Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sprocket
1) How can you say its logical to believe that something exists if it has never been observed, and has absolutely no evidence what-so-ever to back up the hypothesis, despite our best efforts to find any? I'll mention the tired old cliche of the flying spaghetti monster. What reason is there to believe in it? Lack of evidence for the existence of something either means we haven't looked for any, or there just isn't any that we can observe with our modern resources.
In the either situation, its pretty clear that to believe in your hypothesis, with unwavering devotion, is pretty irrational.
|
This is rather simple to explain; If someone accepts basic religious axioms as true, then any argument which follows is also true unless said axioms are falsified (A feat within itself which is nearly impossible). Science can only measure what's known rather than unknown. In a nutshell, science can't prove God's existence nor will science ever be able to prove God's existence, so it's pointless trying to use scientific 'proof' as an arguing point as the concept of God exists outside the scope of science.
Quote:
As for your aliens statement.. no I wouldn't agree with it and its consistent with my thoughts on god. We can observe life. Earth is filled to the brim with it. We seem to be getting somewhere in understanding how it all came about. The universe is a ridiculously, absurdly large place, at least from our perspective. Its not unreasonable or illogical to assume that the same processes and conditions that allowed life to begin on this planet, can and quite possibly exist elsewhere in the universe. The fact that life flourishes on this planet is good enough evidence to consider the possibility of life on other planets as well. Anyone who claims to know the nature of life that may possibly exist elsewhere in the universe, either knows something I dont, or is talking nonsense and can safely be ignored .
|
Lemme' summarize your argument for you:
Life exists on Earth and the universe is large. Therefore life exists on other planets. This is an example of a deductive argument. Given that your premises are true, you assume that your conclusion is true. The problem is that science generally doesn't work too well with deduction (There's no way to test the conclusion based on the premises), as you assume an absolute truth based on a pair of general truths. This isn't to say that your conclusion isn't true (As it very well may be), but the conclusion may very well may be false and the premises do nothing to tell us whether or not the conclusion is, indeed, true. In this respect, your argument is logical but fails to pass the basic tests of scientific reasoning (Induction).
Quote:
|
The religious are the ones making the extraordinary claims.. its up to them to prove their claims. I dont think its reasonable at all to be offended or surprised if some people don't see a reason to entertain the idea, at all.
|
The Bible, for example, says that God exists. If I accept the Bible as true then any argument which says God exists will be logically valid. Hell, the argument "The sky is blue. Therefore God doesn't exist" is also logically valid (Though it's not very sound). Of course, what I've found is that most atheists judge validity by what conclusion is reached rather than how you get there (Which is just mind-boggling, to say the least).
Quote:
2) I disagree...
...You still have to make the "leap of faith" to accept his existence in the first place. Any way you look at it, a person must consciously decide to accept a belief in god and it isn't rational. Not that I'm judging anyone here... everyone acts irrational, or makes irrational choices from time to time, even if we try not to. Impulses and emotion get the best of any of us.
|
No "Leap of faith" is required. Logic is actually quite simple. You can assume any conclusion you want so long as, when paired with a set of premises, it forms a cohesive argument.