Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Infinite_Loser
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.
|
Accepting those basic religious axioms is what requires a leap of faith, and is irrational. Now your taking it even further, and claiming to know the nature of this being called god, and that it exists somehow "outside" of science. You said it best... science can only measure what is actually measurable. Let me take it one step further... science can only measure things that *exist*.
Quote:
|
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).
|
Thats not what my argument said at all. Let me summarize it , more accurately.
Life exists in the universe (here on earth). Therefore, it holds true, that there is a good
probability that there is life elsewhere. There is even a probability that a god exists. Its just so small, that its not even worth considering. You might even say there's a probability that I may spontaneously combust here in my chair as I'm typing this... but its so ridiculously infinitesimal, that its not something I should consider.
Quote:
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).
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.
|
Thats exactly what I'm questioning... how you get to your conclusions. You just said we judge the conclusions without looking at how you get there, but somehow its logical to accept imaginary premises to arrive at any conclusion you want.
Accepting the bible to be un-erring truth is irrational. It makes many grandiose claims with no evidence *at all*, which can cannot be corroborated. Are you going to tell a scientologist that his beliefs are rational and worthy of consideration? According to their beliefs, there was an alien warlord named Xenu, who enslaved all other the alien races in the galaxy, brought them to earth, dropped them all in volcano's, then used giant "soul catcher" devices to trap their souls as they floated away from their burnt bodies. Then he proceeds to blow them up with nuclear bombs, scattering them all over the earth. Now all the pieces of those alien souls are understandably upset, and living inside all of us, and causing all the pain and suffering in the world. Of course, we cant disprove there is no alien warlord Xenu, but give me a good reason why anyone claiming he exists should be believed?