From Nothing to Nothing

a reply to: coomba98

So, 'no', and 'I don't know', mean the same thing to you? That's fairly peculiar. I honestly wasn't trying to twist your words, I really was confused by that. I think a distinction must be made between the two for one to be able to clearly reason and communicate.

a reply to: MamaJ

Why not a polytheit, it makes the most spiritual sense to me. My gnosis says so. That is all you can do with faith

I'm a Chemist and Biochemist (Phd level), who works in the Pharmaceutical industry as a Process Development Scientist. I have done so for over a decade.

a reply to: MamaJ

Science is NOT doing anything it is not supposed too. You also don't understand Cern if you think it is about "their singularity". Look at their Mission statement viz "Seeking and finding answers to questions about the universe"

I question your understanding of science by your statements.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: coomba98

So, 'no', and 'I don't know', mean the same thing to you? That's fairly peculiar. I honestly wasn't trying to twist your words, I really was confused by that. I think a distinction must be made between the two for one to be able to clearly reason and communicate.

The full line is:

"You misunderstand, i dont know if aliens exist and if you back me into a corner id say 'no' they dont exist. Same with vampires."

Ill repeat again:

"Do you not know the difference between:

1: I do not believe in aliens given the evidence available.

And:

2. Given the number of veiwed galaxies and the number of planets in the goldilocks zone it is a high probability for aliens to exist.

Do you know the difference?

One is a stance, the other a hypothesis."

I dont know how clearer i can be.

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

Ignorance also of what CERN does Why are people so hung up on the possibility (yet to occur) of the "singularity" ? I know this is a conspiracy site, but man, that is just pure ignorance. I'd expect zealots to be more worried about the "god particle" (thanks media for that name BTW it really helps science /sarc) even if it has nothing to do with any God.

a reply to: MamaJ

Within this definition lies the main problem when it comes to proving "God". God cannot be measured as it is un-measurable ( like the Universe).

Nothing that exists is unmeasurable. We simply have not yet devised a means of measuring some things, and this void becomes apparent the more we do measure things until we have measured enough to devise more methods of measurement which bring us closer to measuring the things in that void. This manner of refinement is observable in the escalating sophistication of the techniques and tools at our disposal. So to say the universe or god is unmeasurable is a tad premature, it would seem. Almost like some people simply don't want to measure it and quantify it. Would spoil the mystery, I suppose...

a reply to: TzarChasm

Well we can't measure that which we've not defined Getting humanity to agree on what the devine is... sort of has killed a lot of humanity thus far

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well we can't measure that which we've not defined

Getting humanity to agree on what the devine is... sort of has killed a lot of humanity thus far

Measuring is how we define things. There can be no productive discussion without measurable data.

a reply to: TzarChasm

You don't say, I never knew that about science /sarc

In all seriousness, the moment science/scientists tries to quantify the divine there will be an almighty gnashing of teeth, wailing, and tearing at breasts about "Science over stepping its bounds" and "attacking religion". Even if we are doing what they have asked us too.

I see the new tactic from the zealots to be more along the line of put Science in a catch 22, and go "Look, LOOK, science is unreliable, but faith, now faith will always work". As a spiritual person that level of dishonesty aggravates me.

Whats that saying again?

'Pray until it works.'

Coomba98

a reply to: coomba98

Kind of like Homeopathy and Astrology

a reply to: Noinden

True.

I dont understand why they dont get it. Stupifying!

Coomba98

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

You don't say, I never knew that about science /sarc

In all seriousness, the moment science/scientists tries to quantify the divine there will be an almighty gnashing of teeth, wailing, and tearing at breasts about "Science over stepping its bounds" and "attacking religion". Even if we are doing what they have asked us too.

I see the new tactic from the zealots to be more along the line of put Science in a catch 22, and go "Look, LOOK, science is unreliable, but faith, now faith will always work". As a spiritual person that level of dishonesty aggravates me.

You could have faith in and worship a dead rodent or a banana and get the same results. At least we have replaced snake oil with penicillin and wd 40. Progress!

a reply to: coomba98

Faith does not require proof. Nor should it. However it needs to stay the feck out of things which do, it just gets embarrassing otherwise.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I wonder if the various faiths need the equivalent of the FDA to make sure they are fit for "use"

originally posted by: Noinden
a reply to: TzarChasm

I wonder if the various faiths need the equivalent of the FDA to make sure they are fit for "use"

Of course not. It would require something to measure.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I believe "level of harm" would be a great place to start The Moonies, JW's and Scientologists would be put on the banned list rather fast

a reply to: coomba98

I dont know how clearer i can be.

You could give a simple yes or no assessment of whether or not this quote is justified: "'no' they [aliens] dont exist. Same with vampires". You could explain what aliens have to do with vampires, whether vampires are probable or not, and how you arrive at your conclusions. You could demonstrate that you're aware of the difference between stating something isn't true, and stating we don't know if something is true. You could demonstrate that you can distinguish between logic, and intuition or opinion. I can only think you're being disingenuous at this point though, so I won't persist.

originally posted by: VP740
a reply to: coomba98

I dont know how clearer i can be.

You could give a simple yes or no assessment of whether or not this quote is justified: "'no' they [aliens] dont exist. Same with vampires". You could explain what aliens have to do with vampires, whether vampires are probable or not, and how you arrive at your conclusions. You could demonstrate that you're aware of the difference between stating something isn't true, and stating we don't know if something is true. You could demonstrate that you can distinguish between logic, and intuition or opinion. I can only think you're being disingenuous at this point though, so I won't persist.

Maybe this will be a little easier for you to digest. Coomba98 does not personally believe in extraterrestrial biological entities who visit Earth in their interstellar craft based on the lack of concrete evidence currently in our possession.

However, when one considers principles such as a the Drake Equation-

It would be ignorant to rule out the existence of some sort of biological organisms who call another planet, located in another star system, their home,would defy logic. One simply can not support this hypothesis with anything remotely resembling evidence. Again, there are more stars in the sky than there are grains of sand in the Sahara the odds of Earth being the first only planet with life seems a little silly in that context wouldn't you say?

a reply to: peter vlar

I don't know what Coomba98 thinks of alien visitation (as he didn't mention anything about it), but the rest sounds logical and I agree with it.

What would your thoughts be on the evidence required to show that a thing is nonexistent or unlikely to exist?