A Theory I came up with after reading robot visions by Isac Asimov

[Einstein]

That's not really a problem with his theory, since what you're saying is essentially a theory; more conspiracy theory than "observable fact". I'm not saying it's false, but it's certainly not fact.

No. Buildings do pop into existence overnight. Many people have experienced this. Including me. And there are many celebrities that do come back alive after being reported to have died.

There's no real evidence to support your claim, only what you and others say they've noticed/experienced/seen, so it's really just a personal belief of yours and others; in the least, it's not something that can be used to discredit anything.

In essence what you are saying is that what you see can not be considered fact. And with that, I have to conclude that you have a very poor ability to rationalize between what is real, and what is not.

 

[Rawknee]

No. Buildings do pop into existence overnight. Many people have experienced this. Including me. And there are many celebrities that do come back alive after being reported to have died.

There's no real evidence to support your claim, only what you and others say they've noticed/experienced/seen, so it's really just a personal belief of yours and others; in the least, it's not something that can be used to discredit anything.

In essence what you are saying is that what you see can not be considered fact. And with that, I have to conclude that you have a very poor ability to rationalize between what is real, and what is not.

No, What I am saying is that what you THINK you see cannot be considered fact - there's an important distinction. People think they've seen lots of things, some which are real, others which are not. You cannot use something that you've "seen", but of which there is no definitive evidence to disprove a theory. For all you know, your mind could have tricked you into thinking you've seen something which you really haven't. There's just no way of knowing for certain. Had you perhaps taken a photo of a news clipping detailing a celebrity's death the first time, or taken a picture next to a building before it came into being, THAT would be proof.

With your line of logic, there is hands down, without a question a god, and Jesus was undeniably God's son and our Lord and Savior, since hundreds of thousands of people say they've seen him and communicated with him. I'm not gonna resort to insults, but rather just say that I am being completely rational, and if you don't see that, than you are not.

 

[Einstein]

No, What I am saying is that what you THINK you see cannot be considered fact - there's an important distinction. People think they've seen lots of things, some which are real, others which are not. You cannot use something that you've "seen", but of which there is no definitive evidence to disprove a theory. For all you know, your mind could have tricked you into thinking you've seen something which you really haven't. There's just no way of knowing for certain. Had you perhaps taken a photo of a news clipping detailing a celebrity's death the first time, or taken a picture next to a building before it came into being, THAT would be proof.

With your line of logic, there is hands down, without a question a god, and Jesus was undeniably God's son and our Lord and Savior, since hundreds of thousands of people say they've seen him and communicated with him. I'm not gonna resort to insults, but rather just say that I am being completely rational, and if you don't see that, than you are not.

I don't accept beliefs as fact. I do accept personal experiences as fact. Something that I can verify is my reality. So it may be something that you would have to put in the belief category because you have not experienced it.

I have never verified the existence of God. So that is still in the unverified category.

I see this a lot on this forum. Many individuals confuse beliefs with fact. They have apparrently not learned to distinguish between the two. Belief is usually associated with religion. And people are asked to accept it as fact. That is where I differ. I will never accept a belief as fact without verification.

 

[Rawknee]

I see this a lot on this forum. Many individuals confuse beliefs with fact. They have apparrently not learned to distinguish between the two.[/QUOTE]

And that.. is exactly my point.

 

[Einstein]

I see this a lot on this forum. Many individuals confuse beliefs with fact. They have apparrently not learned to distinguish between the two.

And that.. is exactly my point.[/QUOTE]

For instance the UFO phenomena. I have never experienced a sighting myself. So it is in the unverified belief category for me. But then it is also very difficult for me to think millions of people that claim to have seen one are not in full control of their senses. What it means is I am prepared favorably when the day comes for me to witness a UFO firsthand.

 

[Rawknee]

I see this a lot on this forum. Many individuals confuse beliefs with fact. They have apparrently not learned to distinguish between the two.

And that.. is exactly my point.

For instance the UFO phenomena. I have never experienced a sighting myself. So it is in the unverified belief category for me. But then it is also very difficult for me to think millions of people that claim to have seen one are not in full control of their senses. What it means is I am prepared favorably when the day comes for me to witness a UFO firsthand.[/QUOTE]

That's another thing I should have pointed out before; not saying it's always the case, or even most often, but it is very easy to jump on board a bandwagon of people who believe in something, and it has always been the case - makes people feel like they're part of something.

 

[Einstein]

That's another thing I should have pointed out before; not saying it's always the case, or even most often, but it is very easy to jump on board a bandwagon of people who believe in something, and it has always been the case - makes people feel like they're part of something.

The John Titor bandwagon comes to mind.

In all honesty, I think the word believe should be stricken from the English language. Because of the crossover between fact and fiction.

 

[Rawknee]

That's another thing I should have pointed out before; not saying it's always the case, or even most often, but it is very easy to jump on board a bandwagon of people who believe in something, and it has always been the case - makes people feel like they're part of something.

The John Titor bandwagon comes to mind.

In all honesty, I think the word believe should be stricken from the English language. Because of the crossover between fact and fiction.

Good example.

 

[TuesdayMcBob]

If we were to send a man into the future and considering that the past is definite and cannot be changed then if that man were to return, everything is now the past and can’t be changed because his entire future is actually his past until the point where he traveled and therefore is already definite.
remember all of this is based on the fact that the past cannot be changed.

If the past is unchangeable then the man could not return from the future could he?

This also means that we're history!... because you know, we sent someone to the future.

On a side note, the john titor bandwagon is what introduced me to more serious discussions of time travel.
(Yes I know its a story, ill tell it to my children when they grow older)