September 2016

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
        1 2 3
4 5 6 7 8 9 10
11 12 13 14 15 16 17
18 19 20 21 22 23 24
25 26 27 28 29 30  

Subscribe

« Pray for Groups? (Video) | Main | Thinking about God »

February 02, 2010

Comments

Hmm.

Well if the aliens showed up, and they never heard of Jesus, does this mean Christians should convert them?

What if they are smarter than us?

For fun, try to think about which genomes (or other types of life forms) are worthy of your proselytizing resource, and which are not.

p.s. i think the evidence that aliens have walked on earth, is FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR FAR superior to the evidence that God walked on earth.

Living witnesses

Witnesses who have passed lie detector tests

Video footage

Radar surveillance

Widespread belief - 24% of Americans believe that Extraterrestrials have visited Earth (2005 Gallup Poll)

Quite reputable sources: (president Ronald Reagen & President jimmy carter - both freely admitted sightings. Astronaut Edgar Mitchell claims UFOs have given us technology and met with world leaders.)

This is much much MUCH better evidence than anything offered as proof that God visited earth.

So do I believe in UFO's?

nope.

there is no explanation for how life comes from non-life simply by pointing to multiple instances of it.

If we were to find a second non-DNA system we would not just 'point to it'. No, we'd study it. Having two examples to work with would very likely advance the study of the abiogenesis of both examples.

But I expect we'll have solution(s) by and by - with or without terrestrial ET's. This will change few individual minds of course, but it will fuel intergenerational attrition which is how things like this change anyway.

RonH

Tony said: "if the aliens showed up, and they never heard of Jesus, does this mean Christians should convert them?"

As God created all the universe then it is just as likely that they have heard of Jesus in some way. If they are "smarter" than us then they should be just as likely to acknowledge the God of creation.

Concerning evidence, Christianity holds up quite well in all your categories except perhaps radar.

From the article:

>>"Davies' call for alien-hunting scientists to look to their own backyards came as one of the pioneers of the search for extraterrestrial intelligence told the conference the job of finding proof of alien life in outer space may be more difficult than previously thought."

I like how they use "alien-hunting" and "scientist" in the same sentence...one even to modify the other.

>>"Frank Drake, who conducted the first organized search for alien radio signals in 1960, said that the Earth -- which used to pump out a loud mess of radio waves, television signals and other radiation -- has been steadily getting quieter as its communications technology improves."

As if this is all-of-a-sudden a sort bad thing...since the aliens might not hear us now. Oh....my....goodness.

"Very soon we will become very undetectable," he said. If similar processes were taking place in other technologically advanced societies, then the search for them "will be much more difficult than we imagined."

A genuine "aw, shucks" situation we have going on here.

The thought that some of our tax dollars are going out in the form of grants for this and perpetuating this mentality is grossly offensive...yet, still better than shelling it out to Planned Parenthood.

Tony,
I find it ironic that you cite as evidence for aliens on earth:

- Living witnesses
- Witnesses who have passed lie detector tests
- Video footage
- Radar surveillance
- Widespread belief
- reputable sources

I'm amazed that you then proceed to discount Christ even though Paul and Luke quote similar evidence:
- living witnesses
- eye witnesses
- reliable sources
- widespread belief

Or would you be perfectly ok with people living say 500 years from now discounting all your cited evidence and perhaps even stating that you didn't exist?

Melinda's point is that the leap to the conclusion that multiple origins of life (for which there is no evidence, by the way)would argue against miraculous origin simply does not follow logically or scientifically. It is just someone pushing their presupposition and trying to cloak it in the authority of Science without being scientific.

It gets us no closer to knowing how life began but it certainly might inspire a novelist.

William,
To say it 'gets us no closer' is going too far. It's not only seeing multiple origins. It's getting to examine the details of them.

All,
Look, can somebody please explain this 'authority' thing to me? What is it with y'all and 'authority'?

RonH

William and kpolo,

Is it safe to assume that you believe that we've been visited by aliens?

RonH,
Regarding "authority" - don't you have a source that you trust as an expert on something? For many people, that trust is in "science." I use scare quotes because it is not the scientific experiments themselves that people trust as authoritative, it is the interpretation of the results of the scientific experiments that people trust (i.e. rely on as authoritative). These interpretations are not science, but people trust them because scientist are popularly thought to only divulge factual information. In reality, much of what is called "science" is actually an interpretation of certain data to fit the existing accepted paradigm (in this case, some form of naturalism).
Does that help?

ToNy,

So, why don't you believe in UFOs? (And technically everyone believes UFOs exist)

Jesus said somewhere,"Other sheep I have, who are not of this fold". Also, the parable of the lost sheep might suggest that there are other unfallen races.

Joe,
Just because we both cite eye-witness testimony does not mean what is being testified to is equally true.

The apostles and early Christians paid with their life for what they believed. They stood to gain absolutely nothing and theirs was a society (Jewish belief) where a messiah who would die and be resurrected was completely alien.

Not so with UFOs. I find it strange that a majority of UFO sightings are in America where people have a great fascination with the subject and are thus predisposed to such sightings.

Kpolo,

Yeah, that's what I expected.

You take the eye-witness testimony you like and/or when it supports your "predispositions", and you reject the testimony that you don't like and/or when it supports something that you don't believe.

Even one of the eyewitnesses appealed to a more sure authority, here is his thought on the subject.

2Pe 1:16 For we did not follow cleverly devised myths when we made known to you the power and coming of our Lord Jesus Christ, but we were eyewitnesses of his majesty. 2Pe 1:17 For when he received honor and glory from God the Father, and the voice was borne to him by the Majestic Glory, “This is my beloved Son,[fn9] with whom I am well pleased,”
2Pe 1:18 we ourselves heard this very voice borne from heaven, for we were with him on the holy mountain. 2Pe 1:19 And we have something more sure, the prophetic word, to which you will do well to pay attention as to a lamp shining in a dark place, until the day dawns and the morning star rises in your hearts, 2Pe 1:20 knowing this first of all, that no prophecy of Scripture comes from someone's own interpretation.
2Pe 1:21 For no prophecy was ever produced by the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit.

Verse 19 elevates revelation above evidence or human experience of any kind.

Justin,

If I want to know what it's like on the other side of the mountain I either have to go there myself or ask someone who's been: What's there?

If I can't make the trip then I'm stuck with the reports of those who have made it. A single report is not enough. People make mistakes. They lie. Relying on one report could be committing the epistemological sin you are pointing out: excessive reliance on authority.

But multiple reports are another matter. Suppose reports come back from the other side of the mountain from countless independent sources. Suppose these reporters are not merely independent, but actual competitors - so that one could contradict the other for profit. Suppose they look all over the territory on the other side of the mountain using a wide variety of independent methods of investigation. Suppose finally, that they point consistently to the same fundamental Conclusion about the lands on the other side of the mountain.

Supposing all these things then: There comes a time when...

...accepting that Conclusion is NOT mere reliance on authority,...

...and denying that conclusion can no longer be classed as critical thinking because such a denial implies conspiracy and dishonesty rampant among the reporters such as the world has never (elsewhere) dreamed of.

Now forget the mountain. Before you dismiss evolution as 'interpretation' you ought to take the time to know the fundamentals of it inside and out. Then spend some more time: get an appreciation for the breath, depth, variety and level of detail of the evidence. Find out what progress has looked like over the history of the field. Find out what the disputes have been settled and what disputes exist today. This will be time well spent compared to time spent learning to parrot and riff on apologetic tropes like 'materialistic suppositions'.

RonH

A zillion instances of life arising independently wouldn't shed any light whatsoever on the question of where-did-it-all-come-from?

Maybe so Mike. Fine. Be that way.

But doesn't the zillion pieces of evidence for the common ancestry of humans and chimps already shed some light on the question of where-did-Adam-come-from?

Ron

kpolo, william,

>> I'm amazed that you then proceed to discount Christ even though Paul and Luke quote similar evidence:
- living witnesses
- eye witnesses
- reliable sources
- widespread belief


so kpolo, william, since this type of evidence is so convincing, do you guys believe aliens have visited earth?

BEH,

>> So, why don't you believe in UFOs?

no i do not believe aliens have visited earth and talked to people.

i would need a fantastic amount of evidence to believe as such.

same with the notion that jesus visited earth.

oops, i meant "god visited earth."

Brad B,

"Verse 19" doesn't really change things.

Whether or not a given alleged event fulfills an alleged prophecy still depends on the reports, interpretations and reliability of eyewitnesses to the alleged fulfillment. We're still relying on the words of humans. And humans tend to see what they want to see and to interpret the vague words of sacred writings as the wish to interpret them. They might also be tempted to creatively describe event so as to match a particular interpretation of a particular prophecy.

In other words, believing in re-aminated corpses while rejecting aliens is still just a question of which eyewitnesses you chose to believe and which eyewitnesses you chose to reject. It all still rests on plain old human experience and human behavior and which witness testimonies you like and which testimonies you don't like.

Wrong--O Joe. Christians have taken man out of it. Why else do you always hear us claiming distinctions regarding subjective and objective truths? Rational deduction from necessary truths or premises yeild reliable truth.

Your system cannot produce any trustworthy knowledge--at all. The system of knowing by evidence is subjective, and your system of reality[naturalism] limits the scope of investigation by subjective determination. There isn't even an honest attempt at finding truth because the first thing that ought to happen is that your epistemological systems ought to at least pass their own tests for truth.

You can make statements like you did above, but it yeilds skepticism which descends to abusurdity...like poor ToNy exibits. It's really ironic that people like you portray the Christian worldview as you do when it is your undying devotion to an irrational, incoherent system that ought to distress you as you hoped your comments would do Christians. Who's really the one with the blind faith? I mean really!

ToNy,

Why a 'fantastic' level of proof (about ufos)? Are you that concerned about being wrong? I would have thought that you would rather be hopeful that they would help bring about the advances in technology you want.

will,

>>Concerning evidence, Christianity holds up quite well in all your categories except perhaps radar.

Living witnesses - yours are all dead

Witnesses who have passed lie detector tests - you have no lie detector test data

Video footage - you have no video

Radar surveillance - you have no radar

Widespread belief - you do have widespread belief - Though ONLY 24% of Americans believe their religion is the "one true faith leading to eternal life." So i'm thinking, that is about the number of Americans who take the notion that "Jesus was God" seriously. Else, why would they dismiss his claims. (2008 Pew Forum survey - 35,000 Americans age 18 and older) Additionally, not all of that 24% in the poll were Christian - some were Muslims for example. So I actually have more alien believers than you have 'jesus was god' believers (e.g. "24% of Americans believe that Extraterrestrials have visited Earth".(2005 Gallup Poll)) So I win here too.

Quite reputable sources - There are some pretty good sources claiming that a man named jesus used to live in the middle east. but i can't think of any reputable sources that have witnessed god visiting earth.

"Christians have taken man out of it."

Umm, I think that your witnesses are men, yes? And your writers of sacred texts are men and your interpreters are men and so on. Your beliefs are based on the statements of men. Your evidence consists of the statements of men. Your faith is in men.

You haven't taken men out of the equation at all.

As for irrational and incoherent, well, that's a pretty good description of most of theology.

Hi Joe, ummm NO, our witnesses aren't men, it's the Word of God.

The Christian worldview IS coherent, you disregard our first principle, but at least we can demonstrate coherence and account for[justify] the necessary preconditions for knowledge in the first place which your systems only assume while denying their authority. Talk about irrational and incoherent, if I were you I'd be quiet about that for fear of being exposed.

Brad,
My 'worldview' doesn't 'assume' any 'necessary preconditions' while 'denying their 'authority'.

Why? Because I don't claim what you assume I claim. I always always, accept the possibility, however slim, that anything I believe may be wrong. All I have is a collection of models of the world in which I have varying degrees of confidence. (Include that statement.) I don't claim, as you assume, that any of them are ultimately right.

Yes, I have enough confidence in some of my models that I use them to get through my day. If you bump up against some them I'll refute you. I'll make no apology for that. But make no mistake I don't really claim to Know only to know.

Try actually getting something done using that authority/necessary precondition/blah-blah-blah stuff.

RonH

All the talk concerning aliens still doesn't refute the simple demonstrated fact that Shostak makes a statement concerning origin of life that has no basis in science or logic. He is applying presuppositions and hoping that his authority as a scientist will convince people. I noticed that the Fox broadcaster didn't really know how to handle the assertions.

Concerning evidence I admitted we don't have radar. We do have video. Video documentation of Christians delivering aid during Katrina, or to Haiti or innumerable other areas, Christians ministries such as World Vision, Salvation Army the list would be very long. These are all evidence of Christ present with us. Living Christians will testify to this. It should be said that the witnesses who have died are to Christians not ultimately dead either. Regardless, I believe the truth of a matter does not cease to exist because everyone who witnessed it is dead.

I guess I don't know of any lie detector tests but I do know of people who have gone to their death confessing Christ which is a pretty powerful testimony.

Joe said: "Your faith is in men."

That certainly is not Christian theology.

RonH,

Do I understand that you are denying that you assume any necessary preconditions to hold knowledge? Isn't your statement "But make no mistake I don't really claim to Know only to know." just such a precondition?

"It's the Word of God."

No, it's words written by humans who claim it's the Word of God. You keep wanting to escape the role of humans in all of this, but you can't. Your witnesses are human witnesses just like the UFO believer's witnesses.

As far as "accounting for the necessary preconditions", and "authority", etc., yeah, I can make up stuff like this, too. But I don't find such activities very satisfying. And if you think that concepts such as the Trinity are rational and coherent, well then, I guess you have a different definition for these terms.

In any event, this seems to have strayed far from the original post. Tony's is right. There is far more evidence for alien visitation than for the re-animation of corpses, and yet you reject the former and base your life on the latter. For the record, I don't think we've been visited by aliens, but I'm fascinated by the way in which people believe what they want to believe.

RonH,

Why would you "always, always" accept the possibility you could be wrong about anything? I mean, it sounds like overkill to me. Do you accept the possibility that you could be a dog having an odd dream? Do you accept the possibility that you could be a Martian disguised as a human being, who has simply forgotten why you are here? In short, to 'always, always' keep in mind that anything you believe could be wrong just seems like overdoing it. Aren’t there some things basic enough to accept as real?
Why not believe something and take the chance of being proven wrong? What do you gain by such extreme agnosticism?

"That certainly is not Christian theology."

Yeah, but it's reality.

Let's see what happens when we change a few words....

"Concerning evidence I admitted we don't have radar. We do have video. Video documentation of Mormons delivering aid during Katrina, or to Haiti or innumerable other areas, Mormon ministries such as (fill in the blank), the list would be very long. These are all evidence of the truth of the Book of Mormon. Living Mormons will testify to this. It should be said that the witnesses who have died are to Mormons not ultimately dead either. Regardless, I believe the truth of a matter does not cease to exist because everyone who witnessed the golden tablets is dead."

So, are you convinced that Joseph Smith was right?

(Obviously, one could do the same type of thing with Islam and Mohammed.)

Joe said: "I guess you have a different definition for these terms."

A distinct possibility. It it always important to establish definitions if you hope to advance understanding.

"It it always important to establish definitions."

Now, here we strongly agree.

So Joe,

In the face of video, radar, and eye witness testimony (former presidents no less), why do you rule out the possibility of extraterrestrials coming here?

It does not conflict with your worldview, there is no reason to believe life could not have evolved on other planets if it evolved here, and if technology can continue to increase at an exponential rate we may soon be able to do things that were once believed to be impossible, like actually physically searching the universe for other advanced life. Nano-tech, once the bugs were worked out of it (assuming they can be) would potentially allow for a true search for alien life since each probe could itself build more probes. We launch one, it builds two more, they each build two and so on. (much smarter then trying to build them all yourself) If alien life is more advanced then we are (a given for the idea of flying saucers) then they may well have this technology down, thus all they would need would be time, which evolution would allow them plenty. Further, if alien life did find us, then observation would be expected. They might well have reasons, benign or otherwise, for not wishing to announce themselves openly.

Let us suppose a famous scientist is about to die and is preparing his last will and testament. It takes effect when he dies. We interpret what he says in his testament in a different way than we would interpret his research papers. A scientist doing his work is offering hypotheses to be tested; those that are not rejected can be added to theory, but any theory is always on probation and has to be discarded or revised if new facts come up that are inconsistent with its predictions.

But we treat his testament in a different way. We test the document as a whole against a standard as to what constitutes a valid testament, but once that test is met, that is all the testing we do. We accept the authority of the scientist in regard to the disposition of his property.

Now with Scripture we have two Testaments that purport to be the will of Someone. Any document that even purports to be the will of someone deserves attention. Again, we apply the test as to whether it is a valid testament, which is a separate matter than assessing the validity of what the testament says.

Joe seems to be on a mission to display all forms of his internal incoherence by contradicting himself and his worldview. I'm glad to see that others have noticed and inspected him regarding that issue. So Joe, if you think that the Christian doctrine of the Trinity is incoherent and irrational, this proves that you have no real understanding of these words and their normal meaning. Christianity is a thinking persons faith, dont bother trying to dispute it unless you are willing to rigorously and logically inspect it's claims. If ever you do, you'll never defame our worldview again.

Hi RonH, you admit then that you are willing to only have an approximation in what can be known, but you really have no justifiable reason to not go all the way to skepticism like Hume or Kant. Bertrand Russell tried to rescue impericism, but failed because of it's internal incoherence. Logic is a harsh taskmaster, either be honest and go all the way, or accept the fact that you've been exposed as someone who oughtn't be listened to. Now, I'm not trying to discourage you, rather hoping for you to abandon the unreliable worldview you've been relying on. It has been exposed after all.

The Christain worldview reflects reality as men experience it most closely. Because it gives us reasons to trust some experience, we can then rationally deduce reasons to trust other expereinces. Wherever experience contradicts revelation, the Word of God is held in higher authority. Men are broken, if we weren't there'd be no reason for apologetics since we'd all think in agreement with the revealed Word. If it is the Word of God, it is to be believed on whatever it speaks on.

"Wherever experience contradicts revelation, the Word of God is held in higher authority."

Well, there you have it then. God said it, I believe it, that settles it. The thinking man's faith.

BEH,

Do you accept the possibility that you could be a dog having an odd dream?

Only in the most hypothetical way.

Why not believe something and take the chance of being proven wrong?

I have lots of beliefs. I'm sure I share many with you.

What do you gain by such extreme agnosticism?

First, it's not extreme. I know lots of people with the same views. I get along very well in the world and so do they. Second, I call it modern or modern skepticism (Paul Kurtz) not agnosticism. It is a kind of conservatism, actually. It pays off frequently actually. And you would probably agree in most cases.

WW,

Do I understand that you are denying that you assume any necessary preconditions to hold knowledge? Isn't your statement "But make no mistake I don't really claim to Know only to know." just such a precondition?

The Christian apologetics crowd sees self-defeating statements everywhere. It's a fetish I think.

RonH

"Why do you rule out the possibility of extraterrestrials coming here?"

I believe that you misunderstood.

I did not and do not rule out the possibility. Of course, it's possible, but I think that the evidence present is insufficient to support the claim. There are several reasons why I conclude that the evidence is insufficient, but my point here is to correct a misunderstanding.

RonH,

"I have lots of beliefs. I'm sure I share many with you."

You are most likely right.

skepticism is probably a better term for this case since I was not going for religious overtones.

How closely do you base your skepticism on the works of Paul Kurtz?

Joe,

"I did not and do not rule out the possibility. Of course, it's possible"

OK.

"There are several reasons why I conclude that the evidence is insufficient"

Really? What are your reasons?

Well, let me try to keep this as short as possible.

First, I respect the opinions of very knowledgeable, well-informed intelligent people who would be thrilled to find evidence of alien life and who yet find the evidence totally unconvincing. Carl Sagan is the classic example, but there are plenty of others who fit the description.

Second, given that technology and level of civilization required to pull off what appears to be a near-impossible feat would have to be almost beyond imagining, I find it very difficult to believe that such a civilization would travel across the incredibly vast expanse of space just to shine a few lights in our eyes and anally probe some goober in a corn field in Iowa. Seriously, does this make any sense at all? Who or what would cross interstellar space just to make a crop circle?

Third, while it’s not impossible that we’ve been visited by alien civilizations, I think the chances of this happening are vanishingly small. So, when one examines the evidence with an eye towards explanation, one has to consider if it’s more likely that the observed events are due to aliens or more likely that the events have a more mundane explanation. We know that atmospheric conditions can play tricks with lights, we know that humans can create frauds, we know that humans can be deluded or confused or misinterpret what they see. So, what’s more likely? Aliens? Or atmospherics, fraud and mental hiccups?

Don’t get me wrong. I think that many of the people who report elaborate and detailed encounters with aliens really believe what they are saying (although some are obviously charlatans). “Witnesses” often suffer much abuse for their claims and yet they stick to their stories. I just think that it’s much more likely that what they encountered took place inside their heads and not in their digestive tracts.

Now, if someone could show me a piece of technology far beyond what we can build or show me an alien body or anything else that can’t possibly have a boring explanations, then maybe we’d have something. But so far, we have no spaceships, no ray guns, no bodies, and no one asking to be taken to our leaders.

Finally, I learned my lesson as a teenager when I bought into Von Daniken’s “Chariots of the Gods” nonsense hook, line and sinker. Fool me once, etc.

“The critical issue is the quality of the purported evidence, rigorously and skeptically scrutinized. By this standard there are no compelling cases of extraterrestrial visitation, despite all the claims of UFOs and ancient astronauts which sometimes make it seem that our planet is awash in uninvited guests. I wish it were otherwise.” - Carl Sagan

Say RonH if it's ok, could you share with me, you're top evidences and arguements for atheism and naturalism? ToNy gave me his not too long ago and they were pretty good, I was wondering if you could add to anything that he gave? Thanks for your time.

RonH,
When I answered your question, I thought you were genuinely asking a question about what people meant when they brought up "authority."
I get your point. There are a lot of scientists who claim that evolution from a common ancestor is undeniable. I think, however, that this fact is not surprising when the only answers they will consider are naturalistic causes.
I'm sure you're very familiar with the amount of information on DNA, etc. I just find it a little disconcerting that someone would look at that amount of information (enough to fill volumes upon volumes of books) and think "Designer? No way!"
No one seems to look at information in any other facet of life that I can think of through that kind of skeptical lens. We usually pretty readily accept that where there is complex information, there is intelligence behind it. (And, it doesn't even have to be all that complex, actually. . .) Why do you think that is?

Way to go Joe.
As I recall this was a pretty good book on the psychology of the issue.

Abducted: How People Come to Believe They Were Kidnapped by Aliens


by Susan A. Clancy


RonH

RonH wrote:

"The Christian apologetics crowd sees self-defeating statements everywhere. It's a fetish I think."

LOL... There is a kernel of truth in that and I like the psychological humor it was wrapped in. Cheers!

And I wonder why we are tuned to such a skill?

Joe,

Have to admit I’m not all that impressed with this list.

First: smart people told me so.
OK.
Second: Near impossible technical feat.

Well maybe, maybe not. Our own technology is said to be expanding exponentially with no obvious end in sight. Also our space program has moved away from the idea of manned space flight to unmanned space flight. It seems most likely that an alien race would use unmanned probes to explore large numbers of worlds and only personally examine the ones that were determined to have life. We already believe we have been able to spot planets in other solar systems by monitoring wobbles in the rotations of nearby stars. There is even hope we will be able to determine the atmosphere of other worlds by examining the star’s spectrum. If we can do this stuff now or in the near future why would it be beyond the ability of a different advanced species? If faster than light travel is truly impossible and such trips would take hundreds or thousands of years then sleeper ships could be used or possibly the aliens are cloned and created on site. ToNy has suggested the idea that we may be reaching the point where our bio-tech could slow down the aging process and extend human life, so to a truly advanced race time may not be so important. They might well plan things in terms of hundreds or thousands of years.

Why come all the way to mess up a field? Well we don’t know they did that. A lot of sightings are just that sightings of things in the sky. I do have to wonder though what the fish would have to say when they see us drop in on them in a deep sea submersible. “Any advanced species would have better things to do then come all this way to peer at us and capture specimens so obviously you all are just in my head.”

Third: you think the chances are ‘vanishingly small’
OK, not a lot to go on with that one.

There are fakes reports: true, but you run into this in just about everything, ToNy brought up the subject of lie-detectors, and radar records.
Mistakes: Some no doubt are, but is it fair to assume they all are based upon that?

Lack of physical evidence: Well since I doubt they are going to be going around handing out ray guns…

Chariots of the Gods: A book misrepresented facts so that’s it.
That might be it for that book, or that author; but a lot of stuff remains unexplained, stuff he did not create. Would you flat out reject modern medicine because a peddler once sold you snake oil?
It is too bad though, dishonest people take a lot of the fun out of it.

"Have to admit I’m not all that impressed with this list."

So it goes. Believe as you wish.

"The Christian apologetics crowd sees self-defeating statements everywhere. It's a fetish I think."

Well, excuuuuuse us for wanting to have a little precision on what actually classifies as "knowledge". It's really shocking to me how little this matters to you RonH, with all the fact slinging and logic lingo coming from you. If I had a nickle for every time I saw you write "I didn't make a claim, or it's your burden to prove", I'd have.... well at least 50 cents or so ;). Anyway it seems like you really have shown that you aren't interested in knowledge or Knowledge, I wonder why you spend time on a blog discussing things.

Joe,
"So it goes. Believe as you wish."

I just thought that since such a big deal was being made against alien it meant you had an open and shut case on the subject. Or more properly; that you had a system to determine the appropriate amount of proof needed to support a particular claim. An amount of proof the ufos fell clearly short of.

The comments to this entry are closed.