Dr Jack Sarfatti on Coast2Coast

General UFO stories

Moderators: ryguy, chrLz, Zep Tepi

Postby wetsystems » Mon Aug 27, 2007 6:55 pm

dan wrote:Wet,

I have offered many plausibility arguments relative to the God question.

If you are sincere in your desire to dialog, you might take a few moments of your valuable time to review and list some of those arguments previously given in such profusion.

You could then choose a few for further discussion.



Plausibility (or even probability- is not proof, Dan. 'The Plausible' is a bastard child of the 'Possible.' Assumption (presupposition) of either is error and is precisely the error that leads us to our current impasse. 'Plausibility,' being entirely derivative of possibility, never requires argument- so why waste your time? What we seek here is 'necessity,' no? Necessity is apperceived by rational analysis. Categoregorical Iimperatives need not apply. Even for minimum wage. No shoes, no shirts, no service- so to speak.

As a builder I'd advise you thus: never build a structure with an inadequate foundation. It is sure to fail in the first windstorm. It doesn't require a rocket scientist to Uncover that Reality.

And it looks like this dialogue will have to continue only here at RU. Bren has seen fit to ban me, yet again, for posing these very questions. Old Trots ain't what they used to be, apparently.

Vaya con carne, amigos.
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain


Postby dan » Mon Aug 27, 2007 8:36 pm

I find theism to be more plausible than scientific materialism.

I am biased, however, toward a coherence theory of truth, as opposed to a representational theory.

That would be the most natural point of departure for a discussion.

dan
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 10:41 am
Location: maryland

Postby wetsystems » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:00 pm

dan wrote:I find theism to be more plausible than scientific materialism.

I am biased, however, toward a coherence theory of truth, as opposed to a representational theory.

That would be the most natural point of departure for a discussion.



Certainly theism is plausible- and even attractive. Dualism is the natural inclination of the fearful perplexed. But of all views it is the most requiring proof. Don't you agree? Where's the beef?
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Postby dan » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:12 pm

If you would spend five minutes on the BPW site, you would save us hours of preliminary misunderstandings on your part.

Are you implying I am a dualist? I’m nothing of the kind.

dan
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 10:41 am
Location: maryland

Postby wetsystems » Mon Aug 27, 2007 9:15 pm

dan wrote:If you would spend five minutes on the BPW site, you would save us hours of preliminary misunderstandings on your part.

Are you implying I am a dualist? I’m nothing of the kind.



Theists are dualists by definition. One is either God or a creation of God. Theists incline towards the latter. The Creator is opposed to her creation. Hence dualism. There is no escaping this unless one accedes to pantheism which you claim to reject. Why- I don't know. Spinoza was a pretty bright guy too. Perhaps it has to do with the messianism which you've made central to your theology. But at best this yields a trinitarianism, further mucking up the pot- although in the trinity we at least have a dialectical analogy which to my mind comes closer to truth since it requires process in the Platonist/ Whiteheadian sense.
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Postby dan » Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:07 pm

Most theists are dualists, but many significant ones are not.

Surprise! I am one of those who are not.

Am I going to have to give you a remedial course in the history of theism?

dan
Clearly Discerns Reality
Clearly Discerns Reality
 
Posts: 577
Joined: Tue May 15, 2007 10:41 am
Location: maryland

Postby wetsystems » Mon Aug 27, 2007 10:18 pm

Am I going to have to give you a remedial course in the history of theism?


spare me
And I should remark that I am saving my insults for Toon for "just the right time" when I will strike at his soft, white underbelly for maximum damage and humiliation. Ray Hudson 2007
User avatar
wetsystems
Focused on Reality
Focused on Reality
 
Posts: 316
Joined: Sat Jun 30, 2007 8:19 pm
Location: uncertain

Postby Springer » Fri Aug 31, 2007 2:10 am

caryn wrote:In a nutshell – yes!

Actually, I might have upset a couple of people. For clarification, I wasn’t directing my comments at RU – I still believe this is one of the most balanced forums; I was referring to the UFO community in general.

The UFO scene doesn’t inspire me. I find the lack of analytical skills and perspicacity, generally in this field, exasperating. And that’s coming from someone who’s an advocate of the ‘phenomenal’ world….sounds a bit arrogant I guess – but how else to put it?

I’ll be staying in touch with a few friends I’ve made whilst here, via email and phone.


Hi Caryn,

The lack of perspicaciousness in the "field" is not that hard to fathom considering the facts...

What do we have that anyone with genuine analytical skills could call REAL EVIDENCE? NOTHING that's what.

What do we have as a majority of the "testimony"?

The transcripts of the paraphrenic, FRAUDS/CHARLATANS, psychotic, delusional, and genuine.

Unfortunately this list is in order of magnitude by virtue of percentage. That's PITIFUL! And and near useless except for the last entry. The GENUINE.

It's the Genuine that keep me coming back and cause me to spend our LLC's capital on getting them a REAL VOICE all the while shutting DOWN or minimizing the voice of the rest of possible.

I'd HATE to see you leave the hunt for the truth, say it aint so cayn, say it aint so! :)

mark...
Never argue with an idiot. He'll only take you DOWN to his level and beat you with experience!
Springer
Member
 
Posts: 404
Joined: Tue May 30, 2006 10:36 pm
Location: Indian Territory

Previous

Google

Return to UFOs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 13 guests

cron