Originally Posted by CharveL (Post 324880)

Omg lol you really are thick aren't you? ;)

read this carefully:

OF COURSE THERE IS NO PROOF YA NIMROD! :lol:

Originally Posted by Oldschool61 (Post 324958)

So is that your confession that you dont have scientific proof of angles and demons and the great OZ!!

You apparently cant read an entire post or just have very short term memory so I'll say for you one more time.. I NEVER said that UFO's were 100% real I stated many times the level of evidence is overwhelming. If you would ever research something you may learn something someday. NIMROD

Originally Posted by Oldschool61 (Post 324642)

"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.

Originally Posted by Hatch (Post 324965)

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

Originally Posted by Oldschool61 (Post 324989)

Can someone translate this into English please.

Originally Posted by Mr Logic (Post 325034)

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.

Originally Posted by Oldschool61 (Post 325042)

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

Originally Posted by Wolf_Rider (Post 325059)

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