Jipsah
Blood Drinker
- Aug 17, 2005
- 12,284
- 3,668
- 70
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- Anglican
- Marital Status
- Married
- Politics
- US-Others
As opposed to the wealth of hard demonstrable evidence everyone else is setting forth here, right? <Laugh> OK, FWIW, I've seen at least 3 flying things that I couldn't identify. That appears to make my opinion at least as credible as yours. But I'll stand by my logic, which tells me that fantastic phenomena are usually the product of an active imagination paired with sketchy observation.You've given us nothing but seemingly uniformed personal opinions.
And I'd be forced to ask you the same thing. Why believe in your flying saucers? Because you say so? Not good enough.Why would we care what you're "betting" if you don't know what you're talking about?
Unless you've identified those hitherto unidentified flying things, I'll submit that my knowledge and expertise in that realm is a good as yours.Do you have any experience, knowledge or expertise in this subject area?
Really? A few hours ago you opined that no one at all believed what I do, but I've demonstrated that to be false. I expect that this latest contention of yours equally as presumptuous. Unless you're using the reverse logic, so that if you have to be a Believer before you can be considered to have the proper experience, knowledge or expertise. I expect that that is the case. "If you don't agree with me then you don't know." Sorry, not good enough.It apparently doesn't trouble you that precisely no one today who is knowledgeable about the phenomenon agrees with you.
I'm less than astonished to hear that. And you're all entitled to your opinions. But there's serious dearth of hard data there, isn't there? If we're still depending on "evidence" that's most commonly expressed as "I think they're space men/demons...", then I don't consider any of you an authority."All mundane objects"? "Simply explained"? I don't think so. More significantly, those with the vast depth of knowledge of J. Allen Hynek, Jacques Vallee and Jerome Clark don't think so.
Again, I'll say the same for you. What arcane knowledge do you possess that anyone else doesn't? You saw UFOs, and that's nice. I have, as well. On three separate occasions. I'm satisfied that there was a workaday explanation for all three. Do I know what that explanation is? No, else they wouldn't be UFOs, would they? But when I see something that (my favorite) "defies the laws of physics", I assume that my observation was faulty, knowing the laws of Physics to be the laws of God. The True Believer "knows" that it was the spacemen/demons are exempt from those laws, and therefore his observation can't (and must not be) faulted. Completely different perspective.The puzzle to me is why people say things such as this when they clearly aren't knowledgeable about what is a complex, multi-faceted phenomenon and their uninformed opinions are completely at odds with the opinions of those who are far better informed and more qualified. What's the point?
In any case, you're saying in effect that I must accept your views of the nature of UFOs on authority. I deny the authority.
First I deny the comparison as nonsense. Apart from that, belief in God and the supernatural must be based of faith. I have faith that God exists, and that Christianity is true. But if you're asking me to accept that flying saucers, driven by non-human beings, exist, then telling me to have faith isn't just inadequate, it's ridiculous. They're there or they ain't. If I'm to believe that they're there it's gonna take more than telling me that everyone but me believes it, especially when I'm about 99.23875% sure that isn't true.What you are doing is pretty much exactly what atheists do with believers: "I may not know anything about Christianity, but I do know it's all nonsense and only credulous dummies believe it."
You're trying to teach your grandmother to ingest raw eggs here, mate. If I hadn't known what it meant I wouldn't have used it. You lot are offering a bizzaro, supernatural, extraterrestrial "answer" to a question, and I'm arguing for a simple one. You have no evidence for your beliefs, so I'm content with Sir William's principle being appropriate here. If the first argument someone puts forth looks like it was designed by Jules Verne working in conjunction with Rube Goldberg, then they're gonna have to support with something better than an argument by authority if they expect me to buy in.BTW, I think you misunderstand Occam's Razor. The point of Occam's Razor is that explanations should not be made unnecessarily complicated. All things being equal, the least-complicated explanation is to be preferred - but isn't inevitably correct.
The "evidence" of grainy pictures of God knows what, people's whose accounts begin with "I woke up and..."? Or people who say "I don't know what it was, but nothing made by man can do that", who should have left off with "was". Of people who "know" that anything they see in the air that they can't immediately recognize is a demon. That kind of "evidence"? That's evidence? Am I to believe in the Loch Ness Monster or the Cottingley Fairies as well? Sorry, I'll pass.You're not addressing the evidence at all - more like putting your head in the sand.
Oh, I don't know about that. Seems to me that a UFO turning out to be an airplane or Venus or a staple in the picture (a famous "UFO" picture, forsooth). or just a fraud is a lot simpler than demons or spacemen. Unless demons and spacemen are a lot commoner where you are than here.There is nothing inherently simpler about your pseudo-explanation ("all mundane objects," which is clearly incorrect anyway) than demons, aliens or any of the other speculation that has been offered.
So that may actually be what's wrong with my car! And the mechanics keep insisting that it's the transmission..."Demons" would be quite a simple and straightforward explanation that actually fits much of the evidence quite nicely and is entirely consistent with Christian theology.
Sorry mate, no flying saucers, driven by either spacemen or demons. Then again, I'm from Missouri (OK, Tennessee, but it's just across the river) and I'm willing to be shown. But you have to have something to show. Evidence has to be evidence, not "everybody knows" or "you have to have faith".
Last edited:
Upvote
0