"We are being visited."

[Task Force]

I just figured out why hunter dowent like those facehuggers.:rotfl:

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

In other words, you make an educated guess.

In so far as all our knowledge is the result of educated guesses, including things like "does the moon exist?", yes; one makes an educated guess.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Letum

I can't imagine a situation in which the evidence we have makes it
impossible to reason one way or the other.

well, I can. Very often. Easily. As Paul Watzlawick once put it so very laconic and precise on a German-language speech: "Die 'Wirklichkeit', die wir mit unseren Sinnen wahrzunehmen glauben, wird von uns weniger gefunden als vielmehr erfunden." - "The 'reality' that we believe to perceive by our senses not so much gets found but more gets invented by us."

i wonder what "evidence" with regard pro or contra UFOs, that is beyond doubt to be taken as that, you consider to be sop special and unique and beyond dohb t that you dare to make a statement like the above. You seem to think that either science or human logic/reason/ratio has made "unthinkable" the theme or object which ti cannot adequately deral with. Having read quite a lot oif books on UFOs in a now quite distant past have cionvinced me of the opposite.

The only thing we can be really sure of is that humans have a very strong tendency to anthropomorphise and/or to reduce the rest of the universe to scales and standards human thinking is fit for. Intelligence researchers often say that probably we would be completely unable to recognise an intelligence that is either a.) too much superior to ours or is b.) too low beyond our level, as "intelligence". To think that our rationals are adequate to describe the rest of the universe in all it's diverse complexity, is just an expression of that antropomoprhising tendency, though a very arrogant (and by that: maybe typical human) one.

Science is no objective effort of finding truths. I arranges both random and arbitrary-systematic observations into artifical orders that matches the way we do observations, to improce our way to make further observations. Ultimate triuthgs is not so much our goal, although we make ourselves believeing that. to carry on with our same old ways - that is what science is after. Science wants to maintain itself. the way it does that is called the current "paradigm". sometimes paradiogms get replaced. but the new paradigms just fit better the purporse to make observations in a new, different weay, and sort them into categories and artificial orders. However, these new orders and categories are as arbitrary as before. They are just different.

the only way you can find out real truths about the universe your senses communicate to you, is by exmaining your own mind. If you want to know how the universe functions, find our how mind is functioning. If there would not be your mind, you even do not know if there is really something called a "universe". the ways and mechnisms by which your mind is forming the universe "in your mind" - decides the very shape of this universe.

So how can you be so sure like you claim you can be? Don't get fooled by yourself.

[Jimbuna]

The truth is out there....does anyone know the Url?

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by jimbuna

The truth is out there....does anyone know the Url?

I don't know it, but if you Google it, you might find it

Originally Posted by Task Force

I wonder... If on anouther planet... in anouther galaxy... if they are haveing a conversation like this one.:rotfl:

Isn't there a theory out there that if the universe is infinite if you go far enough out you'll eventually meet yourself? :rotfl:

[Digital_Trucker]

Originally Posted by Rilder

Isn't there a theory out there that if the universe is infinite if you go far enough out you'll eventually meet yourself? :rotfl:

Only if you go fast enough

[Platapus]

Originally Posted by Task Force

I wonder... If on anouther planet... in anouther galaxy... if they are haveing a conversation like this one.:rotfl:

If they are, I want to know what mods they are using for their version of SH3?

Originally Posted by Platapus

If they are, I want to know what mods they are using for their version of SH3?

Purple Lions X

[Letum]

Originally Posted by Skybird

[...]
i wonder what "evidence" with regard pro or contra UFOs, that is beyond doubt to be taken as that, you consider to be sop special and unique and beyond dohb t that you dare to make a statement like the above. [...]So how can you be so sure like you claim you can be? Don't get fooled by yourself.

You seam to be misunderstanding me again.
I don't consider any evidence or conclusions beyond doubt and I don't see why you might think I do.
I can only ask you to read my posts again carefully or repeat my self here.

[...]
the only way you can find out real truths about the universe your senses communicate to you, is by exmaining your own mind. [...]

I was not intending to making any ontological or metaphysical claims.
If you really want me to, I can lay out my ontological such arguments for
our ability to find truths, but I think it is best you start a new thread if you
would like my thoughts on that as it will be too protracted and offtopic for
this thread. However, as I said, I was not intending to making any
ontological or metaphysical claims in this thread.

[FIREWALL]

Soooo .... This topic is still being Probed ?

[Dowly]

Yup, rrrright thru the bumhole.

[Jimbuna]

Originally Posted by Dowly

Yup, rrrright thru the bumhole.

Trust you

[FIREWALL]

Dowlys Sig looks like she's be " interrogated "

[Stealth Hunter]

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

The formula establishes nothing.

So statistical probability means nothing? There are a lot of scientists out there who would disagree with you on that...

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

One of its factors is totally impossible to calculate (the odds of a planet sustaining life)

Not really. I mean, we've already found several distant planets similar to Earth out there, and more importantly, we've found water on local moons here in our own solar system.

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

and several of the other factors are easily fudged to generate any possibilities that you care to.

Such as?

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

You have no way of knowing whether there is any other life in the universe or not. It seems that a "scientific" person, such as you claim to be, would demand proof (or at least evidence) of said life.

Well if you want the best evidence, I need not look any further than the AH84001 meteor. The most dramatic piece of proof from it is the presence of microfossils of what is apparently nano-bacteria (it's positive for amino acids, just so you know) that looks like several types we have here on Earth, only much smaller. We know it's from Mars, so technically, you've got ET life.

Now you've got people who've created rebuttals on AH84001, but since 1984, we've compared two other meteors that have origins from Mars (Nakhla and Shegotty) that have seemingly confirmed the authenticity and validity of AH's meteor. There's a possibility that it's not what we think it is, but the overall evidence is pointing to it being perfectly valid and uncontaminated by mistaken information or accidental exposure to third party sources.

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

Again, this is where you use common sense. Do you really believe that all of that just came from nowhere?

Well there are plenty of people who believe this god character was just always there. If he's always existed, it's just as possible the universe has always existed, especially when you consider that we are actually part of the universe and can see it and know it exists, unlike a god.

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

If I used that kind of "common sense" in a debate regarding the existence of God, I'd be laughed out of the room by the so called "scientific" types (I believe you fall into that category).

Well in the first place, we wouldn't even be debating this issue in a scientific classroom/forum since science doesn't bother comment with experiments and tests on the supernatural to begin with.

So really, you're not very scientific by believing in God...

Originally Posted by Digital_Trucker

Why should I accept that "logic" when you're attempting to argue your point?

I don't care whether you do or don't.