In some ways, it never really lived, in the manner you’d expect from public testimonies like this one.1
On Wednesday, Defense Department spokeswoman Susan Gough issued a statement saying the Pentagon’s inquiries had not turned up “any verifiable information to substantiate claims that any programs regarding the possession or reverse-engineering of extraterrestrial materials have existed in the past or exist currently,” as The Associated Press reports.
Grusch also alleged that the U.S. has retrieved “non-human” biological matter from the pilots of the crafts, adding, “That was the assessment of people with direct knowledge on the [UAP] program I talked to, that are currently still on the program.”
Whoa, really? That’s amazing! Tell how many fingers and toes they had, Dave, and what kind of junk they were packing downstairs. Give us the deets, man.
And where are these professional assessors of extraterrestrial thingyjawhoozitz? Are they planning some dramatic courtroom entrance, worthy of a prime time Dick Wolf spinoff?
While he refrained from sharing any further information in the public hearing, Grusch offered to disclose details behind closed doors.
Grusch said he hasn’t personally seen any alien vehicles or alien bodies, and that his opinions are based on the accounts of over 40 witnesses he interviewed over four years in his role with the UAP task force.
Oh.
Well then. I guess never mind.
And we didn’t mind. Maybe Joe Rogan did. George Knapp of course minded, enough to show up in one of the more recent hearings where spectacular claims were met with yawns and shrugs.
There are other people who continue to mind. Jeremy Corbell, and Nick Pope and the rest of that crowd. Graham Hancock, too, and Jacques Vallée, although they approach the “aliens” problem from radically different angles. Even this guy made an appearance, to regale us all with one of the more novel theories of origin making the rounds.
(Transcript)
“I’m known for advocating this idea that UFOs and aliens are actually time-traveling future human descendants. I wouldn’t even say ‘as opposed to extraterrestrials,’ because I do think that’s a component too. I often times get pigeonholed. People are like, ‘Oh, you just think they’re all time travelers.’ I don’t… I do think there’s a lot going on.
But my background, and the reason I approach this question this way is because there’s a lot of characteristics of these ‘aliens’ that look so hominid. They look just like us. And specifically what we’d expect to see in our future if the same evolutionary trends continue.”
Well, you know, that’s just, like, your opinion, man.
That’s sort of what the Joe Rogan Experience has become; a clearinghouse for exotic opinions based on murky evidence and conjecture. The guest comes on to retail said opinion to the widest conceivable audience and sell books. And also, obviously, to boost their general visibility and clout in the scatterbrained attention economy. The Dude abides.
That’s the cynical take, anyway. Probably the correct one; it’s a nasty old world full of fake and gay, and everyone’s chasing paper and applause. None of the men I listed are paupers, and they have fans lined up around the block to hear them pontificate on woo.
Are they also chasing the truth? And if so, how would they know they found it? What counts as indisputable proof, in a technological era where almost every kind of evidence can be convincingly fabricated, and institutional trust is swirling towards the bottom of the toliet bowl?
I’ve asked similar questions to several engineers working in AI. The ones who knew the same dirty little secret I do just smile and nod. They understand that they cannot “prove” consciousness, because that is a different category of question (and one that’s well above their pay grade). The rest tend to respond with a long, shocked pause, suggesting they’d never even thought about the problem this way.
If you keep on squeezing, the answers will tend to be some paraphrase of democratized actualization of being. If enough people believe the AI agent is a conscious intelligent being, and treat it that way, then it is. “I think you are, therefore you are.” So close your eyes and click your heels, Dorothy, baby. Just don’t peek behind that curtain.
It’s the same with UAPs and “aliens”, I think. Short a sky full of dancing pottery outside your window, what would count as proof for you, at this stage in the game? And even if you did witness that uncanny airshow, would that count as proof of “non-human biologics”, extraterrestrial or otherwise? How weird would it have to be to blow your conceptual framework to smithereens?
The videos above convey two drone swarms, programmed with dance moves designed to deliver thrills and chills.
The first video is apparently a recording of a real event, which was transmitted live via Disney+ (natch). The second video is an obvious fake.
Or is it so obvious?
Maybe it takes a trained eye to spot the problems (e.g. missing reflections, abnormal speed, uncanny movement, length of footage, etc). Or maybe it’s due to something more innate, and not conventionally trainable.
Either way, the differences between the real video and the fake aren’t so drastic to represent a category difference. Drones could certainly carry and deploy fireworks (and, by the proof of my own eyes, deploy smaller drones). Besides which, a slower, more believable version of the drone-dragon dance apparently did occur, likely used as a reference for the ML enhancement that included the dazzling ring of fire.
Still, I use the word “believable” instead of “realistic” to describe it. I was not, there, and do not know.
But even if I believe it, I also know these demonstrations of drone technology are only what the public is shown, and we should presume they lag significantly behind the military-industrial edge. By that, I don’t mean whatever dog-and-pony shows DARPA and their contractors spin up for their PR campaigns. I mean the skunkworks. I mean the stuff we’re really paying for, when the purchase order reads $7000 for a coffee maker, or $400 for a hammer.
Starting around November of 2024, a lot of us on the Northeastern seaboard began seeing a lot of strange action in the the night sky, including yours truly. I captured some of it on video, especially in the Spring of 2025. One regular phenomena was the appearance of mysterious silent craft, flying southbound sorties that traced the East River on a nightly basis. I once captured what appeared to be a car-sized object that deployed a much smaller flying object before both zoomed out of frame.
My assessments have tended towards experimental drones, but what do I know? Here is a sky full of weird shapes, moving at ludicrous speeds and/or in ridiculous ways. They exist. Fine. But what is their origin? What’s their nature?
More to the point, where is your proof of that origin and nature?
Which brings me to an article at A Lily Bit, which I stumbled across the other day. It’s not short (~6500 words), but I think it’s worth your time to read and absorb, regardless of whether you ultimately agree with its central premise.
As far as what that premise is, I think it could be summarized (though not fully explained) by the following passage (emphasis mine):
Consider the fundamental observation that, despite all the sightings, all the recovered materials (if recovered materials exist), all the alleged secret programs and crash retrievals and reverse engineering efforts, no definitive, publicly verifiable proof has ever emerged. Whistleblowers claim it exists. Officials deny it. The cycle repeats. But the craft are never wheeled out. The bodies are never displayed. The technology is never demonstrated in ways that would silence all skepticism permanently. Either an extraordinarily successful conspiracy has suppressed all such evidence for nearly eighty years across multiple nations and thousands of individuals—a level of operational security that would be unprecedented in human history—or something else is going on.
The phenomenon appears to want to be seen but not proven. It manifests in ways that are compelling to witnesses but frustratingly ambiguous when subjected to rigorous scrutiny. It leaves traces that are suggestive but never quite conclusive. It approaches without ever fully arriving. The six fishermen at Stralsund witnessed an extraordinary spectacle while the other ten thousand inhabitants of the city apparently noticed nothing.
Similar selectivity appears throughout the case literature: objects visible to some observers but not to others who should have had the same vantage point, radar returns that confirm visual sightings in some cases but not in others, photographs and videos that capture something anomalous but never quite enough to eliminate all alternative explanations. This pattern of selective manifestation, of elusive presence, suggests a phenomenon that is managing its own revelation, allowing itself to be glimpsed without allowing itself to be captured, maintaining control over the pace at which humanity becomes aware of its reality.
When responding in Note form to a comment left by the great Sasha Latypova, I tried to explain why I found this premise so compelling. I will draw heavily on that response here, and also try to flesh it out.
But before I do, I’d like to take a moment toask a favor.
This article, like 95% of my articles, includes no pay wall. The main reason I don’t usually apply one is that I write for others to read and respond. I want to engage with the minds out there, because I believe we are solving important mysteries together. I also feel obliged to give those who do support my work something extra.
At the same time, I get why it’s difficult to make commitments. So, I’ll make a deal with you.
For the next twelve days,I’m offering a 30% off discount for a year’s worth of paid subscriptions to TCWNF. New subscribers will pay $7.00 $4.90, while yearly subscribers will pay $60.00$42.00.
I’m pretty sure that’s less than the price of one processed double-cheeseburger per month. They are delicious, I know. But if you can see it in your heart to compensate your brother for his time and effort, you’ll have my eternal gratitude (not to mention a lot more words and group project ideas).
What I found most insightful about Lily’s article was the idea that the agents behind certain kinds of phenomena will actively resist being proven real via scientific process or measurement. For instance, when you read the following excerpt, absent any particular context or conceptual framework, what else does it remind you of?
The phenomenon appears to want to be seen but not proven. It manifests in ways that are compelling to witnesses but frustratingly ambiguous when subjected to rigorous scrutiny. It leaves traces that are suggestive but never quite conclusive. It approaches without ever fully arriving.
Before we go there, let’s return to everyone’s favorite karate-kicking pothead sophist for a moment.
I used to listen to Rogan’s show out of genuine interest, then later as background noise while performing tasks that were dull and rote. Now, whenever I stumble across a clip the algo spits out, I mainly tune in for the accidental comedy factor.
For example: in the following clip, a stoned-to-the-moon Rogan expounds on his recent introduction to the Book of Enoch.
To help unscramble this egg, I’ll stitch together a few bits and pieces of Joe’s & Co.’s manic, incoherent, and bro-tastically illiterate reading of this ancient and important text:
The Book of Enoch is nuts! It’s not just the Giants. It’s aliens… who came down and mated with human beings…
It’s bananas. They decided not to include it because it’s so nuts, and because it goes against, like, what the writings of the Torah… So, but it was a few rabbis. Just a few rabbis decided. That nixed it…
And the Book of Enoch is bananas. The Book of Enoch, it says that these Watchers came down and mated with human beings, and created a race of giants called the Nephilim who consumed and destroyed everything in front of them… Gee, that sounds a lot like people. If you got a bunch of little chimps, and then you got these tall aliens, and they make a fucking seven foot man… you know, a Viking, who’s like chopping off heads and lighting villages on fire…
So they’re not giants. We are the giants. And then what if the other folks- They might be gi- They might have been giants. Like it’s, it’s hard to say. But what if the other folks were the Neanderthals? Because there was a time where we’re living together, right?
Well, this, the question is like, where did humans come from? Yeah. This is the real question. There’s a really interesting show on PBS right now called Human, where this lady goes on this journey of, uh… It’s like she’s, uh… What is her degree in? Is she an anthropologist? I believe she’s an anthropologist. But, um, or maybe some sort of biologist. But anyway she, she goes over the history of the human species….
And, like, that these things are happening in an alternative dimension. I think they’re happening in an alternative dimension. Like when you smoke DMT, you return to the same place each time…
So, there seems to be some, some reality, some DMT world, uh, that people enter into. And it’s uh, one of my volunteers, uh, one of the, the subjects in the DMT research, he, he got a big dose one day, and then a few months later, he, got another big dose….
And he, he said that It was very interesting. He said things have just, you know, continued to pace since his first exposure, his first, you know, entrance into that state…. And things had, had, you know, gone on, uh, in the meantime, and he w- um, reentered, uh, you know, that world…
So, in that way, there’s, uh… You know, in that same manner, the world of the Hebrew Bible early on, Adam, Eve, Cain, Abel, Noah, the Tower of Babel, all that took place… at some, at some different level of reality, which gradually made its way into ours.
It goes on and on like that, with no suspicious mom or nosy dorm RA to put a stop to it. I guess one way to sum it up would be that seven foot Vikings and Neanderthals and aliens and Watchers and Giants and DMT elves and trans-dimensional realities and whatever the fuck are all, like, the same thing, man.
Here’s another way to describe it: model collapse.
Joe has too many models — too many conceptual frameworks — stuck in a collision state with each other. Some of these frames appear to superficially overlap in kaleidoscopic ways, and so he fruitlessy tries to unite them. The problem — aside from being zooted out of his skull — is that many if not all of these frames weren’t organically adopted. They are the artifacts of a life spent uncritically absorbing secondhand information from TV, films, radio, and the internet, and at the same time giving credence to anyone with a scrap of what he sees as institutional authority. “I believe she’s an anthropologist. But, um, or maybe some sort of biologist,” he says. She’s a something-ist.
Worse, most of the images splashing around in his mind are the byproducts of managed attention and manufactured consent, decohering with every new iteration in media. His concept of “aliens”, like his conception of God, is a reference of a reference, a shadow of a shadow with no shape or substance. In fact, it’s possible Rogan and people like him have no independent conception of God. Like the anthropologist/biologist/whateverogist he invokes, it’s just another a word they apply to lend gravity to the bong smoke.
But that’s not fair, because I’ve seen and met many non-stoners who do that too. You might even call it the default framework, adopted by most modern “men of the cloth.” God cannot stand alone. He must be attached to something solid, something that can conform to an evidentiary standard, be that footage of flying saucers or Denisovan skulls or ayahuascan hyperspace portals or time-traveling midgets. Something — anything — that one could potentially hold in one’s hand, an indelible proof to point at when asked any question.
As Rogan demonstrates in his own, discombobulated way, this isn’t necessarily a totalist frame. It is for some, who hope to clutch a single skelton key. “Aliens” is still a dumber answer than “God”, because the next question is where aliens came from. But God can also be an incomplete or stupid answer. Not because God does not exist, but because the person answering that way might be up to some funny business.
Snakes on a plane.
That’s especially the case when they attach (or try to attach) “indisputable” “scientific” “proof” of God’s existence to their various sermons and sales pitches. They are in a way more materialist than the most hardcore atheists. More Satanic too, I’d wager; the atheist might be blind, but at least he doesn’t pretend to have X-ray vision and wish-granting powers.
Meanwhile, we are called to believe and trust in God Almighty without any so-called “hard evidence.” That doesn’t mean He won’t provide us with signs and clues directly, only that He won’t allow the secondary transmission of such evidence to become superior to faith. The Miracle of the Sun in Fatima springs to mind; witnessed by tens of thousands (including atheists and skeptics) yet un-photographical. Uncapturable, you might say.
That isn’t the only theory about what happened in Fatima. Earlier this month, I came across an article by 🐺The Wise Wolf entitled “The Greatest Conspiracy in Modern Religious History: The Miracle of the Sun at Fatima.” In it, the author theorizes that the Vatican has been engaged in a century long coverup, which included elements of psywar. You can read it and decide for yourself whether you believe this explanation to be accurate, either in part or in full.
What do I think?
Well, as most readers have guessed by now, I’m not one to defend the Vatican, and particularly in its present form. I therefore wouldn’t discard Wolf’s theory reflexively. But one part that stood out to me, which I believe is most germane to this discussion, was the claim made here:
We know photographers were there because their pictures survive. Multiple photographs exist showing the massive crowd at Cova da Iria, faces turned upward, watching something in the sky. These images are in archives. You can find them online. We have proof that people with functioning cameras were present during the exact moment the solar phenomenon occurred.
But we have zero photographs of the sun itself during the miracle.
Think about how insane that is. You’re a photographer at the most spectacular event you’ll ever witness. The sun is performing impossible aerobatics. Reality is breaking. Seventy thousand people are screaming that the world is ending. And you photograph... the crowd? You capture people’s faces but not the thing they’re watching?
That’s not how photographers work. That’s not how human instinct works. When something impossible happens in the sky, you point your camera at the sky. You document the phenomenon. You capture evidence.
The only explanation is that those photographs existed and were systematically destroyed.
That is not the only explanation. Here is another.
The photographs taken of the miraculous, inexplicable events in the sky showed nothing of the sort. They may have shown a normal sun, or a gauzy blur. In fact, they may have show nothing at all. An undeveloped blank.
Why?
Forget the How. We are speaking of the Author of Reality, not an engineering problem. For God to show a vision to tens of thousands gathered in a field, but deny it to those who didn’t show up, is trivial in comparison to the forming of the universe.
So the question is Why. Why would God allow photos of the witnesses, but not of what they witnessed?
The answer is faith.
Christ tells us that, again and again and again. And yet, most of the time, we of little faith refuse to listen. Faith, not knowledge, is the what drives us, because knowledge cannot be fully attained by anyone. Even if all knowable things represent a finite volume, one mind could not possibly contain it all and function in the world.
And when you get right down to it, we aren’t actually talking about “knowledge” but “confidence”, in both the scientific sense and the colloquial one. Contra the opinions of gnostics and midwit physicists alike, there is nothing that can be known independent of the observer and the moment of observation.
In the context of UAP reports, for instance, we are told (or have seen ourselves) that they break one or more fundamental rules of motion. That isn’t a logical statement; if it’s a fundamental “rule”, then how can it be broken? What squares it is that what we call rules are only guesses of various species. We cannot know the full truth of phenomena. We can only gain a relative degree of confidence in some explanation or another.
Namely: there is a point where all reductive models and language compression will simply fail to explain observable phenomena. The Romans understood that this gap of unknown mechanics was much vaster than any empirical theory could ever hope to account for.
According to this paper2, the information stored in matter we understand reasonably well is roughly 10^89 bits, while the information in our patch of the universe is 10^122 bits. That is, the matter we think we understand decently represents a fraction:
10^{-33} = 0.000000000000000000000000000000001%
of the information content. Who knows, maybe this absolutely tiny subset of matter is described by particularly nice and tidy laws? There are good reasons to think so.
A much larger fraction of the observable universe’s entropy is carried by supermassive black holes. This is about a quadrillion times larger than the amount of standard matter (but it’s still an absolutely tiny fraction—most resides in the unknown). Modern research on the holographic nature of quantum gravity suggests that black holes are intimately tied to chaos and the butterfly effect (classic paper). And there are very good reasons to believe that spacetime and thus locality becomes completely corrupted inside a black hole—good old Einstein’s general relativity predicts this. This hints that you’re reaching whole new levels of complexity, associated with the breakdown of locality. And locality is what made your laws so nice and tidy in the first place. But let’s say that physicists ramped up their experiments to measure about a (quadrillion)² times more stuff than what we have seen in the universe so far. Even then, if we kept finding locality, the best we’d get is an array of numbers encoding the laws of physics that still looks like this:
where the unknown might be highly irregular and dense. But at present, that green box represents a fraction of 10^{-33} of the rows, and only there do we know that the matrix is sparse, i.e. locality holds.
That is a whole lot of Unknown, and it hasn’t changed significantly over time. Among the depressing notions for ToE enthusiasts, it seems that the laws of physics “might be described by more numbers than you can store in the visible universe” (see the article’s footnote #8 for the calculation).
A mind cannot contain all information. Not a human mind, at least. Not even the mind of an angel, though far more powerful than our own. There was at least one know-it-all wannabe who predicted otherwise. Much like Humpty Dumpty, he had a great Fall.
In fact, you might say that the temptation to “know everything” is the source wave that generates the fractal Fall, on Earth as in Heaven. We as human beings can gain confidence in many theories, but that unfathomable sprawl of The Unknown remains. This limitation torments some of us, who desperately want One Big Irrefutable Answer that is perfectly rational and intelligible. Faith ain’t enough! We demand proof, damnit! Or rather, we yearn to be unshakably confident in one knowable thing.
This demand is cousin to the one that demands the Father solve all our problems, beat up all our bullies and their dads, feed us candy and cocaine whenever we ask. It sounds nice on paper, but in practice it destroys worlds. Communism and other utopian frameworks are echoes of the same cosmic blunder. We think we want to not only believe, but to know that God exists without any question. But I suspect that this form of knowledge would destroy most people, or make them useless to whatever purpose God had in mind for them.
Joe Rogan wants to know by reason alone. So does Jordan Peterson, by my estimate. This is hubris. It also seems to be the Mother of All Mistakes, and perhaps a Monkey’s Paw-type situation. You can’t ever get the answer you’re looking for because, like the AI engineer, you’re asking the wrong question. In the meanwhile, you are distracted from what you were made to do, which was to solve joy-and-sorrow problems with imperfect information. Absent the comfort of appealing to pure reason and reason alone, and by leaving that quantum of mystery intact. we can properly choose and act as courageous moral agents in the world. If we keep our faith, that is, and approach the world with both eyes wide open.
As you know, I am not exactly what you’d call a faithful man. Or, at least, my faith is not of that blessed kind, expressed by those who believe without seeing. So here’s the twist:
God is not the only supernatural agent who resists incontrovertible proof of existence. There are other creatures who seek to sabotage evidence and evade detection, although for somewhat — though not entirely — different reasons. I say “not entirely” because disclosures of that kind are risky. Reveal evidence to the wrong man, at the wrong time, and you can accidentally save him instead of luring him further into darkness.
I mentioned in one of my older articles a certain laptop of mine that appeared to be eating itself with memory exception errors; stashed away, without active use, its “brain” was gradually becoming a brick. Had it not been for other experiences leading up to it, and awareness of what was recorded on that device, this transformation would be a total mystery to me. I might have toiled away at rhe problem: running diagnostics, performing data surgeries, ordering replacement parts, etc.
It’s kind of funny, when I think about it. That’s what the old, fully rational, perfectly reasonable me would have done. That man is dead, now. Or mostly dead; I am still curious, and still a bloodhound. But UAPs give off a different scent than they did before.
Like many of you, I am suspicious about the way these and similar “unexplained” phenomena are handled by our governments. It may be that some handlers are strictly malevolent actors running psyops, others paid chaos agents and stooges, others sincerely believing they are protecting the sheeple from having an epic meltdown (or a mass “panic attack” as the author put it). I don’t think this would necessarily be the majority reaction to some kind of official disclosure, for what it’s worth. I rather suspect that such an event will be widely seen as a deception, for all the reasons mentioned above and more. And it might be. I’m ready, either way. Or I pray that I will be.
I’m not saying there's no evidence of extensive psyops or coverups in the district of UAPs (there's quite a lot). But I do think that the individuals involved in those vary significantly in their degree of awareness, and that it's possible both strategically planned fictions and real phenomena co-exist. Maybe that's even the likeliest scenario, with the latter providing inspiration and plausible deniability for the former.
But the theory that the sources of these phenomena also play an active role in preventing mass awareness for reasons of their own isn’t just something I agree with because I witnessed some elements of that. Weirdly enough, it does conform to reason, whether you are referring to angels or demons, God or the Devil. But it all returns to the faith of Christ in the end. That’s where true discernment lives, not in facts and figures and photographs, all of which can be faked for fun and profit.
If you mourn the death of the consensual reality this so-called evidence embodies, you should recall that you never lived in such a world. That make-believe world was always edited, formatted, and mediated according to the designs of people who sought to rule it, and you.
Brought to you by our sponsors.
Deepfakes are only the next innovation in the process. They also, in my humble opinion, might prove to be their biggest mistake, and lead to their undoing. To put it another way: great cats think alike.
i think it may be an excellent thing, a profound thing that can reshape humanity and make it much, much better, happier, and more flourishing.
hear me out.
this all sounds like a disaster, but that’s because you’re thinking about it from inside the frame.
if you basically lose the ability to trust anything, you cannot see, any text or information about the world, any photo, any video, disembodied voice, zoom face or phone call, any of it, what do you do?
you stop trusting it.
the world gets small again. you trust what you see with your own eyes. business moves to highly protected, verified networks, but even these are not really trusted because the arms race to break any new safeguard will always be ferocious and AI mediated fraud and intrusion is a level of relentless attack on every surface at once all the time every time that will make some bigtime penetrations inevitable.
so for the real high trust? face to face. IRL. hands get shaken, eyes get looked into, and people once more do business directly with people.
i think this has the potential to make people happier.
I’d have more to add to el gato malo’s vision, and I probably will do that sometime in the new year. That is, if we don’t get “invaded” before then, and subjected to a thousand great signs and wonders. But even if that happens, the game state hasn’t really changed. If the Enemy’s minions were to uncork a Project Bluebeam tomorrow, I will be required to discern it like any other event, untangling truths from illusions. The same goes for a genuine “invasion”, or, frankly, for anything I see on a screen or with my own eyes.
Thanks in large part to Covid, we know the bloody lengths some people will go to in weaving their illusions. Maybe some of them met the same kind of thing that I did, and took the deal at those crossroads. Probably a lot of them are merely a host of degenerate liars and pirates, just out for a buck and an orgasm. I’m beginning to think those are the Devil’s favorite kind. They’re certainly a far less risky gamble.
As for me?
I’d like to say my soul is off the table, but I know better than that. I’ve seen enough to awaken me to certain parts of reality, but not enough to know all the tricks and traps that lay ahead. Sometimes I recognize this for the blessing it is. Other times I seem to forget it, losing sight of it in the storm.
It’s occurred to me that I might never be shown anything again. Or at least, not in such a dramatic fashion. Not in the way of those German sailors, or the pilgrims at Fatima. But it’s also occurred to me that this is possibly the best thing for me. I could be tricked into thinking I know something I do not, and cannot, know.
I will keep my eyes peeled and my powder dry. The rest is faith.
The Associated Press, “U.S. recovered non-human ‘biologics’ from UFO crash sites, former intel official says,” NPR, July 27, 2023, https://www.npr.org/2023/07/27/1190390376/ufo-hearing-non-human-biologics-uaps
Theism, deism atheism are all matter of faith, can't be tested or proven in a rational world. Hence the only rational position is agnosticism or damnedifIknow.
Having said that I've personally experienced much that defies rational explanation.
Based on conversations over the years I'm beginning to suspect many if not most other folks have also experienced such and that many refuse to admit such, even to themselves.
“The answer is faith.”
Bingo.
Maddeningly simple, particularly for the Enlightened and Superior Progressive Mind. But simple is usually Better.
Me? I defer to Paul. All I know is Christ, and Him crucified. That is my sieve, through which I endeavor to sift all knowledge and experience.
Christ, and Him crucified. Simple. Elegant. Trustworthy.
I’m good with that.
Theism, deism atheism are all matter of faith, can't be tested or proven in a rational world. Hence the only rational position is agnosticism or damnedifIknow.
Having said that I've personally experienced much that defies rational explanation.
Based on conversations over the years I'm beginning to suspect many if not most other folks have also experienced such and that many refuse to admit such, even to themselves.
Oh well, to each his own.