UFO's and extra-terrestrial life

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by Querer

I am not a believer, I am scientist. And as a scientist I KNOW there is the chance of intelligent life on other planets, even if it is life in a way we maybe would not recognize. Chances are huge. Same for "god" or however you call it.

"Chances are huge. Same for "god" or however you call it" IF your actually a scientist as you claim you would never make an irrational claim like this. It goes against all scientific reasoning. What hypothesis did you use to come to this conclusion? "god" is based on mans ancient belief that something created us thats supernatural. There has never been and never will be any scientific data/information to even hint that this is possible. the whole concept requires irrational thought. In this day and age that someone would believe the writings from the bronze age where people who made up these types of stories thought that the earth was flat and and was the center of the universe is just crazy.

[Wolf_Rider]

I might mention "Cargo Cult" at this point, with regard to "irrational thinking" claims

[Querer]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

IF your actually a scientist as you claim you would never make an irrational claim like this. It goes against all scientific reasoning. What hypothesis did you use to come to this conclusion? "god" is based on mans ancient belief that something created us thats supernatural. There has never been and never will be any scientific data/information to even hint that this is possible. the whole concept requires irrational thought. In this day and age that someone would believe the writings from the bronze age where people who made up these types of stories thought that the earth was flat and and was the center of the universe is just crazy.

Huh, you should not just take one piece of my post and comment it without the rest of the context. With "same for god" I was actually referring to the fact that there are still things missing a scientific explanation (as UFOs and Aliens stuff does sometimes) and that people usually need to have everything explained. I was not really clear on that one though, sorry for that. Of course you're right in your explanation about the irrationality

[Hatch]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

"Chances are huge. Same for "god" or however you call it" IF your actually a scientist as you claim you would never make an irrational claim like this. It goes against all scientific reasoning. What hypothesis did you use to come to this conclusion? "god" is based on mans ancient belief that something created us thats supernatural. There has never been and never will be any scientific data/information to even hint that this is possible. the whole concept requires irrational thought. In this day and age that someone would believe the writings from the bronze age where people who made up these types of stories thought that the earth was flat and and was the center of the universe is just crazy.

Actually your reasoning is quite unscientific.
A priori excluding, even to you, irrational explanations is opposite to sound scientific practice.

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by Hatch

Actually your reasoning is quite unscientific.
A priori excluding, even to you, irrational explanations is opposite to sound scientific practice.

Can someone translate this into English please.

[Mr Logic]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

Can someone translate this into English please.

As I have previously emphasised, all belief systems rely on the absence of incontestable proof.

Were truth to be incontestably established, any passionate rhetoric and/or dialectic would ipso facto be rendered superfluous.

As truth cannot be ascertained within belief systems, all belief systems render themselves self perpetuating due to both their protagonist's and antagonist's continual and often passionate reaffirmation of the unknowable.

However; Sentient life and/or existence would not be possible were it not for belief systems in themselves, as proposed by Immanuel Kant in his 'Critique of Pure Reason' wherein it is mooted that the a priori continuum of a particle from second to second is essential for survival of cognizance, often described by the ludicrously simplistic 'tree in a forest' analogy.

[Oldschool61]

Originally Posted by Mr Logic

As I have previously emphasised, all belief systems rely on the absence of incontestable proof.

Were truth to be incontestably established, any passionate rhetoric and/or dialectic would ipso facto render itself superfluous.

As truth cannot be ascertained within belief systems, all belief systems render themselves self perpetuating due to both their protagonist's and antagonist's continual and often passionate reaffirmation of the unknowable.

However, sentient life and/or existence would not be possible were it not for belief systems in themselves, as proposed by Immanuel Kant in his 'Critique of Pure Reason' wherein it is mooted that the a priori continuum of a particle from second to second is essential for survival of cognizance, often described by the ludicrously simplistic 'tree in a forest' analogy.

Wow you must have had to do a lot of acid to come up with that.

[CharveL]

Or a sound understanding of critical reasoning.

[Mr Logic]

Originally Posted by Oldschool61

Wow you must have had to do a lot of acid to come up with that.

Your statement is is erroneous on a number of counts.

I was not forced or obliged to emit low pH number solutions from any orifice.

Nor would such emanations lead to thought provoking circumstances.

I would suggest you consult the 'world wide web' on the philosophical works of the aformentioned Mr. Kant.

[Wolf_Rider]

Life (whatever its base) will exist wherever conditions are right for it to do so