: I.e. things that are factual/certain/absolute/conclusive/correct, without error. Obviously, an unverified hypothesis is not automatically a fact/certainty/realitiy/truth (unless it just happens to be true, but in order to know that or find that out, the hypothesis must first be tested and verified).

According to an encyclopedia for scientific terminologies, a hypothesis is not a scientific hypothesis when it cannot be verified to either be true or false, with some type of test. Or does not lend itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.” To experimentally test something, is to verify whether something is true or false by means of a test, same concept (just spelled out a bit more clearly in light of my remark in the footnote above about first testing and verifying a hypothesis before you can call it "science", or think of it as such).

...

Is Evolution a Scientific Theory?

What qualifies a theory as a scientific theory? According to the Encyclopedia of Scientific Principles, Laws, and Theories, a scientific theory, such as Albert Einstein’s theory of gravity, must

1. Be observable

2. Be reproducible by controlled experiments

3. Make accurate predictions

In that light, where does evolution stand? * Its operation cannot be observed. It cannot be reproduced. And it cannot make accurate predictions. Can evolution even be considered a scientific hypothesis? The same encyclopedia defines a hypothesis as “a more tentative observation of facts [than a theory],” yet lends itself “to deductions that can be experimentally tested.”

*: By “evolution,” we mean “macroevolution”—apes turning into humans, for example. “Microevolution” refers to small changes within a species, perhaps through selective breeding.

Source: Your Cells and DNA—Living Libraries! (Awake! | August 2015)

CIA and whatever others of the alphabets (plus whoever else) are withholding evidence of only unexplained phenomena in general, not (the alleged) God. Everything unknown that is attributed to only one unseen being can be done so with multiple beings.

a reply to: whereislogic

Science is a systematic way of acquiring knowledge about the natural world through observation, experimentation, and rational analysis.

But scientific knowledge is always provisional, and subject to refinement and adjustment, based on new evidence and insights as our knowledge base grows.

Science is the best tool we have in the bag that will allow us to resolve and understand our universe and/or the reality we think we experience.