Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sprocket
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*.
|
Pardon me while I go bang my head against a wall...
All axioms are 'irrational' and 'require a leap of faith', as axioms are nothing more than a set of principles which are assumed to be self-evident truths (For example, the axiom "All men are created equally"). They're necessary is order to provide a 'starting point' which you can then use to determine whether or not all other statements are logically derived. I've said this before, but science is built on induction. It can only measure the
known; Not the
unknown. Put another way, you can't prove that all swans are white but you can prove that some swans aren't white.
Quote:
|
Thats not what my argument said at all. Let me summarize it , more accurately.
|
I know what your argument said. Re-read what I typed out. You correlate the fact that life exists on Earth and the fact that the universe is large to mean that life exists elsewhere in the universe. Given the premises, you deduce that the conclusion must be true.
Quote:
|
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.
|
In logic you can assume anything you want. When dealing with a conditional, the premises are irrelevent as they don't affect the outcome of the conclusion. They can either be true or false-- It doesn't matter. Only the conclusion need be true. Of course, some arguments will be better than others based on their nature, but you get the point by now (Or, at least, you should).
Quote:
|
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.
|
We're going in a circle here. All things begin with assumptions. Either you accept the Bible to be true or you don't. Whatever you decide, as long as your beliefs are consistent than they're no less logical than someone else who believes differently. Simple.
Quote:
|
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?
|
I'm not a scientologist. However, as long as it adhere's to it's basic religious axioms and is consistent within itself then, hey, it's about a logical argument as will come around
