The existence of God

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by TheNorm

To accept something that cannot be tested by logic is foolish - or do you expect everyone to believe there are fairies at the bottom of my garden?

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

No, it's faith. You may think that having faith is foolish, but many others do not. Do you not have faith in anything?

I don't believe in God, but I'm not going to turn a theological debate into a logical one, because that's just building a straw man as no one believes that religion is at all logical.

Originally Posted by mischievious

Since neither can be proven "just yet", your stance is just as tenous as god.

It's really not.

We know that life can exist, we know that we're not at the limit of our scientific abilities, so therefore it's a logical conclusion to say that a civilisation could existed before us, has evolved further than us, and is more scientifically advanced than us, based on the fact that there are over 100 billion galaxies in the universe, and each of them has any number of solar systems, and any number of planets. The law of averages logically states that at least one of them will be home to advanced life, and if they've managed to avoid the numerous extinction events that we've had on this planet (remembering humans only started out 200,000 years ago in a universe billions of years old) then it's not a stretch to say they might have ray guns. Just think where we'll be in just another 1,000 years.

[Gary L]

Originally Posted by mischievious

If you are to weild the sword of logic as the sword of truth, you should at least make a "logical statement". God and Fairies are not logically the same under any rules of logic.

They are the same when one calls them a figment of ones imagination. other than that, what is the likely logical statement under the rules of logic that make one so much different to the other?

God may not exist. therefore he is and was as real as the fairies are to some. only difference being is that God was written about more than the fairies were.

[mischievious]

Originally Posted by TheDon

It's really not.

We know that life can exist, we know that we're not at the limit of our scientific abilities, so therefore it's a logical conclusion to say that a civilisation could existed before us, has evolved further than us, and is more scientifically advanced than us, based on the fact that there are over 100 billion galaxies in the universe, and each of them has any number of solar systems, and any number of planets. The law of averages logically states that at least one of them will be home to advanced life, and if they've managed to avoid the numerous extinction events that we've had on this planet (remembering humans only started out 200,000 years ago in a universe billions of years old) then it's not a stretch to say they might have ray guns. Just think where we'll be in just another 1,000 years.

It is not "logical", it is reasonable to consider the possibility of life on other planets. I am open to this possibility, however since it cannot currently be proven either way and nor is there any logical foundation for such a claim it is also reasonable to consider that we may indeed be the first sentient and possibly most advanced race in the known universe (ignoring the possibility/complexity of multiverses/parallel universes). There "logically" has to be a first in any set of given events.

To argue the point of alien life forms more advanced to ourselves must in the current climate be attributed to a "faith" of sorts. Therefore this would discount the possibility of logic and you yourself have said are incompatible.

---------- Post added at 10:17 ---------- Previous post was at 10:14 ----------

Originally Posted by Gary L

They are the same when one calls them a figment of ones imagination. other than that, what is the likely logical statement under the rules of logic that make one so much different to the other?

God may not exist. therefore he is and was as real as the fairies are to some. only difference being is that God was written about more than the fairies were.

In order for the statement to be logical fairies would have to share the same traits as god. Fairies are attributed generally to be magical beings, no religion has ever attributed such qualities to god, miraculous maybe. Also God is an omnipresence which Fairies are not. Point being I could go on all day citing the differences but 1+1 = 2 not 1+2=2.

[TheDon]

Originally Posted by mischievious

It is not "logical", it is reasonable to consider the possibility of life on other planets. I am open to this possibility, however since it cannot currently be proven either way and nor is there any logical foundation for such a claim it is also reasonable to consider that we may indeed be the first sentient and possibly most advanced race in the known universe (ignoring the possibility/complexity of multiverses/parallel universes). There "logically" has to be a first in any set of given events.

To argue the point of alien life forms more advanced to ourselves must in the current climate be attributed to a "faith" of sorts. Therefore this would discount the possibility of logic and you yourself have said are incompatible.

How isn't it logical? It's based on inference, which is at the very heart of logic.

You cannot say for sure that there is other life forms, advanced or otherwise, however you can logically deduce that there very well may be.

You cannot do the same for God, therefore your point that saying that it's just as tenuous to say there is more chance that aliens exist than God does is clearly wrong.

The point that we don't know for sure doesn't make it faith based statement to talk about the possibility. Faith would be stating that you believe that there are ray gun wielding aliens in the universe. That has no evidence, and would be a statement of faith. However saying that there's more chance of ray gun wielding aliens than there is of God isn't faith based, it's based on inference. It doesn't say they are there, but that based on what we know, there could be.

[mischievious]

Originally Posted by TheDon

How isn't it logical? It's based on inference,

Inference based upon what premise?

That it is likely that there are Alien life forms superior to us which may weild ray guns?

I think it is outside of this particular debate but you cannot prove the inference nor measure it at this time. Since you cannot do either you are left with philosophical logic?

As I said previously you can logically prove something based upon a false premise, it doesn't make the out come true or right.

In order to be convinced you'll have to walk though the logical argument starting from your premise and ending with your logical conclusion.

[downquark1]

In order for the statement to be logical fairies would have to share the same traits as god. Fairies are attributed generally to be magical beings, no religion has ever attributed such qualities to god, miraculous maybe. Also God is an omnipresence which Fairies are not. Point being I could go on all day citing the differences but 1+1 = 2 not 1+2=2.

What is the difference between magic and miracles?

---------- Post added at 14:54 ---------- Previous post was at 14:40 ----------

In order to be convinced you'll have to walk though the logical argument starting from your premise and ending with your logical conclusion.

Premise: life exists on earth
Premise: There exist other planets like earth
postulate: No unique occurrence happened to begin life on earth
Conclusion: It is likely life exists on other planets.

Of course this is not a proof because it rests on the postulate being true.

It also (imho) depends on the second premise being true, and the definition of "life" - does all life have to be earth-like?

NASA

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by downquark1

What is the difference between magic and miracles?

magic is basically an illusion. a miracle is unexplainable.

Originally Posted by downquark1

Premise: life exists on earth
Premise: There exist other planets like earth
postulate: No unique occurrence happened to begin life on earth
Conclusion: It is likely life exists on other planets.

Of course this is not a proof because it rests on the postulate being true.

then is this not just a theory rather than a truth? you can't commit to one nor the other as we don't have any facts other than life does exist on earth.

the 'assumption' that other life exists at this time relies on your belief, or faith. much the same as those who believe in God and those who don't. neither know for sure.

[downquark1]

Originally Posted by Bender

magic is basically an illusion. a miracle is unexplainable.

Not in the context I was referencing. The context was that fairies exist and are magic.

then is this not just a theory rather than a truth? you can't commit to one nor the other as we don't have any facts other than life does exist on earth.

the 'assumption' that other life exists at this time relies on your belief, or faith. much the same as those who believe in God and those who don't. neither know for sure.

I have not committed to anything. I gave a logical argument for the existence of other life based on limited information.

then is this not just a theory rather than a truth?

/Head explodes.

You know some people only consider their own existence to be truth and everything else a theory.

Originally Posted by Bender

then is this not just a theory rather than a truth? you can't commit to one nor the other as we don't have any facts other than life does exist on earth.

the 'assumption' that other life exists at this time relies on your belief, or faith. much the same as those who believe in God and those who don't. neither know for sure.

I believe in strict scientific parlance it's not even a theory, it's a hypothesis.

Incidentally, to answer a question someone asked earlier, the Bible doesn't say God hasn't created life elsewhere. Some Christians have inferred that and made a doctrine out of it (much the same as heliocentric creation, or flat earth creation, are not in the Bible but were nevertheless made points of dogma that gave the Pope a real headache when they were shown to be false).

I can't see my faith being dented if it is discovered.

Originally Posted by Russ B

That's all very well in theory but in practise it's a little different. Many atheists feel totally justified in telling the world that there's no God (it's their view, they're entitled to it) but if someone with faith proclaims their belief in God then suddenly they're "ramming it down people's throats" etc.

Not that there's supposed to be a competition but atheists get away with far more than people of faith when it comes to professing their beliefs.

Don't they just..and the other more easy going atheists are getting sick of it as we get lumped in with them..

I'm wondering if we can use the term fundamentalist atheist to describe the former? Don't know what my kind of atheist could be termed though...

[lucy7]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Don't they just..and the other more easy going atheists are getting sick of it as we get lumped in with them..

I'm wondering if we can use the term fundamentalist atheist to describe the former? Don't know what my kind of atheist could be termed though...

Read my post about "ramming" Maggie!!!!

I like NOT to class anyone with any tag, what ever their belief, that is just rude and just not needed!

[mischievious]

Originally Posted by downquark1

I gave a logical argument for the existence of other life based on limited information.

I was a reasonable example and an attempt at a logical one but the logic didn't work. You failed to resolve a logical truth from it becasue you had set it up with dirty data.

You could have gone down the road of:

There is life on Earth
Bacteria has been discovered on Mars (Hence Life)
Therefore the is life on other planets.

I only take issue with the "logical likelyhood" of ray gun weilding aliens. The example by TheDon given previously was a myriad of stepping stones in logic which was reasonable but not logical per se. The initial premise led from one maybe statement to another much like chinese whispers.

I agree that it is likely that sentient existence exists on one or more planets in the universe.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencete...New-Earth.html

[idi banashapan]

Originally Posted by Maggy J

Don't they just..and the other more easy going atheists are getting sick of it as we get lumped in with them..

I'm wondering if we can use the term fundamentalist atheist to describe the former? Don't know what my kind of atheist could be termed though...

you forgot to mention those of us who class ourselves as agnostic in one form or another!

Love the definition of an apathetic Agnostic -
"the view that there is no proof of either the existence or nonexistence of any deity, but since any deity that may exist appears unconcerned for the universe or the welfare of its inhabitants, the question is largely academic"