Posts from Extraterrestrial civilizations. What is your opinion?

Gentlemen! Tomorrow, aliens will arrive! But you won't see them because they are too small. :(
Do you believe it? :)
What's the point of discussing something that hasn't been scientifically verified?

But how can he be wrong if he is right, but says that he is wrong? Or how can he be right if he is wrong and says that he is wrong, and at the same time he could be right, although in reality he is wrong and says that he is wrong, but he is right in that he is wrong.:D

Did you carefully read his question and my answer?
Let me explain: this expression ( "Am I right when I say that I am wrong" ) is meaningless on its own; it only makes sense in the presence of another statement to which it is applied.
For example: He says: an apple is a vegetable ( here he is wrong ). Then he says: I am wrong!, it turns out that when He says he is wrong, he happens to be right.
And vice versa: He says: an apple is a fruit ( here he is right ). Then he says: I am wrong!, it turns out that when he says he is wrong, he happens to be wrong.
I hope the situation has become a bit clearer for you now.

So, according to you, there are only Christians and atheists?...
And the Slavic pagan race is almost extinct?...
And why didn't God take care of his first children, the pagans... they had other gods, which means they had different parents...

Please tell me, did I mention anywhere that God is the only one? And that there are only atheists and Christians?

Added after 11 minutes

If there are many gods (let's assume!), then people were definitely not created by one.

I wrote in General terms to explain my point of view regarding the Parent and his children, about faith. This is a hypothesis. It's impossible to fit everything into a strict theorem. Well, about the creation of people, not their faith, I will say this: it is very likely that people were not created by one god. Is that better?

And if I see extraterrestrial life, I'll act like a true Russian – I'll grab my dad's rifle! :D

For all respected forum members, I would like to point out that the words "I haven't seen it, so I don't know" are foolish and do not serve as valid proof. Let me explain why. Tell me, have you ever seen the planet Earth from space? No? Then you don't know if it exists! Oh, dear! What a tragedy! It turns out that we probably don't exist either. :eek: And have you seen the vastness of the Universe? No? Then you don't know if it exists. You see, people used such words in the time of Galileo.

Gentlemen! Tomorrow, aliens will arrive! But you won't see them because they are too small :(
Do you believe it? :)
What's the point of discussing something that no one has scientifically documented?

Has anyone scientifically documented the Bible?

I saw it: D In Space Rangers 2: D My fantasies are beautifully realized. Perhaps other galaxies look like that.

Here is my promise:

Has anyone registered the Bible as a scientific work?:)

100 points on a 5-point scale! Here's a test of faith.:p It's called: can you explain intuition and faith from a scientific point of view? Another example.:)

Added after 52 minutes
So, I was thinking and thinking, and I came to a conclusion. Ganymed, you've probably convinced me that your friend was talking to God (or at least his "intermediaries":)).

To all respected forum members, I would like to point out that the words "I haven't seen it, so I don't know" are foolish and do not serve as valid proof. Let me explain why. Tell me, have you ever seen the planet Earth from space? No? Then you don't know if it exists! Oh, dear! What a tragedy! It turns out that we probably don't exist either. :eek: And have you seen the vastness of the Universe? No? Then you don't know if it exists. You see, people used such words in the time of Galileo.

But we have seen photographs that confirm this. That's why we believe people who say that the Earth is round.

But we've seen photos that confirm it. That's why we believe people who say the Earth is round.

Hmm... you're oversimplifying things. I meant your own eyes, not the technical and scientific progress, which, even a hedgehog understands, helped us learn things we didn't know before. And these words really get to me. Here, as I understand it, it refers to a person's physical ability, not their "inner vision". :)

Hmm... you're oversimplifying things. I meant your own organs of sight, not the technical and scientific progress, which, even a hedgehog understands, helped us learn things we didn't know before. And these words really get to me. Here, as I understand it, it refers to a person's physical ability, not their "inner vision". :)

I feel stupid. :smile35: :smile35:

...what Lelya wanted to say is clear: a person readily accepts what is recognized by everyone and not subject to doubt, even if they themselves may not have seen it or know it. And this "knowledge," so to speak, is conditional.
The theory of evolution, for example, did not raise any questions 50 years ago, although Darwin himself questioned his own work.

In principle, this can be said about any phenomenon. When we talk about history, for example, we operate with "facts" recognized by historical science, although we have never seen them ourselves. But here's the paradox - any historical fact can be questioned, in the same way that the theory of evolution was eventually questioned. This, in my opinion, proves that knowledge of the unseen is conditional.

But relying solely on one's own perception is also not a good idea – it's a very unreliable thing! Let me give you an example.

Personally, this case shocked me. In our neuropsychology, we identify a very interesting syndrome called "Unilateral Right Agnosia" – in this disease (damage to the right hemisphere, impaired visual gnosis – the "intellectual" component of perception, its most important part, without which we would see the world as just blurry color spots), a person stops seeing the left part of their visual field. It's simply fantastic! They really don't see it – they see exactly half. Half of a book, half of a picture (and, by the way, they also draw only half – it turns out to be a kind of even slice of a house), they don't feel (except for extremely strong pain stimuli) the left side of their body – that is, they constantly bump into something with it – and, most importantly, in this disease, they do not realize that they are sick. They think that everything is normal, they complete the missing half of the book... And there was one very sad case – an old man had a severe form of unilateral right agnosia combined with blindness. And he did not realize that he was blind (!). For example, he explained the fact that he was accompanied on the street by saying that he was old and therefore needed help. Once, an experiment was conducted with him – he was given a blank sheet of paper and asked to read what was written on it. It was in Soviet times, the patient was a retired party official, and he took the paper and read it – in his opinion, it was the newspaper "Pravda," and he "read" the title, several headlines, and the usual introductory words...

That's how it is. This is, of course, a pathology, and a very severe one, but it proves that knowledge of what is seen is also a very conditional thing. And that a person, especially one who is eager to see a UFO or has simply read a lot of stories about it, can easily imagine an alien spaceship in an ordinary cloud...

And in general, it's good food for thought :) This is how agnosticism develops :)

Well, if we're considering pathologies, then this is own same as an unplowed field for hypotheses :)
But still, there are exceptions, and there are rules that only confirm those very exceptions.

But in principle, if one approaches the problem scrupulously, the word "seen" should be understood not only as visually distinguishable, but also as experienced. That is, it's impossible to "see" what a person wants from you in a certain situation, but having similar relationship experience in the past, it's quite easy to figure it out. This is also knowledge of the seen, as it is based on real situations that happened to a person.
By the way, this also applies to aliens. Those people who have come into contact with them KNOW about their existence, although for everyone else these are all just theories and assumptions. Here, in my opinion, experienced knowledge prevails over simply "seen," because, I agree—with a good imagination, you can see anything :})