Prayer and power

[I less than three logic]

My point stands, thanks for the clarification.

We know that many people (myself included) believe that talking to God can have measureable effects on our personal lives, but we also keep that in perspective. We don't believe that if we pray to God to turn all of our rugs into molten lava, he will do just that.

I agree that you feel that talking to God is commensurate to talking to aliens, and to you both things are equally irrational. I accept that. Others disagree, and I think you accept that. We disagree, but we accept these things. The alternative is to fight about it, or pass legislation or protest each other's homes. Or eat ice cream.

-Elliot

Yes, I agree with this, and I vote for the ice cream.

 

[RandFan]

Again, I didn't say that nothing is superstition, only that belief in prayer cannot be proven to be superstition. In other words, that you think belief in prayer to be superstition is opinion, not fact.

ONE MORE TIME, NAME A SUPERSTITION? {SHEESH}

Bri,

By your logic the definition of superstition has no meaning. It is impossible to come to any reasonable determination if anything is superstition because it must meet two tests and one of them is undefined and by your logic only those things specifically defined as superstitions are superstitions.

By my understanding the Dictionary clearly tells us how to determine if something is irrational, and therefore superstitious.

Which understanding of the defintion makes the most sense. Your understanding makes no sense which is why you refuse to name a superstition because I can show that using your logic nothing is supertitious.

 

[Bri]

You still seem to be completely disregarding the fact that life exists here on Earth.

No, not at all. The fact that life exists here on Earth is irrefutable evidence of intelligent life in the universe. It is NOT evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. It IS evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. In other words, the fact that something exists in one location is evidence of the possibility that it might exist elsewhere, but not evidence that it actually exists elsewhere.

I think it is completely rational to believe that it requires quite specific conditions for intelligent life to emerge. However, if all of it happens due to natural course of events, we're simply left with a numbers game. The probability that conditions on Earth being unique in a universe this size is unimaginably small, but not impossible. We may, in fact, be alone, but I'm willing to bet with the numbers on my side.

OK, we know that the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe ranges anywhere from very, very low (close to 0%) but greater than 0% (i.e. not impossible) to very high (close to 100%) but less than 100% (i.e. certain). If one uses reason to arrive at the opinion that conditions must be very close to those here on Earth for intelligent life to emerge -- that there is an extremely low chance of the precise conditions on Earth to exist elsewhere -- is it necessarily irrational to believe that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere in the universe (the default position, according to your previous post)?

-Bri

 

[I less than three logic]

No, not at all. The fact that life exists here on Earth is irrefutable evidence of intelligent life in the universe. It is NOT evidence of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. It IS evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. In other words, the fact that something exists in one location is evidence of the possibility that it might exist elsewhere, but not evidence that it actually exists elsewhere.

Great, now show me irrefutable evidence supporting the possibility of God, it has no evidence from my point of view, and it is only possible because it is based on claims which are not falsifiable. Once we progress by this point we can get into the numbers game.

OK, we know that the probability of intelligent life existing elsewhere in the universe ranges anywhere from very, very low (close to 0%) but greater than 0% (i.e. not impossible) to very high (close to 100%) but less than 100% (i.e. certain).

Which is still above the probability range of God existing, without irrefutable evidence to the contrary, like life here on Earth, the probability of God existing can still fall into the 0% category, where the probability of life can’t.

If one uses reason to arrive at the opinion that conditions must be very close to those here on Earth for intelligent life to emerge -- that there is an extremely low chance of the precise conditions on Earth to exist elsewhere -- is it necessarily irrational to believe that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere in the universe (the default position, according to your previous post)?

-Bri

No, I wouldn't say it is irrational to believe intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere. I simply think it is improbable given the sheer size of the universe.

 

[Bri]

Bri,

By your logic the definition of superstition has no meaning. It is impossible to come to any reasonable determination if anything is superstition because it must meet two tests and one of them is undefined and by your logic only those things specifically defined as superstitions are superstitions.

That prayer is not specifically defined as superstition in the dictionary doesn't mean that the word has no meaning. It must meet three tests, actually (it must be irrational, it must be a belief, and it must be that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome). Like the word "evil" what fits into the category (i.e. that meets all of the criteria) is a matter of opinion.

By my understanding the Dictionary clearly tells us how to determine if something is irrational, and therefore superstitious.

Do you also understand the dictionary to clearly tell us how to determine if something is morally wrong, and therefore evil?

Which understanding of the defintion makes the most sense. Your understanding makes no sense which is why you refuse to name a superstition because I can show that using your logic nothing is supertitious.

My understanding is the only one that makes any sense at all, unless you also believe that what fits other terms such as "evil" are also determined by the dictionary. Since my point was that the dictionary doesn't determine what does and does not fit the definition of "superstition," your argument would only support my point.

-Bri

 

[Tricky]

This falls apart when you understand that Christians *do* put restrictions on the characteristics of God.

Indeed it does. My point was that while Deist concepts of God are arguably less irrational, once you start giving characteristics to the God (which cannot be supported by evidence) then the concept becomes more irrational.

Right. We simply have faith that God listens to our prayers, and this faith is based on the teachings of Christ (among others). It is also verified by personal experience however, which matters to a hell of a lot of people. It's verified in manifold ways, and not in the particular ways as would be needed to win a million dollar challenge.

Yes, they have faith and their faith is "verified" by more faith.

Is it irrational based on your working models? I happily concede that it is. I don't care whether or not you think it is rational then, I guess that's all I can say. If I'm right, you could *still* be right. All of this would still be irrational, based on your working models. And if those models work for you, that's nice! They don't have to work for everyone, and God's ways do not have to be subject to them.

I'm fine with that. All I am saying is that belief in God is irrational. I'm not saying it is necessarily bad. It depends on what the person does that makes their belief good or bad within a moral system. As I've said, we all have some rational beliefs and some irrational beliefs. I don't consider holding an irrational belief to be a desirable thing, but rationality is not a requirement for me to like or love someone. My beloved wife is a Pagan.

Not many Christians would say such a thing. Does God do everything exactly as we tell him to do it? Of course not. Would that make him a no-god? Of course not.

Does your God do anything you ask him to do? I would say that other than by faith, you can not show this to be the case. Does His total indistinguishability (other than by faith) from plain old nature, randomness and human effort mean He is "no-god"? It certainly supports it.

We exist, and that's the best evidence.

Of God? Which one? Can you show that existance is less likely without God? (Again, apart from by faith.) Is the existence of lightning evidence of Zeus?

I don't care much for Occam's razor, because reality is really really really complicated, the more you know about it. So I'll ignore that.

It is true that Occam's razor is but a guideline for finding the most likely answer when there is limited knowledge. But to make a case for venturing away from it, you need to show good reason why more complex is more likely than less complex. This is why Rube Goldberg machines are not widely used.

As for we don't know what good means to God, the Christian says this is not true, we have the person of Christ.

You also have the behavior of God, which is often not good by any moral standards I've ever seen. And even Christ was known to be petulant from time time.

Life is more about what *we* do, than what God does. It is elementary Christian theology that Satan is allowed to reign on earth, that our sin makes us a sort of adversary to God. Yes we have problems telling what God is or isn't doing. We have severed ourselves from him.

Then by your own admission, God is not "good". You'd have to completely throw out the meaning of the word. Of course, your conception of God need not include that description. Most Christians include it every time they say "Grace".

No, I don't expect you to accept any of the above. I just want you to get a better handle of your understanding of Christian theology.

Honestly Elliot, you haven't told me anything new. I understand a good bit about Christian theology, perhaps more than many Christians. I simply do not find it rational or nourishing.

Isn't God an alien, sort of?

Probably not. Almost every description of aliens I've ever seen includes at the minimum that they are organisms, capable of being killed.

 

[Bri]

Great, now show me irrefutable evidence supporting the possibility of God, it has no evidence from my point of view, and it is only possible because it is based on claims which are not falsifiable. Once we progress by this point we can get into the numbers game.

The evidence presented (the existence of human beings on earth) is irrefutable evidence of intelligent life in the universe. It is certainly not irrefutable evidence of intelligent life outside of the solar system (nor even irrefutable evidence of its possibility).

Without a doubt, it is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere, because it isn't impossible. Without a doubt, it is also possible that God exists because God's existence is not impossible. Clearly, the probability of both must be placed at greater than 0% because 0% means that it is impossible. However, any actual evidence of either one is lacking.

No, I wouldn't say it is irrational to believe intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere. I simply think it is improbable given the sheer size of the universe.

Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're saying that it is not necessarily irrational to hold either opinion concerning intelligent life elsewhere (to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere, or to believe that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere). To my mind, this is plausible given the fact that there isn't strong evidence to support either opinion and either opinion is possible (even though clearly both opinions cannot be right). However, the same would seem to hold for belief in God and all sorts of other beliefs for which there isn't strong evidence to support either opinion.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

That prayer is not specifically defined as superstition in the dictionary doesn't mean that the word has no meaning. It must meet three tests, actually (it must be irrational, it must be a belief, and it must be that an object, action, or circumstance not logically related to a course of events influences its outcome).

If this were true, it isn't, and if we follow your logic, there are no such things as superstitions. In any event you are wrong. And btw, "belief and "a belief in" is redundant. A car and a green car is still a car. A ford doesn't have to pass two tests to be a car.

Rabbit: A mammal that is warm-blooded with hair that breathes air, has internal fertilization and nurses its live-borne young. "That is" defines what is mammal.

By your logic a Rabbit must pass about 20 tests. A rabbit must be a mammal. A rabbit must be warm-blooded. A rabbit must be a mammal that is warm-blooded. A rabbit must have hair. A rabbit must be a mammal with hair. A rabbit must be a warm-blooded mammal with hair, etc., etc, tautological.

Do you also understand the dictionary to clearly tell us how to determine if something is morally wrong, and therefore evil?

The dictionary makes it clear that morals are relative to community standards. No such distinction is made for superstition or irrationality. You are really reaching for straws.

 

[RandFan]

My understanding is the only one that makes any sense at all...

You are belied by your silence. Name a superstition?

 

[RandFan]

Bri,

I posted definitions from Oxford English and Websters dictionary, you then said:

Then I'm sorry, but you haven't proven that prayer is irrational by any definition that is generally used.

That's a bit disingenuous or ignorant. Please do some background on the two.

Merriam-Webster Online

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.

superstition

Excessively credulous belief in the supernatural.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superstition

A Superstition is the irrational belief that future events are influenced by specific behaviors, without having a causal relationship.

...

In keeping with the Latin etymology of the word, religious believers have often seen other religions as superstition. Likewise, Atheists, agnostics, and skeptics regard religious belief as superstition. (Edmund Burke, the Irish orator, once said, "Superstition is the religion of weak minds".) From the broadest perspective, all religion is a form of superstition.

Religious practices are most likely to be labelled "superstitious" by outsiders when they include belief in extraordinary events, supernatural interventions, apparitions or the efficacy of charms, incantations, the meaningfulness of omens, and prognostications.

Greek and Roman pagans, who modeled their relations with the gods on political and social terms scorned the man who constantly trembled with fear at the thought of the gods, as a slave feared a cruel and capricious master. "Such fear of the gods (deisidaimonia) was what the Romans meant by 'superstition' (Veyne 1987, p 211). For Christians just such fears might be worn proudly as a name: Desdemona.

Robert Green Ingersoll

WHAT IS SUPERSTITION?

To believe in spite of evidence or without evidence.

To account for one mystery by another.

To believe that the world is governed by chance or caprice.

To disregard the true relation between cause and effect.

To believe in force apart from substance, or in substance
apart from force.

To believe in miracles, spells and charms, in dreams and
prophecies.

To believe in the supernatural.

 

[I less than three logic]

The evidence presented (the existence of human beings on earth) is irrefutable evidence of intelligent life in the universe. It is certainly not irrefutable evidence of intelligent life outside of the solar system (nor even irrefutable evidence of its possibility).

Without a doubt, it is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere, because it isn't impossible. Without a doubt, it is also possible that God exists because God's existence is not impossible. Clearly, the probability of both must be placed at greater than 0% because 0% means that it is impossible. However, any actual evidence of either one is lacking.



Unless I'm misunderstanding, you're saying that it is not necessarily irrational to hold either opinion concerning intelligent life elsewhere (to believe that intelligent life exists elsewhere, or to believe that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere). To my mind, this is plausible given the fact that there isn't strong evidence to support either opinion and either opinion is possible (even though clearly both opinions cannot be right). However, the same would seem to hold for belief in God and all sorts of other beliefs for which there isn't strong evidence to support either opinion.

-Bri

This seems to be going nowhere. You continue to see the Earth and the rest of the universe as us and them, two separate things that appear to share nothing in common. This is, of course, mistaken. You said so yourself in your last post “It IS evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.” Unless life was created by a supernatural event this statement is true. There is no logical reason to conclude that if it happened once (which we have irrefutable evidence for) that it is impossible for it to happen again.

Now I simply ask for similar evidence to support the possibility of God existing. Unless you are able to provide some, I can’t see how your analogy can hold together. It becomes the difference of believing in something that is possible and has some evidence verse believing in something that is possible and has no evidence.

 

[Bri]

This seems to be going nowhere. You continue to see the Earth and the rest of the universe as us and them, two separate things that appear to share nothing in common. This is, of course, mistaken.

True, it seems to be going nowhere, but not because I see Earth as separate from the rest of the universe (I don't). What I said is that one can logically come to the conclusion that the precise combination of conditions necessary for intelligent life to emerge are likely unique to Earth.

You said so yourself in your last post “It IS evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe.”

Yes, it IS evidence (far from irrefutable evidence, however) of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Unfortunately, the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe was never in question, because anything is possible unless proven impossible. There is little if any evidence that intelligent life actually exists outside of the solar system.

Unless life was created by a supernatural event this statement is true. There is no logical reason to conclude that if it happened once (which we have irrefutable evidence for) that it is impossible for it to happen again.

As I explained above, supernatural events are not necessary in order to conclude it improbable that intelligent life exists outside of Earth.

Now I simply ask for similar evidence to support the possibility of God existing. Unless you are able to provide some, I can’t see how your analogy can hold together. It becomes the difference of believing in something that is possible and has some evidence verse believing in something that is possible and has no evidence.

Again, the only evidence needed to support the possibility of anything is the fact that it cannot be proven to be impossible. It would be as irrational to conclude that it is impossible that God exists as it would be to conclude that it is impossible for intelligent life to exist elsewhere. Something cannot be "more possible" than something else (it's either possible or it's impossible). The possibility of either isn't really in question and has already been discussed on this thread.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

RandFan, I have tried to understand your last few posts, but cannot make heads or tails of them.

If this were true, it isn't, and if we follow your logic, there are no such things as superstitions. In any event you are wrong. And btw, "belief and "a belief in" is redundant. A car and a green car is still a car. A ford doesn't have to pass two tests to be a car.

Rabbit: A mammal that is warm-blooded with hair that breathes air, has internal fertilization and nurses its live-borne young. "That is" defines what is mammal.

By your logic a Rabbit must pass about 20 tests. A rabbit must be a mammal. A rabbit must be warm-blooded. A rabbit must be a mammal that is warm-blooded. A rabbit must have hair. A rabbit must be a mammal with hair. A rabbit must be a warm-blooded mammal with hair, etc., etc, tautological.

It seems that you're arguing about how many "tests" there are in a dictionary definition of "superstition" by making up a definition of "rabbit" that doesn't appear in any dictionary. The number of tests is irrelevant to the conversation, and I have already agreed to the premise that was relevant to the discussion regardless of whether you can prove the premise based on the definition (you can't). I'll concede that there are only two "tests" for superstition in the definition you posted rather than three if that will help you somehow.

The dictionary makes it clear that morals are relative to community standards. No such distinction is made for superstition or irrationality. You are really reaching for straws.

The dictionary makes it no more clear that morals are relative to community standards than it makes clear which beliefs the community considers superstition.

I suggest that we wrap up the dictionary discussion, because it is clear that it can go nowhere. Even if you were to somehow prove that the dictionary definition of "superstition" indicates that belief in prayer is a superstition (it doesn't), that would only serve to indicate that Christians use a different definition of "prayer." It seems obvious that to show that the Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational, you would have to use a definition of "prayer" that Christians use.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

RandFan, I have tried to understand your last few posts, but cannot make heads or tails of them.

Then I would have to say that you are being obtuse.

It seems that you're arguing about how many "tests" there are in a dictionary definition of "superstition"...

I'm illustrating the silliness of your argument.

...by making up a definition of "rabbit" that doesn't appear in any dictionary.

I never said that it was a definition. Remember your Frog green animal that hops, it's the same vain. I'm using a logically valid statement to demonstrate that your conclusion is wrong.

RandFan

Rabbit: A mammal that is warm-blooded with hair that breathes air, has internal fertilization and nurses its live-borne young.

That is a logically valid statement. Yet according to your logic, what follows "that is" does not define mammal. This is precisely the problem you have assuming that the dictionary is simply listing what is superstitious rather than demonstrating why it is an irrational belief.

The number of tests is irrelevant to the conversation...

You are the one that wanted to point out that there were three tests. There aren't.

...and I have already agreed to the premise that was relevant to the discussion...

If you don't like my answers stop asking questions. If you don't want to discuss the dictionary definition then stop talking about it.

...regardless of whether you can prove the premise based on the definition (you can't).

What premise, do you mean proposition? I know that they can be interchangeable but you are not clear here.

I'll concede that there are only two "tests" for superstition in the definition you posted rather than three if that will help you somehow.

You mean you would rather be patronizing than honest. There are at best two tests. There aren't actually but at best there could only be two. You could have simply acknowledged that fact but I guess you needed to be evasive.

The dictionary makes it no more clear that morals are relative to community standards than it makes clear which beliefs the community considers superstition.

Superstitions are not a matter of community considerations. That's silly. Believing that horse shoes can bring good luck is superstitious by definition regardless of community standards.

I suggest that we wrap up the dictionary discussion, because it is clear that it can go nowhere. Even if you were to somehow prove that the dictionary definition of "superstition" indicates that belief in prayer is a superstition (it doesn't), that would only serve to indicate that Christians use a different definition of "prayer."

This makes zero sense. It is demonstrable that you are wrong. And we have agreed on the definition of prayer that we are talking about. You have said that prayer in our context is one that influences events. That is precisely the dictionary definition.

It seems obvious that to show that the Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational, you would have to use a definition of "prayer" that Christians use.

That really is easy. There are lots of definitions from lots of dictionaries.

Take the Oxford English dictionary. Oxford is world renown BTW. You might not know that but it is generally regarded as the most comprehensive, accurate, and scholarly dictionary of the English language.

superstition

Excessively credulous belief in the supernatural.

Then there is Merriam-Webster, I'm certain that you have heard of them.

Merriam-Webster

Superstition

1 a : a belief or practice resulting from ignorance, fear of the unknown, trust in magic or chance, or a false conception of causation b : an irrational abject attitude of mind toward the supernatural, nature, or God resulting from superstition

2 : a notion maintained despite evidence to the contrary.

Now, if you honestly read those definitions and continue to maintain that there is no basis to say that prayer is by definition superstitious then you are just being intellectually dishonest.

 

[I less than three logic]

True, it seems to be going nowhere, but not because I see Earth as separate from the rest of the universe (I don't).

You're correct again. It is going nowhere because you continue to cling to this false analogy.

What I said is that one can logically come to the conclusion that the precise combination of conditions necessary for intelligent life to emerge are likely unique to Earth.

Which is a point I have already conceded. That is why I don't consider it irrational to believe that other intelligent life may not exist. There is no evidence to judge the likeliness of the conditions, so one can choose as they wish until more evidence is available.

Yes, it IS evidence (far from irrefutable evidence, however) of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe. Unfortunately, the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere in the universe was never in question, because anything is possible unless proven impossible. There is little if any evidence that intelligent life actually exists outside of the solar system.

It is irrefutable supporting evidence for the possibility of life elsewhere unless you do one of two things. Claim that life on Earth emerged completely independent of events that can happen naturally, or prove that the naturally occurring events that led to the creation of the life supporting conditions on Earth are impossible to happen anywhere else.

As I explained above, supernatural events are not necessary in order to conclude it improbable that intelligent life exists outside of Earth.

And, as I explained above, this was about whether or not this is evidence supporting the possibility, not on how probable you may think it is.

Again, the only evidence needed to support the possibility of anything is the fact that it cannot be proven to be impossible. It would be as irrational to conclude that it is impossible that God exists as it would be to conclude that it is impossible for intelligent life to exist elsewhere. Something cannot be "more possible" than something else (it's either possible or it's impossible). The possibility of either isn't really in question and has already been discussed on this thread.

-Bri

You don't actually believe this nonsense you typed, do you? First, I'm not claiming either are impossible, nor arguing about what is irrational. This is about your claim that it is equally rational to believe in anything as long as it is possible, and I disagree. How rational it is to believe in something that is possible is directly related to the quality of evidence supporting the possibility, among other things, such as what is must be contradicted by believing in it. In the case of life elsewhere in the universe, aside from the "evidence" that we can't prove it impossible, we have evidence that life has occurred at least once and no logical reason to conclude it is impossible to happen more than once. That is empirical evidence supporting the possibility. In the case of God existing, we have the "evidence" that we can't prove it impossible, and that is it. Absolutely nothing else. Therefore, your analogy that it is equally rational to believe God exists as it is to believe life exists elsewhere is wrong.

 

[Bri]

Now, if you honestly read those definitions and continue to maintain that there is no basis to say that prayer is by definition superstitious then you are just being intellectually dishonest.

There is certainly a basis for the opinion that prayer is superstitious; however, there is no basis for the claim that prayer is necessarily superstitious by definition. None of the actual dictionary definitions of "superstition" you've posted support your claim that prayer is necessarily superstitious by definition. In fact, none of them even mention prayer.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Bri,

So I guess you have chosen to be obtuse and obfuscate rather than deal with arguments you find uncomfortable. You have left many questions unanswered.

1. You refuse to name a superstition, why?
2. You refuse to answer whether or not it is irrational to believe that raping virgins can cure aids. Bear in mind that we are not addressing the morality of the act. We are simply looking to see if the belief is rational.
3. You didn't answer the questions, if one person kills another because they believe God wants them to kill people is that reasonable? Is that rational? There are many instances in the Bible where people kill other people in the name of God. Is that rational?
4. You refuse to acknowledge the wikipedia definition of superstition.
5. You refuse to acknowledge Robert Ingersoll's definition of superstition.
6. Will you at least affirm that Skeptics hold that a belief in prayer is superstitious and irrational?
7. Will you at least affirm that there are scholarly works that state categorically that prayer is a superstition? That prayer is irrational?

 

[RandFan]

There is certainly a basis for the opinion that prayer is superstitious; however, there is no basis for the claim that prayer is necessarily superstitious by definition. None of the actual dictionary definitions of "superstition" you've posted support your claim that prayer is necessarily superstitious by definition. In fact, none of them even mention prayer.

(emphasis mine) This is disengenous or it is ignorant.

By this logic the dictionary must list EVERY mammal because not doing so renders any animal that otherwise fits the defintion not a mammal by defintion.

Your argument, quite simply, is demonstrably fallacious. To be something by defnition it must simply meet the defintion. There is no requirement that the thing be named in the dictionary.

 

[Bri]

Which is a point I have already conceded. That is why I don't consider it irrational to believe that other intelligent life may not exist. There is no evidence to judge the likeliness of the conditions, so one can choose as they wish until more evidence is available.

We are in agreement here, although you seem to be conceding your previous point about the "default" position being the only rational position when there is little or no evidence either way.

It is irrefutable supporting evidence for the possibility of life elsewhere unless you do one of two things.

Irrefutable evidence means that the conclusion must necessarily follow from the evidence. In this case, the conclusion follows from other irrefutable evidence (namely that it is not impossible that intelligent life exists elsewhere). It can very easily be argued that the existence of intelligent life here doesn't provide evidence at all of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere, but I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt by not dismissing it entirely as evidence of possibility. However, the existence of intelligent life here is in no way irrefutable evidence of the possibility of intelligent life elsewhere.

Claim that life on Earth emerged completely independent of events that can happen naturally, or prove that the naturally occurring events that led to the creation of the life supporting conditions on Earth are impossible to happen anywhere else.

This is exactly my point. It is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere because it isn't impossible.

And, as I explained above, this was about whether or not this is evidence supporting the possibility, not on how probable you may think it is.

The possibility is true because there is no irrefutable evidence that it is impossible. Whatever "supporting" evidence there might be of the possibility doesn't make the possibility any more true.

You don't actually believe this nonsense you typed, do you? First, I'm not claiming either are impossible, nor arguing about what is irrational. This is about your claim that it is equally rational to believe in anything as long as it is possible, and I disagree.

That is not even close to my claim. I agree that some things are less likely than others even when both are possible. My claim is (and always has been) that in cases where there is little evidence either for or against something, it is not necessarily irrational to hold an opinion either for or against it.

You admitted that this is true of the existence of intelligent life outside of the solar system. However, you claim that there are exceptions for other things for which there is little evidence for or against.

How rational it is to believe in something that is possible is directly related to the quality of evidence supporting the possibility, among other things, such as what is must be contradicted by believing in it.

The quality of evidence supporting the possibility of anything for which there is no proof of impossibility is irrefutable. The evidence is simply that there is no proof of its impossibility. If there is proof of impossibility, it would not be possible. In other words, something is possible if it isn't impossible. That is simply a fact, and cannot be any more or less true than "true."

In the case of life elsewhere in the universe, aside from the "evidence" that we can't prove it impossible, we have evidence that life has occurred at least once and no logical reason to conclude it is impossible to happen more than once. That is empirical evidence supporting the possibility.

Again, its possibility is entirely true without any additional evidence. That there is "empirical evidence supporting the possibility" doesn't make it any more true.

In the case of God existing, we have the "evidence" that we can't prove it impossible, and that is it. Absolutely nothing else.

Therefore, it is true that it is possible. Period. Any additional evidence will not make it any truer.

Therefore, your analogy that it is equally rational to believe God exists as it is to believe life exists elsewhere is wrong.

The possibility of each existing is true. The fact that there is little to no evidence of either actually existing precludes it from being necessarily irrational to have an opinion for or against the existence of either one.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

(emphasis mine) This is disengenous or it is ignorant.

By this logic the dictionary must list EVERY mammal because not doing so renders any animal that otherwise fits the defintion not a mammal by defintion.

Your argument, quite simply, is demonstrably fallacious. To be something by defnition it must simply meet the defintion. There is no requirement that the thing be named in the dictionary.

No, something can be shown to be a mammal if it can be shown to fit all of the characteristics of being a mammal. Something can be shown to be a superstition if it can be shown to fit all of the characteristics of being a superstition. Something can be shown to be evil if it can be shown to fit all of the characteristics of being evil.

The fact that two of these (superstition and evil) are not entirely objective terms doesn't mean that the dictionary must list all mammals (an objective term) in order to show that something is a mammal by definition. It does, however, mean that you cannot show something to be superstition or evil by definition.

-Bri