aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Then why did you come here with empty hands?
Why skeptics doesnt show proof?
- Thread starter architecad
- Start date
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
artie---
So now you're saying that LRLs use astrology?
Great.
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
artie---
So now you're saying that LRLs use astrology?
Great.
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
~Art~
~Art~
~EE THr~
No
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
artie---
Then when are you going to show your big "proof" that LRLs work?
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
artie---
Then when are you going to show your big "proof" that LRLs work?
P.S. When will you man-up and take Carl's test?
ref: Are LRLs More Than Just Dowsing?
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
When the claimants prove that they do not work ?
When the claimants prove that they do not work ?
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
EEP you posted -->Sorry, I don't play that game.
************
Game?? Try me, what do you have to lose?
Hr, if possible, Day, month year, nothing more.
Remember this is a 'psychological profile', not a horoscope or future telling.
I kinda wish that I could do that,, would love to be able to tell swr that a gorgeous blond nymphomaniac, that is extremely wealthy and cannot live without him after seeing him, will find him on Sunday at 11:30 am.
Don Jose de La Mancha
EEP you posted -->Sorry, I don't play that game.
************
Game?? Try me, what do you have to lose?
Hr, if possible, Day, month year, nothing more.
Remember this is a 'psychological profile', not a horoscope or future telling.
I kinda wish that I could do that,, would love to be able to tell swr that a gorgeous blond nymphomaniac, that is extremely wealthy and cannot live without him after seeing him, will find him on Sunday at 11:30 am.
Don Jose de La Mancha
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
RDT---
I don't want to encourage you.
RDT---
I don't want to encourage you.
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
HI mi buddy EE; you posted --> I don't want to encourage you.
***********
In what? The truth, or? As I said, "are you interested in the truth, even if it flies in the face of convention" ?
Don Jose de La Mancha
HI mi buddy EE; you posted --> I don't want to encourage you.
***********
In what? The truth, or? As I said, "are you interested in the truth, even if it flies in the face of convention" ?
Don Jose de La Mancha
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
RDT---
I won't try to give you hard evidence, because as I have said before, "There are some things which can't be 'proven' to another, but can only be proven to oneself." Simply because that is the nature of it.
That's also why it would be silly to try to enforce anything in that realm with laws. The physical universe just doesn't apply there, and Science involves only physical universe things, per it's own definition of itself, at this time.
Physical universe stuff can, and must stand the tests of proof (by agreed upon definition of Science, as is found in a standard dictionary). Merely because that is the agreement. Physical reality is agreement.
But here goes, anyway---
As an example, there is the theory that, "Function follows form." But that is merely part of the long standing PsyOp that I mentioned before. Actually, form follows function. This, of course, flys in the face of both the Darwinists and the Creationists. (And you know what I think of "multiple choice" limitations, anyway!)
Also the theory of conservation of energy is wrong. This you can prove to yourself. Once you have experienced it, there is no doubt. But to prove it to another person is impossible. Even if you did show someone, it would be classified as mere "Parlor Tricks," and would be of no help whatsoever. Maybe give somebody a heart attack or something, though; which just isn't necessary, and would be messy. So why bother fooling with it?
So, to just to answer your question: To imply that astronomical objects affect sentient beings, would be unethical. And to use trickery to persuade others to believe that they do, would be totally unethical.
It's that simple.
RDT---
I won't try to give you hard evidence, because as I have said before, "There are some things which can't be 'proven' to another, but can only be proven to oneself." Simply because that is the nature of it.
That's also why it would be silly to try to enforce anything in that realm with laws. The physical universe just doesn't apply there, and Science involves only physical universe things, per it's own definition of itself, at this time.
Physical universe stuff can, and must stand the tests of proof (by agreed upon definition of Science, as is found in a standard dictionary). Merely because that is the agreement. Physical reality is agreement.
But here goes, anyway---
As an example, there is the theory that, "Function follows form." But that is merely part of the long standing PsyOp that I mentioned before. Actually, form follows function. This, of course, flys in the face of both the Darwinists and the Creationists. (And you know what I think of "multiple choice" limitations, anyway!)
Also the theory of conservation of energy is wrong. This you can prove to yourself. Once you have experienced it, there is no doubt. But to prove it to another person is impossible. Even if you did show someone, it would be classified as mere "Parlor Tricks," and would be of no help whatsoever. Maybe give somebody a heart attack or something, though; which just isn't necessary, and would be messy. So why bother fooling with it?
So, to just to answer your question: To imply that astronomical objects affect sentient beings, would be unethical. And to use trickery to persuade others to believe that they do, would be totally unethical.
It's that simple.
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
I won't try to give you hard evidence, because as I have said before, "There are some things which can't be 'proven' to another, but can only be proven to oneself." Simply because that is the nature of it.That's also why it would be silly to try to enforce anything in that realm with laws. The physical universe just doesn't apply there, and Science involves only physical universe things, per it's own definition of itself, at this time.
Physical universe stuff can, and must stand the tests of proof (by agreed upon definition of Science, as is found in a standard dictionary). Merely because that is the agreement. Physical reality is agreement.
So, to just to answer your question: To imply that astronomical objects affect sentient beings, would be unethical. And to use trickery to persuade others to believe that they do, would be totally unethical.Thank you again…Art
I won't try to give you hard evidence, because as I have said before, "There are some things which can't be 'proven' to another, but can only be proven to oneself." Simply because that is the nature of it.That's also why it would be silly to try to enforce anything in that realm with laws. The physical universe just doesn't apply there, and Science involves only physical universe things, per it's own definition of itself, at this time.
Physical universe stuff can, and must stand the tests of proof (by agreed upon definition of Science, as is found in a standard dictionary). Merely because that is the agreement. Physical reality is agreement.
So, to just to answer your question: To imply that astronomical objects affect sentient beings, would be unethical. And to use trickery to persuade others to believe that they do, would be totally unethical.Thank you again…Art
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
An opinion is not a "claim." Opinions may or may not be proven, at the prerogative of the person expressing the opinion.
A person can know things, which cannot be proven to others, by nature of the thing known. Statements of knowledge like this cannot be insisted upon by the person making the statement. They are merely statements made for the purpose of communication, and are not "claims."
But when a person insists that something is true, it is a "claim." Especially when that person insults others for not "believing" the claim.
And most especially when it is advertised for a product. An advertisement can be seen as a contract. It is saying, "I will deliver this product, which is guaranteed to perform as stated, in exchange for a certain amount of money. This is absolutely a formal "claim."
Common sense about this is that nothing requires "belief," because anything can be tested to see if it is true or not. Even things which cannot be proven to others, can always be tested for oneself, to see if it is true.
No?
An opinion is not a "claim." Opinions may or may not be proven, at the prerogative of the person expressing the opinion.
A person can know things, which cannot be proven to others, by nature of the thing known. Statements of knowledge like this cannot be insisted upon by the person making the statement. They are merely statements made for the purpose of communication, and are not "claims."
But when a person insists that something is true, it is a "claim." Especially when that person insults others for not "believing" the claim.
And most especially when it is advertised for a product. An advertisement can be seen as a contract. It is saying, "I will deliver this product, which is guaranteed to perform as stated, in exchange for a certain amount of money. This is absolutely a formal "claim."
Common sense about this is that nothing requires "belief," because anything can be tested to see if it is true or not. Even things which cannot be proven to others, can always be tested for oneself, to see if it is true.
No?
Real de Tayopa Tropical Tramp
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
bk HI EE: you posted regarding basic astrology -->So, to just to answer your question: To imply that astronomical objects affect sentient beings, would be unethical. And to use trickery to persuade others to believe that they do, would be totally unethical. It's that simple.
******************
And just why can't it? It effects the planetary systems, the earth, and the physical, psychological body of your sentient beings?
Why are you afraid to take the test?
Don Jose de La Mancha
bk HI EE: you posted regarding basic astrology -->So, to just to answer your question: To imply that astronomical objects affect sentient beings, would be unethical. And to use trickery to persuade others to believe that they do, would be totally unethical. It's that simple.
******************
And just why can't it? It effects the planetary systems, the earth, and the physical, psychological body of your sentient beings?
Why are you afraid to take the test?
Don Jose de La Mancha
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
RDT---
The physical universe is continually being created, with agreement, by all sentient beings, and so are the various attributes such as energy, gravity, electronics, the laws of physics, emotions, affinities, communication, and so forth.
Why would people want to have that which they create, affect them?
This is where the Mystics went off track, and augered-in. Because it is self-contradictory.
You are either causative, or you are not. But if you are not, it is only by your own decision. People can fall into this trap by assigning cause to others, in an effort to create "blame," for things which they have done and have later regretted. People who are most entangled in this intentional contradiction, are the least able to be causative, until they get it straightened out.
To believe that the physical universe has any kind of control over you, is the first step down to slavery.
It's OK to be a rock if you want to, so long as you remain aware that you can be anything else any time you choose to.
Or, you can even be nothing at all; the very thought of which drives both Mystics and Psychologists mad.
RDT---
The physical universe is continually being created, with agreement, by all sentient beings, and so are the various attributes such as energy, gravity, electronics, the laws of physics, emotions, affinities, communication, and so forth.
Why would people want to have that which they create, affect them?
This is where the Mystics went off track, and augered-in. Because it is self-contradictory.
You are either causative, or you are not. But if you are not, it is only by your own decision. People can fall into this trap by assigning cause to others, in an effort to create "blame," for things which they have done and have later regretted. People who are most entangled in this intentional contradiction, are the least able to be causative, until they get it straightened out.
To believe that the physical universe has any kind of control over you, is the first step down to slavery.
It's OK to be a rock if you want to, so long as you remain aware that you can be anything else any time you choose to.
Or, you can even be nothing at all; the very thought of which drives both Mystics and Psychologists mad.
fenixdigger
Hero Member
- Feb 8, 2010
- 839
- 44
- Detector(s) used
- Aurora Aqua, Excalibur, Garrett CX2, Gemini-3, MFD's, Sovereign, Viper, E Trac, Dees Nutz rod, Tesoro Sand Shark. Pro pulse.
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Thank you, that is exactly what we are saying. I knew sooner or later you would catch on. This is historic. TA-DA
EE THr said:RDT---
I won't try to give you hard evidence, because as I have said before, "There are some things which can't be 'proven' to another, but can only be proven to oneself." Simply because that is the nature of it.
That's also why it would be silly to try to enforce anything in that realm with laws. The physical universe just doesn't apply there, and Science involves only physical universe things, per it's own definition of itself, at this time.
Physical universe stuff can, and must stand the tests of proof (by agreed upon definition of Science, as is found in a standard dictionary). Merely because that is the agreement. Physical reality is agreement.
But here goes, anyway---
As an example, there is the theory that, "Function follows form." But that is merely part of the long standing PsyOp that I mentioned before. Actually, form follows function. This, of course, flys in the face of both the Darwinists and the Creationists. (And you know what I think of "multiple choice" limitations, anyway!)
Also the theory of conservation of energy is wrong. This you can prove to yourself. Once you have experienced it, there is no doubt. But to prove it to another person is impossible. Even if you did show someone, it would be classified as mere "Parlor Tricks," and would be of no help whatsoever. Maybe give somebody a heart attack or something, though; which just isn't necessary, and would be messy. So why bother fooling with it?
So, to just to answer your question: To imply that astronomical objects affect sentient beings, would be unethical. And to use trickery to persuade others to believe that they do, would be totally unethical.
It's that simple.
Thank you, that is exactly what we are saying. I knew sooner or later you would catch on. This is historic. TA-DA
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
fenixdigger said:
EE THr
Silver Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
fenix(es)---
I think the problem is that some people don't realize that Reality is Agreement.
There are certain laws of physics which people have been in agreement with for a very long time. I'm not saying that current Science knows or acknowledges everything there is to know, or even knows what all the agreements are yet, but those fundamental agreements which they do know about, are what constitutes Reality for the vast majority of people. That is, they usually work.
And I'm not saying that someone can't come along and stick a rabbits foot in a plastic box, hot glue a few transistors to it, and go out and find vast treasures.
What I am saying, is that he might not easily convince others of what he can do. And furthermore, I'm absolutely certain that not everyone can use his device and do it too.
Plus, when the guy tries to explain how it works, by saying something like, "trans-ionic plasmic muons interact with Higgs bosons and tau particles creating multi-state leptons in accordance with the fluid magnetic frequency of the target, and thus cause nano bioelectric changes in the pointing device causing it to indicate the direction and depth of specific materials," he is going to run into Reality problems with most people. By definition. Simple as that. No?
And then, if he says that anybody can succeed with his device, he is obviously just asking for trouble.
It's all a matter of agreement, and trying to force others to step out of their agreed upon Reality just doesn't work. While it may be an actual truth that you can locate stuff, if it's not based on pre-agreements, the only way to get people into agreement would be to go out and really prove that it works, in front of everyone.
If he doesn't have enough personal "horsepower" to do that, then he should just go find his treasures and be happy with that. He surly shouldn't be trying to convince others about it, and calling them names for not "believing" in it; and he darned sure shouldn't be selling the things to the general public!
Just sayin'....
fenix(es)---
I think the problem is that some people don't realize that Reality is Agreement.
There are certain laws of physics which people have been in agreement with for a very long time. I'm not saying that current Science knows or acknowledges everything there is to know, or even knows what all the agreements are yet, but those fundamental agreements which they do know about, are what constitutes Reality for the vast majority of people. That is, they usually work.
And I'm not saying that someone can't come along and stick a rabbits foot in a plastic box, hot glue a few transistors to it, and go out and find vast treasures.
What I am saying, is that he might not easily convince others of what he can do. And furthermore, I'm absolutely certain that not everyone can use his device and do it too.
Plus, when the guy tries to explain how it works, by saying something like, "trans-ionic plasmic muons interact with Higgs bosons and tau particles creating multi-state leptons in accordance with the fluid magnetic frequency of the target, and thus cause nano bioelectric changes in the pointing device causing it to indicate the direction and depth of specific materials," he is going to run into Reality problems with most people. By definition. Simple as that. No?
And then, if he says that anybody can succeed with his device, he is obviously just asking for trouble.
It's all a matter of agreement, and trying to force others to step out of their agreed upon Reality just doesn't work. While it may be an actual truth that you can locate stuff, if it's not based on pre-agreements, the only way to get people into agreement would be to go out and really prove that it works, in front of everyone.
If he doesn't have enough personal "horsepower" to do that, then he should just go find his treasures and be happy with that. He surly shouldn't be trying to convince others about it, and calling them names for not "believing" in it; and he darned sure shouldn't be selling the things to the general public!
Just sayin'....
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
~EE THr~
It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you
~EE THr~
Why should any of use get off of T-Net ? After all this is a web site dedicated to Treasure Hunting..We put our personal experiences on here and try to help our follow Treasure hunters that may be having trouble…That my skeptic fellow is called the free exchange of information..We know that the devices we use work and find Treasure. That is called knowing..Please refrain from putting you believes about LRL’s and MFD’s ahead of the people who know the truth about them..Can you explain to the membership why not a single one of the LRL and MFD Manufactures have been convicted of selling a Treasure Hunting Device that does not work as advertised ?
It is a common psychological problem in that insecure people tend to project their personal deficiencies unto another in self defense, they are sure trying to pass theirs lack of knowledge over to you
hung
Sr. Member
- Jul 16, 2009
- 274
- 6
- Detector(s) used
- Tubedec A9000, Mineoro FG90, OKM Bionic X4
- Primary Interest:
- Other
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Art,
Just now I have read that your wife has passed away.
My deepest condolences to you and your sons.
Assure yourself that in her new reality, she is conected by cherishing thoughts and feelings to you and the rest of the family.
Peace and best wishes to you.
Art,
Just now I have read that your wife has passed away.
My deepest condolences to you and your sons.
Assure yourself that in her new reality, she is conected by cherishing thoughts and feelings to you and the rest of the family.
Peace and best wishes to you.
aarthrj3811
Gold Member
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Thank You hung.. I am assured that in her new reality she is free of pain and with our favorite dogs and all the friends and family members that have gone before..Art
Thank You hung.. I am assured that in her new reality she is free of pain and with our favorite dogs and all the friends and family members that have gone before..Art
fenixdigger
Hero Member
- Feb 8, 2010
- 839
- 44
- Detector(s) used
- Aurora Aqua, Excalibur, Garrett CX2, Gemini-3, MFD's, Sovereign, Viper, E Trac, Dees Nutz rod, Tesoro Sand Shark. Pro pulse.
Re: Why skeptics doesn't show proof?
Art;
Having lost my wife of 24 yrs. several yrs ago, I understand your loss and send my deepest condolences to you and your family.
I know you carried quite a load the last couple of years, and I salute you for it. LT
Art;
Having lost my wife of 24 yrs. several yrs ago, I understand your loss and send my deepest condolences to you and your family.
I know you carried quite a load the last couple of years, and I salute you for it. LT
Top Member Reactions
-
3347 -
1902 -
1858 -
1160 -
1088 -
880 -
843 -
842 -
827 -
768 -
766 -
545 -
517 -
496 -
439 -
427 -
E
418
-
402 -
397 -
394
