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.
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.
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).
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.
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
