It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
You can look through all of my post and all of the threads I have started and you will not find anything about proving a negative or asking for evidence that extraterrestrials don't exist.
They may refer to themselves in the first person plural (we) or in the third person (he, she, they), sometimes without knowing why.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Nope what Matrix will claim is you need to debate the evidence and not your opinion.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Nope, Matrix has listed evidence and debated the available evidence.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
Again,
The pseudoskeptic and debunker has no evidence to support their claims. They want to yell out anything in a vacuum without any evidence.
They will say, it's a weather balloon, it's a bird, he's lying, he's hallucinating but they don't thin they need any evidence to support their claims.
This is they want to remain in a constapated state of possibility.
Out of all the evidence we have accumulated over the years, the pseudoskeptic needs to come to the table with more than their opinion and wild speculation.
The reason they keep trying to debate a point that I never made, is because they have no evidence. They want to be able to yell out any silly opinion or wild speculation without any evidence.
They will say, the guy could be lying or hallucinating. This means nothing when the case has been investigated and there's no evidence to support this claim.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
We debate for and against the existence of parallel universes.
We debate for and against the existence of psychics and mediums.
We debate for and against the existence of extra dimension.
We debate for and against the proposition all the time.
The debate over the ability of quantum theory to adequately describe nature was fueled by many leading physicists at the time of the development of the theory. In fact, many scientists who had contributed to the theory's early development, later found themselves arguing against that which they had helped give birth to. Much about the debate within the scientific community at-large can be learned from lively discussions entertained by two of the fathers of quantum mechanics: Albert Einstein and Neils Bohr.
Bohr and Einstein spent many years intensely debating the nature of nature, as described by its quantum mechanical description. I believe that, intrinsic within these arguments, were competing ideas about the goals of science. In each topic considered, Bohr argues against both determinism and realism, while Einstein seemed to argue for those qualities. Determinism is the philosophy spurred by Newtonian mechanics, which says, that if all is known about a system at one point in time, all may be known about that quantity at any point in time. Thus, supporting an anti-determinist view, Bohr argued that complete knowledge of the present can result only in a description of what the future most probably will be like. Realism I will define as the common sense principle that a physical property of an object, such as size, color, or position, must have a definite value at all times. Again, Bohr disagreed with this notion, holding that quantities such as these are not required to have a distinct value, unless they are observed.3 Let us look at an argument within the Bohr-Einstein debate, and see if we can see these two themes replaying themselves on the stage of modern science.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
...Einstein and Bohr debated for and against without "proving a negative."
It's hardly futile and we debate for and against the proposition in all walks of life.
Originally posted by EsSeeEye
Everyone's gotten plenty of ammunition for any of Matrix's future posts. My recommendation is to add this thread to your favorites and wait for a new Matrix thread to pop up, and just link to this one and reference new readers to it.
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
What's the evidence and argument that supports reducing life in the galaxy to earth?
Originally posted by Matrix Rising What's the evidence and argument that supports reducing life in the galaxy to earth?
In other words, what is the evidence and argument that extraterrestrials don't exist?
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
I already told you what it means.
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
...Einstein and Bohr debated for and against without "proving a negative."
It's hardly futile and we debate for and against the proposition in all walks of life.
They were debating their very specific theories. They were NOT debating a grand generality like "provide evidence against alien visitation".
Like I asked before, play devil's advocate for a second and provide an example of evidence that a skeptic may offer against alien visitation in general (not a specific explanation such as "bird" or "satellite"). I'm sure you have a "skeptics' argument" in mind.
Please help me by providing an example of what you are asking us to provide.
[edit on 11/14/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
...We have accumulated a lot of evidence over the years and it's time for the pseudoskeptic and debunker to be called out for this silly and illogical standard.
These cases have been investigated and if you have evidence to rebut the investigation and rebut the eyewitness testimony then present it.
Originally posted by Soylent Green Is People
Originally posted by Matrix Rising
...We have accumulated a lot of evidence over the years and it's time for the pseudoskeptic and debunker to be called out for this silly and illogical standard.
These cases have been investigated and if you have evidence to rebut the investigation and rebut the eyewitness testimony then present it.
So, now you want the skeptics to rebut specific evidence for specific cases.
Well, that's very, very different than trying to provide evidence for the broad statement "ET visitation is not happening", which is what you have been asking for since your original post.
However, I don't think this is the proper thread to be giving evidence for specific cases, and then waiting for a rebuttal for each case. That's what the entire "Aliens and UFO" thread is for.
It's rather difficult to provide evidence against alien visitation in general. Like I said before, I don't know of anyone who absolutely, positively denies the possible existence of the phenomenon of alien visitation -- Therefore, a fair skeptic would never provide evidence against alien visitation in general.
How in the world can someone provide evidence that something is not happening?
[edit on 11/15/2009 by Soylent Green Is People]