🌟 [Historical review] Why you should get the upcoming hero gold order La5 FN of "Georgiy Kostylev"!

Mess Room
21

As do I

22

Ppl: God is on our side in this war!
Meanwhile god:

2 Likes
23

1 Like
24

while I admire Hartmann, the title of “undefeated” belongs to Hans Joachim Marseille. (it’s even written on his grave as single word / epitaph)

2 Likes
25

So true. I need the Yellow 14 BF-109 Enlisted ASAP.

image
image1920×1521 303 KB

He was truly a mad lad of his time. Not only did this man get away with strafing his CO’s quarters with his BF-109, but he ended up receiving the Iron Cross out of it. Arguably, one of the greatest mad lads of all time.

1 Like
26

: There is just no God. And people just stupidly argue, refer, give an example and blame what/about thing which is even not exist. What a classic corruption. There seems to be a God, but there is no him. And the money for him is was paid.

27

There are as many proves that god exists as there are proves he doesn’t exist. About none. That’s why it’s called faith and not science.

1 Like
28

Scientism in nutshell

29

It was fascinating in a science course in university, when the professor asked the class:
“If we refer to the scientific method, which is used today to establish scientifically proven facts, is there a God, or is there not?”

(Class debate)

“The answer is simply that, science CANNOT prove that God doesn’t exist. As such, it must acknowledge the possibility that He does, even to the displeasure of many scientists and atheists.”

In short. Even science is inclined to accept the possibility, until proven or disproven.

:stuck_out_tongue:

So!!!

Gene_Wilder_as_Willy_Wonka

1 Like
30

I think that’s nonsense. Especially since one has to define what God is in the first place.

And the fact that current science can’t disprove/prove the existence of such a thing is not at all suggestive.
Current science doesn’t even have a proper answer to quantum physics. And why the behavior of particles is affected by mere observation.
The fact that consciousness is a no go topic for most mainstream scientists doesn’t help either.

That’s why I think such statement has zero value.

1 Like
31

You can refute/debate all you want, as well as believe what you want…

I’m just stating what the scientific method is.

Anything must be deemed possible, until disproven.

I’m not the one who made it up :person_shrugging:

1 Like
32

All I am saying is that possibility has no value and thus it means nothing.

That’s why I don’t like his statement.

33

Again, you are free to think so…

It’s the method, nothing more. It allows humanity to experiment seemingly impossible things to discover new stuff. If after experimentation, it’s proven it trully is impossible, then it’s accepted as such.

Until then, science cannot just say
“it doesn’t exist because I think it doesn’t exist”

With such belief, the sun would have continued to go around the earth in the mind of ppl.

Until something come to invalidate the hypothesis (happens often with technology advancement)

1 Like
34

Exactly, but what is the value of saying that science can’t confirm something? It doesn’t mean anything at all.
It doesn’t matter what science “thinks”. It only matters what it can proves and everything else is irrelevant.

To say that science cannot disprove or confirm something is just an empty sentence that has no value.

35

It does.

It prevents facebook “scientists” who proclaim dumb things like “genre and sex are social constructs” to be taken seriously by peers.

It merely means that the scientific world acknowledge it is limited by it’s technology and other things.

It just means, if we cannot disprove it, then there’s a possibility it may, until we are sufficiently advanced to discover if it’s yes, or no.

Saying like you do, that something doesn’t exist until it’s discovered is just the opposite of the method, it just close doors to genuine possibilities, discoveries, in favour of personal beliefs.

Again. I’m not making it up, it’s literally how it works and is established :laughing: You can write to Science™ or Nature™ or National Geographic™ or any recognized scientific publishers

That YOU disagree with established science, but…

They may not take you seriously.

Again:

1 Like
36

It means “we don’t know”. And that’s also a useful information.

2 Likes
37

Best summary.

1 Like
38

I wanted to write a similar thing but I didn’t want to kick an anthill :stuck_out_tongue:

1 Like
39

Well, it depends on what you mean by “we”. Because I certainly wouldn’t see current science as a unified whole.
This is beautifully illustrated by the current events surrounding UAP. Even science is politically influenced. Grants are not given on certain topics at all. These topics can then be done by independent scientists at most as an overnight hobby.

And the fact that there’s possibility of something just because current science doesn’t have the answer has really no value at all.
The world does not need science to exist on its own.

40

It’s a problem with ppl, not with scientific method.
Science, math, a gun aren’t good or bad. But they can be used by good or bad ppl.

Stating what we don’t know is the first step on a road to discovery.

True. But we need science to try to understand the world.

1 Like