Why is the scientism a masterpiece of the arrogance

Show us some evidence, then, of any sort. Anything. Anything at all that makes invisible, teleporting alien/ILF/god-not-god thingies "plausible." Red herrings are not evidence for anything except your intellectual dishonesty.


4:0

     Why? The claim is that the assumptions are unknowable and that claim does not suppose to present evidence about something that is unknowable.
     You claim that 'you know' and the 'science knows' - you are the one to present the evidence of your ability to get knowing what I am claiming is unknowable. You claim that the Infinite Temperature can exist without a material carrier and can be accompanied by Infinite Ignorance and in the capacity of doing so is able to create the Universe (that you don't even know whether it has been created or has not always existed).
     You are the one to provide indisputable evidence that the Infinite Ignorance (lack of any Intelligence in the Universe) is able to create all the structures of the Universe ... and the Biosphere on our planet from 'ground zero'.

Strawmen fallacies again. I've told you precisely what I claim, viz, that you've presented no evidence for your claim.

Why should we believe you when you say that your alien/ILF/god-not-god thingy hypothesis is "plausible" when you present absolutely no logical or evidential support for it? Seems most commonsensical to call it what it looks like: an escapist fantasy of a science-illiterate denialist. Give us a reason to think that it's plausible. Give us something other than logical fallacies and evasion.


4:0

     Yes, but this does not prove anything. I might have not provided any evidence to you because I may thing that you are absolute retard, for example, not interested in the theme of the discussion at all (which is obvious) ... and continuously changing the theme with a theme from another discussion, BTW ... and trolling on the blogs to compensate his personal infinite complexes with infinite arrogance and infinite aggression, living in his own imaginary world and thinking that he can exercise psychic pressure to infinity at random on people who he/she personally dislikes for some other reason.
     You cannot do that with people like me, because your IQ is three times lower than mine ... as a minimum, no matter whether you keep it in a 'state secret' or not. It is that simple. How much is your IQ? ... and why the aliens are such a great problem to you? ... and since when?

It proves that your "plausible" teleporting alien/ILF/god-not-god jumble of contradictions is no more plausible than anything else anyone can pull out of their imaginations. Telekinetic space frogs-demons-not-demons-but-"perhaps"-science-thingies, telekinetically moving all the matter in space-time with their mind power alone. Perfectly "plausible" by your standards of plausibilty.

4:0

     It cannot prove anything of the kind so far it is taken out of the context of the example for agnosticism, but it actually may prove some other things ... like for example that there exist people with zero knowledge on any subject, who are able to present themselves as mega-scientists of seventh star magnitude by becoming absolute parasites and trolls on the blogs and on the grounds of repeating a broken record to infinity and trying to misrepresent and misinterpret it to infinity ... in their own benefit ... and who are hiding their IQ as a 'state secret', for it may prove something else.

     RE: '... than anything else anyone can pull out of their imaginations'
     As you say it ... but why don't you prove that. Prove that religious views that have plastered the mind of so many people (roughly several billion through the various centuries) for so many years (roughly over 6000 years) are 'pulled out of the imagination' of whomever.
     Prove that a film of the 70s that has been confirmed over 90% to be absolute original and non-manipulated by most of the present day techniques is 'pulled out of the imagination' .. of KGB, or of whoever.
     Prove that the people of the Ancient Egypt, who had hardly something to put on the table in the eventing (some bread and some cup (not glass) of beer) 'have pulled out of their imagination' the idea to map the Constellation of Orion 1:1 into a set of pyramids ... that is neither clear how they have been built it by the ancient technologies, nor why they have started building all that at all. Why don't you prove also that the pyramids of Egypt are 'pulled out of my imagination' and are not existing in the physical world.
     ... and before that you may prove that you are at a level to prove anything at all.

By your own standards, there's no need for me to prove anything. As far as I'm concerned, Jimi Hendrix hired Helen Keller to kill Kennedy because a teleporting alien/ILF/god-not-god thingie telepathically faked the moon landings so that we could have vaccine deniers. It's just as "plausible" as anything you've produced, seeing as how neither evidence nor logical consistency is required.


4:0

     Is that 'the vaccine' that you are talking about?
http://chameleonassociates.com/homeland-security/spy-drone/

Anything I pull out of my ass is as "plausible" as the crap you threw up on the screen, as long as no evidence or consistent logic is required. Got anything better than red herrings yet?

4:0

     You are quoting that here as a conspiracy theory, but analysing the Apollo 12 'mission to the Moon' is not entirely bad idea as a general rehearsal for analysing the 'theory' of the Big Bang itself about the 'creation of the Universe' through stochastic evolution operating on auto-pilot ... without any Intelligence.
     1. What is waving the Am flag on the photo on the Moon?
     2. Where is on the photo the impact crater from the landing of the spaceship?
     3. From where the Moon has acquired mutiple light sources ... diverging the falling shadows in different directions ... in some of the cases going up to 45 deg.?
     4. How have the astronauts passed in brilliant health through the Van Allen Radiation Belt ... twice?
     5. What is the mysterious unexplained object (resembling overhead spotlight used in film studios) ... reflected in the helmet of the astronaut 'from the mission'?
     6. How did it happen so that if the speed of the film 'from the Moon' is increased by 2.5 the astronauts start seeming like walking under Earth's gravity?
     7. Where have all that stars gone ... all of them completely missing on the photo of the Earth taken 'from the Moon'?
     8. The 'C' rock with engraved letter 'C' into it - what it is doing on the Moon and who has carved it there?
     9. How have the cross-hairs of the cameras for shooting on the Moon appeared behind the objects on the Moon scenes themselves?
     10. How exactly photos 'taken miles apart' happen to have duplicate backdrops?

Who cares? I could pull anything out of my ass and it would be just a "plausible" as your teleporting alien/ILF/god-but-maybe-science story. Your red herrings are getting you nowhere. What you need is evidence and consistent logic. Got either?

4:0

     The people who ask continuously about various pieces of evidence. If you are so keen on finding evidence, why don't you simply answer to the questions ... thus you will prove that you are able to prove anything at all.
     You are doing that all the time. You cannot prove that your broken record of the straw-man of the aliens is borne by my imagination and not by your imagination ... and in the capacity of a religious fanatic you don't have any test to distinguish your own imagination from the Imagination of Buddha, for example.
     Really. In order for something to be plausible it must have some logical justification, some reasonable ground to believe in it, etc. - nothing could be just plausible. Plausibility supposes logical integrity - not evidence for everything. Indirect evidence may prove enough for the purposes of plausibility.
     Besides that in order for something to be plausible you should have the whole picture. You may ask any analyst, and verifier, and investigator, etc. that there is no such thing as partial truth and partial picture. Either you have the whole picture assembled, without any gaps and without any contradictions, or you don't have anything. When you have nothing in the end it doesn't matter whether you have any evidence or not to the partial picture.
     What evidence do you have about the Infinite Temperature? What evidence do you have that an Infinite Temperature can create 3D space out of whatever? What evidence do you have that the Big Bang can design and structure the chemical elements without having any information, any control system and any Intelligence to make these in the first place?
     If you, as a Buddhist fanatic are able to claim that you have eternal life and your mind & soul can exist out of the body, what evidence do you have for such a claim?

Show me the logical consistency. Show me the evidence. Show me the "plausibility." Show a little sanity, while you're at it, Prof. Nobel. My only claim is that yours sucks because it lacks any of those.

4:0

     Why should I show you anything of the kind ... which is obviously in support of your straw-man theory. You make the top-design straw-men ... and broken records out of them- you are the one who is supposed to support any evidence ... for I may not be even interested in your personal problems with the aliens and bio-haking technologies.
     My claim is that the assumptions for the Creation of the Universe (if created at all) are unknowable for now - with the present day knowledge and technology. In connection with that could be generated plausible hypotheses, and unless you prove that some of them are definitely impossible (God, ILFs, General Intelligence of the Universe, etc.), and some of them are highly probable and possible (there is reasonable ground to believe and evidence that this might be the case) - like for example the basic components of the Big Bang theory - you cannot talk anything.
     I may not be able to prove or disprove anything in particular about the assumptions, but you cannot do that as well - that is what Agnosticism is all about. The claim is about Agnosticism - not about the existence and non-existence of Aliens (that obviously suits perfectly your fake theories). If you cannot 'exclude the Aliens from the equation', a not entirely bad idea is just to shut up. The lack of direct evidence is not a prove of impossibility if there is indirect evidence that you cannot exclude or explain with your standard theory of the things ... which you accept just because 'it has been peer reviewed' and not because you understand anything of what it is claiming.

So, basically you're admitting that your teleporting alien/ILF/god-not-god-thingies are no more plausible than inter-galactic butterfly-robots with laser eyes spinning the universe of space-time silk that they shoot out of their asses from billions of years ago. Or any other story that any 4-yr-old on LSD could come up with.

     No, I am not admitting anything, especially before people with obvious autism in the communication and interpretation.
     Your infinite aggression and arrogance, provoked by something (that may be the aliens, but may be also something else) and that I don't even want to know what it might be, prevents you from having a normal perception of the world - incl. interpretation of communication and statements.
     You were told in plain English that I am not going to discuss anything on your straw-man of the aliens ... no matter whether you make a broken record out of it, or not. What more do you want to hear? You will not be given anything that may be interpreted in benefit of your forgery that you are trying to launch.

They're your words. You didn't say anything about agnosticism at the time. You're just trying to pull a post hoc rationalization to cover up your lunacy and disavow that deranged mess you call your hypothesis.

If no evidence is needed, then any claim is just as good as any other. Your "personal" are 40% something self-contradictory and incomprehensible, 35% something that contradicts the first bit, then 25% of something that both contradicts itself and the first two. If you can get away with calling that "plausible," then genetically engineered flying frog-monkeys waving magic wands is just as good as the whacked-out **** you believe. Of course, you could make your claim more plausible than any other by simply providing some evidence to support it. You know. like the way real scientists do?


4:0

     This definitely is not true. Read the original quote right before your three dots that you are using in your broken record of the aliens.
     Besides that your posts are too predictable for a creative scientific discussion ... which means that they are missing imagination, heuristic search and logical inference - some of the basic functionalities of intelligence. If you want to look intelligent on the net you will have to say farewell you your favourite straw-man of the aliens ... just let it go.

More post hoc rationalization. Bring a link and prove it.



If it seems that my posts are repetitive, it's because I refuse to follow your red herrings all over the place. I keep returning to the initial issue. This issue is that your "personal" transporting alien/ILF/god-not-god thingy hypothesis lacks the first shred of evidence or even internal logical consistency. Compared to what the scientists have for the standard model of cosmology, it's about as "plausible" as Santa Claus. You can change that by
a) presenting evidence
b) correcting the logical contradictions
c) clarifying the nonsense terms

"heuristic search" is so far out of context, now it looks like you're back to dropping random "smart-sounding" terms to try to make yourself look smart. Get tired of "stochastic" or something? To infinity!!

Logical inference would be possible if you'd provide some data points about your teleporting alien/ILF/god-not-god thingies, but you refuse to back up your claim, so here were are. I'm repeating my initial observation that you have **** all to back up your "personal," and without that, it makes as much sense to assign plausibility to your "personal" as it does to claim that the Cookie Monster is the divine creator.


4:0