Prayer and power

[slingblade]

I just broke a mirror while trying to avoid a black cat which caused me to walk under a ladder. I was so upset, I forgot to close my umbrella before I entered the house, and accidentally carried a shovel indoors with me.

Should I be worried?

 

[Bri]

Yes, I'm curious about this evidence, too. I'm going to assume that it's not based on Bible passages or tales of the miraculous passed from person to person. So what is your evidence of the existence of God?

Of course it is. Like I said, you may not find such evidence compelling, but it is evidence, and there is plenty of it. Christians seem to find it quite compelling.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Fallacy. By this logic, if one's goal is to demonstrate that there is no Santa Claus then one would have to prove that there is no Santa Claus.

I would expect that if one's goal is to prove that there is no Santa Claus then one would have to prove that there is no Santa Claus! That seems fairly obvious to me.

Fortunately humans have the means to use both deduction and induction. Absent any evidence that there is no Santa Claus and in the face of evidence to the contrary we can, via induction, reasonably infer that there is no Santa Claus. Using your logic such a conclusion is mere opinion. If you choose to believe that one must prove a negative before one can reasonably conclude that a belief in Santa Claus is necessarily irrational then there is little I can do to change your mind. Such a notion, IMO, is very naive and ignorant of logic and reason.

If you're talking about the version of Santa Claus generally believed by children to climb down chimneys, there is much evidence against it. I can't say that I could prove that some beliefs in Santa Claus are necessarily irrational though. No, the word "necessarily" makes it naive and ignorant of logic and reason (not to mention unimaginative) to assume that no belief in Santa Claus could possibly be rational. Wikipedia apparently believes in Santa Claus:

Saint Nicholas is the common name for Saint Nicholas of Myra, who had a reputation for secret gift-giving, but is now commonly known as Santa Claus.

Oh, but I forgot. To believe in Santa Claus is necessarily irrational.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

There IS strong evidence pointing to the fact that prayer doesn't influence events.

There is strong evidence that prayer doesn't influence ALL events. There is no evidence that prayer doesn't influence ANY events.

"Can be" won't change what is. See my position on Santa Claus. That there "can be" a Santa Claus doesn't mean that there is a Santa Claus and "can be" doesn't mean that it is rational to believe that some guy in a red suit will come down your chimney on Christmas eve.

Again, you are misrepresenting my position. I never said that there is a Santa Claus. I also never said that it is necessarily rational to believe that some guy in a red suit will come down your chimney on Christmas eve.

That is the problem with your logic. Everythign is rational and irrational depending on point of view. Oh I know, NOT NECASSARILY IRRATIONAL. In the end what is the f***ing difference? If I can't say something is irrational then what is the point? If my opinion is as valid as those who believe that elephants can fly and frogs cause warts then what meaning does irrational have? You have rendered it purely subjective. Irrationality in your view is like art. If you think it is art then it is.

I have always maintained that you're overstating your case when you make a statement such as "Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational" and insist that it is fact rather than opinion. I'm sorry, but it is clearly an opinion. Some opinions are indeed backed up by evidence, but they are still opinion rather than fact. To state them as absolute fact is irrational.

My point is only that one need not demonstrate an absense of a link to conclude that something is necassarily irrational. In your opinion, AIU, one can still be rational and believe in something absent a link. Correct?

It is certainly possible, yes. In fact, scientists do it all the time by carefully observing correlations between events. There can be a correlation even if we don't know the link. Of course, we prefer to know "why" but if there is a correlation, we don't generally deny it just because we don't know why. So, yes, if you wanted to prove that there is no correlation, you would have to demonstrate an absence of a link.

A person who believes that frogs causes warts is not necassarily irrational so long as that person believes that the warts are caused via magic because it can't be proven that there is no such thing as magic and you can't prove that such a link doesn't exist.

Well, that would depend on the belief, but it seems to me that this particular belief is easily falsifiable.

If you assume that things like magic and fairies exist and can somehow, without explanation, be linked to an event then everything that is not logically impossible is possible and therefore not necessarily irrational.

Again, most assumptions that things like magic and faeries are probably irrational in my opinion, but all are not necessarily so.

It is STILL nonsensical. It is still unreasonable. It is still irrational to believe that frogs cause warts. It is still irrational to believe that reindeer fly and it is still irrational to believe that God asks people to kill for him. By your logic such a person is not necassarily irrational.

Probably irrational (in my opinion) but not necessarily so.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

I just broke a mirror while trying to avoid a black cat which caused me to walk under a ladder. I was so upset, I forgot to close my umbrella before I entered the house, and accidentally carried a shovel indoors with me.

Should I be worried?

If you are irrational, yes.

 

[RandFan]

I would expect that if one's goal is to prove that there is no Santa Claus then one would have to prove that there is no Santa Claus! That seems fairly obvious to me.

And you would do that by....?

If you're talking about the version of Santa Claus generally believed by children to climb down chimneys, there is much evidence against it.

As there is against prayer but there is no direct evidence against either.

James Randi has a great bit on this. He breaks it down to proving that Reindeer can't fly. You take 100 reindeer to the top of a roof and start throwing them off. After 100 reindeer splat on the ground you still have not proven that reindeer can't fly. You have only proven that those 100 reindeer can't fly.

Flying reindeer and prayer fall in the same category. It is irrational to believe in both because as humans with the capacity for logic and reason we can utilize induction to come to a conclusion as to both.

Pretty neat, don't you think?

 

[RandFan]

There is strong evidence that prayer doesn't influence ALL events. There is no evidence that prayer doesn't influence ANY events.

Common fallacy. See Randi's reindeer example above. Remember, humans are capable of both induction and deduction. I don't have to really agonize over where the snow came from that is on the lawn in the morning when I wake up that wasn't there when I went to sleep. I can't prove that it snowed the night before but I can infer that it did. Your argument says that it is not necassarily irrational to believe that the snow was put there by aliens because I can't prove that it snowed.

This is really a serious error on your part Bri and you continue to persist in it which is rather frustrating.

Again, you are misrepresenting my position. I never said that there is a Santa Claus. I also never said that it is necessarily rational to believe that some guy in a red suit will come down your chimney on Christmas eve.

Yes, we know, it isn't necessarily rational and it isn't necessarily irrational. That's just equivocation. If I say it isn't rational you jump up with the point that it isn't necessarily irrational which really tells us nothing. You might as well point out that the real world doesn't exist because we can't prove that it does and therefore we should qualify all existential statements. While it is true that we can't prove the existence of the real world the notion that we have to go around saying that existence isn't necessarily real is as much BS as is declaring that what is otherwise irrational isn't necessarily irrational.

I have always maintained that you're overstating your case when you make a statement such as "Christian belief in prayer is necessarily irrational"...

Belief in prayer is irrational. No more, no less.

I'm sorry, but it is clearly an opinion.

It is as much as an opinion that the sun will rise tomorrow.
That the real world exists.
That when I go outside in the morning and the sky is clear and there is snow on the ground that it snowed while I was sleeping.
That I had a great grandfather.

Some opinions are indeed backed up by evidence, but they are still opinion rather than fact.

All positions and beliefs are opinions.

To state them as absolute fact is irrational.

I have told you time and time again, I hold no such absolutes. Absolute truth is antithetical to science, logic and reason. Keep an open mind, just don't let your brains fall out.

It is certainly possible, yes. In fact, scientists do it all the time by carefully observing correlations between events. There can be a correlation even if we don't know the link. Of course, we prefer to know "why" but if there is a correlation, we don't generally deny it just because we don't know why. So, yes, if you wanted to prove that there is no correlation, you would have to demonstrate an absence of a link.

There must be "reason" to believe. It could be empirical evidence or a logical cause and effect, statistical evidence, something beyond a need or want to believe. Absent any evidence and lacking a connection it is then irrational.

Well, that would depend on the belief, but it seems to me that this particular belief is easily falsifiable.

How? Can you test every example of warts. See, this is your problem, warts and frogs are virtually the same as prayer. No one claims that frogs cause warts every time. Only that there is a link. So unless you can prove that it never works then using your logic it is not necessarily irrational.

Again, most assumptions that things like magic and faeries are probably irrational in my opinion, but all are not necessarily so.

In the face of evidence to the contrary and lacking any known link or mechanism they are irrational. But you are free to demonstrate that any of them are in fact rational.

Probably irrational (in my opinion) but not necessarily so.

Could such a person be committed to a mental ward to protect society?

 

[Bri]

Yes, my belief that there is an invisible, flying, horseshoe-crab-like creature that follows me around sometimes. You know once I figure out how to capture the darn thing I'll be famous. I'll just spray paint it and show it to everyone, they'll all be sorry they laughed at me then, won't they? Also, I think it'll make a good pet.

Now, prove this isn't true.

I can't. It could be true. Although I doubt it, your belief in this creature might actually be rational. Personally, I would recommend professional help though.

Great, present some of this fabled evidence already. Hopefully, it will as irrefutable as the fact that life existing on Earth shows that life is possible.

Where in "There is evidence of the existence of God" do you read the word "irrefutable?" I never said there was irrefutable evidence of God's existence. I previously said that there is irrefutable evidence of the possibility of God's existence -- just as irrefutable as evidence of the possibility that intelligent life exists elsewhere.

Yes it does. There is nothing that separates Earth and this solar system from the rest of the universe. The stuff that makes up this solar system is abundant throughout the universe. The physical laws that exist in this solar system appear to exist throughout the universe. If it is possible here, it is possible throughout the universe, because there is nothing fundamentally different between the two.

If you have irrefutable evidence that the conditions necessary for the emergence of intelligent life are not unique to Earth, please present it.

We have irrefutable evidence that it is possible here, so it logically follows that it is possible throughout the universe.

We have irrefutable evidence that it EXISTS here, so are you saying that it logically follows that it EXISTS throughout the universe? No, the reason it is possible that intelligent life exists elsewhere is because it's not impossible.

What does this mean? So by this argument, it is just as rational to believe my horseshoe-crab-like creature exists as it is to believe that God exists? Glad we agree, was starting to actually believe some of the people that said I was crazy.

I don't claim to know for certain whether one is or isn't more rational than the other. I simply said that neither are necessarily irrational. In the case of intelligent life elsewhere and God, I'm not sure how you would demonstrate that one is necessarily more rational than the other, but I'd certainly like to hear it. Otherwise, I think you'd be overstating things to say that one is necessarily more rational than the other.

No, but one can be more rational than the other based on the available evidence.

Yes, it's possible. Again, if you're asserting that it is necessarily so, you'd have to demonstrate it. Can you?

They are not both unfalsifiable in the same way.

Unfalsifiable means that it cannot be proven false. I didn't consider that there might be "ways" of being unfalsifiable, but I'm willing to hear you out on this.

The existence of life elsewhere in the universe is unfalsifiable claim only by practical limitations. Theoretically, we could search every star and planet in the universe, and after finding nothing, know for a fact life elsewhere does not exit. Doing the same will not prove God does not exist. It seems by the very definition of God, there is no possible way of proving God does not exist.

We would have to know exactly what to search for in order to assure that we know for a fact that intelligent life doesn't exist elsewhere. In fact, if an intelligent being didn't want us to know of its existence, it could either "play dumb" (prevent us from recognizing its intelligence) or hide from us. If intelligent beings didn't want to be found, it is possible that we might never be able to find them. Even if they did want to be found, it is possible that we couldn't communicate with them and would fail to recognize their intelligence.

Like intelligent life, it might require God's cooperation to acquire proof of his existence. However, once we had his cooperation, there is no chance that we wouldn't recognize his existence given that he is omniscient and could ensure it.

The probability is not the only way to determine which is a more rational option. You can also use the quality of evidence used to support that the possibility actually exists to determine which is more rational.

Perhaps you could use quality of evidence to determine rationality, although quality of evidence is rarely objective. I doubt you could provide an objective analysis of the evidence of either in this case, especially considering that there is little to no evidence to consider.

In the case of life elsewhere, we have evidence that life is possible and logic to say that if it is possible here that it must be possible elsewhere (see above).

Agreed.

In the case of God existing, we only have a definition that makes it impossible to falsify the claim, like that irritating horseshoe-crab-like creature. I think I should name him, his description is kind of long to write.

How about IHCC? Oddly, IHCC, God, and intelligent life outside of the solar system are all entirely possible.

Both possible, yes. Equally rational, no.

Again, you might be right about that, but can you show that one is necessarily more rational than the other? If not, then to say something like "one is necessarily more rational than the other" would be an inaccurate statement, wouldn't it?

Who claimed that? I said we have empirical evidence to show life is possible, and logical reasons to believe that what is possible in this solar system is possible throughout the universe.

You said "Empirical evidence is better quality than poor definitions. Making one opinion more rational to hold than the other." I assumed you mean that you have empirical evidence of intelligent life existing outside of the solar system since that was the topic of the discussion. If you meant that there is empirical evidence to show that intelligent life existing outside of the solar system is possible, that was never in question. Of course it is 100% possible (with or without empirical evidence). So is the existence of God.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Common fallacy. See Randi's reindeer example above. Remember, humans are capable of both induction and deduction. I don't have to really agonize over where the snow came from that is on the lawn in the morning when I wake up that wasn't there when I went to sleep. I can't prove that it snowed the night before but I can infer that it did.

Of course you can infer it, and I never said otherwise. Please stop putting words in my mouth and then crying fallacy.

Your argument says that it is rational to believe that the snow was put there by aliens because I can't prove that it snowed.

Again, no. My argument says that it's not necessarily irrational to believe that the snow was put there by aliens. Of course, you'd have to provide a pretty good reason for your belief if you wanted to convince me of it, but since it's possible that you do have good reason, I can't say that your belief is necessarily irrational.

This is really a serious error on your part Bri and you continue to persist in it which is rather frustrating.

The more serious error is to insert fallacies into my argument and then claim that I did it. I have to admit that it is getting a little annoying.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

Of course you can infer it, and I never said otherwise. Please stop putting words in my mouth and then crying fallacy.

I cry fallacy because it is fallacy. You said:

There is no evidence that prayer doesn't influence ANY events.

That has no bearing on whether the belief is rational.

Again, no. My argument says that it's not necessarily irrational to believe that the snow was put there by aliens.

Yes, it is. In the face of all of the evidence to the contrary it is irrational to hold such a belief.

Of course, you'd have to provide a pretty good reason for your belief if you wanted to convince me of it, but since it's possible that you do have good reason, I can't say that your belief is necessarily irrational.

This is just silly. All evidence tells us that snow on the ground is put there because of natural climate conditions. It is by default wrong and irrational to suppose that the snow was put there by aliens.

If someone has evidence that snow was put there by aliens then the impetus is on them to prove such an extraordinary claim.

The more serious error is to insert fallacies into my argument and then claim that I did it. I have to admit that it is getting a little annoying.

Then stop committing them. All propositions that are considered true are held provisionally. We don't hold propositions as correct as also not necessarily correct because they could be false.

By your logic we should put disclaimers in text books, !!!WARNING all things in this book could be false therefore they are not necessarily true.

Don't you see how silly that is?

No, we simply hold propositions as true if the evidence, reason and logic support those propositions and until evidence to the contrary can be presented.

 

[KelvinG]

I can't. It could be true. Although I doubt it, your belief in this creature might actually be rational. Personally, I would recommend professional help though.

Why do you assume that someone who believes in the existence of a "invisible, flying, horseshoe-crab-like creature" is in need of professional help while someone who believes in God is not?
At least I assume that's what you believe.

 

[I less than three logic]

If you meant that there is empirical evidence to show that intelligent life existing outside of the solar system is possible, that was never in question. Of course it is 100% possible (with or without empirical evidence). So is the existence of God.

-Bri

Here is the crux of the argument. Yes, both are possible with or without empirical evidence, but it is more rational to believe one with empirical evidence to show it is possible than one without empirical evidence.

This will be my last post on this subject. It is necessarily irrational to continue this conversation.

 

[RandFan]

Of course it is 100% possible (with or without empirical evidence). So is the existence of God.

I don't think you know what 100% possible means. To say that there is a 100% possibility of something is to say that it is true not that it absolutely could be true which is a nonsensical statement. 100% possibility of rain means that it will rain not that it could rain.

 

[Bri]

I cry fallacy because it is fallacy. You said:

There is no evidence that prayer doesn't influence ANY events.

That has no bearing on whether the belief is rational.

My comment was a correction of your fallacy:

There IS strong evidence pointing to the fact that prayer doesn't influence events.

There is strong evidence that prayer doesn't influence ALL events. There is no evidence that prayer doesn't influence ANY events.

I'm sorry, but there is no strong evidence pointing to the fact that prayer doesn't influence events. There's no evidence of it at all. It's unfalsifiable. Now, whether it has any bearing on whether the belief is irrational or not, I don't know. You're the one that brought it up, so I was hoping that you could show the relevance to the conversation.

Yes, it is. In the face of all of the evidence to the contrary it is irrational to hold such a belief.

Perhaps, but I doubt you can prove it to be a fact. In other words, it is not necessarily irrational to hold such a belief. I have no problem with your expressing an opinion that you think it irrational. The only problem I have is when you imply that your opinion is fact. It's not fact.

This is just silly. All evidence tells us that snow on the ground is put there because of natural climate conditions. It is by default wrong and irrational to suppose that the snow was put there by aliens.

Under most circumstances I would agree with you. However, I cannot say that it would necessarily be the case under any and all circumstances. It is possible that someone has good reason to believe the snow was put there by aliens. Although the chances are great that such a belief is irrational, it is not necessarily irrational.

If someone has evidence that snow was put there by aliens then the impetus is on them to prove such an extraordinary claim.

I completely agree. And I never said otherwise. However, to say that their claim is necessarily irrational is to assume that they don't have any such evidence.

Then stop committing them. All propositions that are considered true are held provisionally. We don't hold propositions as correct as also not necessarily correct because they could be false.

I'm sorry, but that's just another way of saying that it's your opinion rather than fact. Unfortunately, when you use the words "necessarily irrational" or state outright that it's not just opinion, you are stating a fact, contradicting your statement that all propositions are held provisionally. If they were in fact held provisionally, then you wouldn't argue that they're fact.

By your logic we should put disclaimers in text books, !!!WARNING all things in this book could be false therefore they are not necessarily true.

Don't you see how silly that is?

Yes, it would be if that was a valid conclusion to my logic. It's not. Most textbooks are careful not to state opinions as facts. For example, I've never seen a textbook state that belief in prayer is necessarily irrational.

No, we simply hold propositions as true if the evidence, reason and logic support those propositions and until evidence to the contrary can be presented.

Except in cases where you happen to agree with the proposition, such as intelligent life existing elsewhere in our galaxy and others you've mentioned previously in this thread.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

Why do you assume that someone who believes in the existence of a "invisible, flying, horseshoe-crab-like creature" is in need of professional help while someone who believes in God is not?
At least I assume that's what you believe.

I think your assumption of what I believe is probably mistaken in this case.

-Bri

 

[Bri]

I don't think you know what 100% possible means. To say that there is a 100% possibility of something is to say that it is true not that it absolutely could be true which is a nonsensical statement.

I said that a proposition is either possible or impossible. One proposition cannot be "more possible" than another proposition, as "I less than three logic" seemed to imply. So, yes, the statement "it is possible that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system" is a true statement.

Note that I did NOT say (nor have I ever said) that the probability that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system is 100%. The statement "it is possible that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system" would indicate that the probability that intelligent life exists outside of the solar system is greater than 0%.

100% possibility of rain means that it will rain not that it could rain.

No, 100% probability of rain or 100% chance of rain means that it will rain.

A possibility of rain means that it could rain.

100% possibility of rain is actually redundant. I used it to make a point, but it does not mean that it will rain (which would be "100% probability").

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

So, yes, the proposition "it is possible that intelligent life exists outside of our solar system" is 100% true.

This is pure and utter nonsense. You have no idea what you are even talking about. Give me an example of something that isn't 100% "true" as it relates to the possibility of something or give me somthing that isn't 100% "possible" (I'm guessing that like the other examples I have asked for you will ignore this one so just understand that your refusal to provide an example will mean far more than any convoluted explanation.)

Given your usage of the word something is either possible or it is not possible. There is no 50% possible.

bartleby.com
Something possible can conceivably occur; something probable very likely will occur. Possible is sometimes considered an absolute adjective.

If we assume that "possible" is an absolute adjective then you are being, at best, redundant and at worst tautological. Of course we will have to wait for your example of a <100% possible occurrence, you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

 

[Bri]

Given your usage of the word something is either possible or it is not possible. There is no 50% possible.

Yes, true. It would be incorrect to say that intelligent life elsewhere is "50% possible." The term would be "50% probability" or "50% chance" as in "the probability of intelligent life elsewhere is 50%."

If we assume that "possible" is an absolute adjective then you are being, at best, redundant and at worst tautological. Of course we will have to wait for your example of a <100% possible occurrence, you'll forgive me if I don't hold my breath.

Yes, I was being redundant to make a point that if two things are possible, one cannot be more possible than the other (they are both 100% possible). There is no such thing as a <100% possible occurrence. That was my point.

-Bri

 

[RandFan]

My comment was a correction of your fallacy:

Sorry, no.

There IS strong evidence pointing to the fact that prayer doesn't influence events.

The qualifier is not necessary. Otherwise textbooks would be riddled with such qualifications.

I'm sorry, but there is no strong evidence pointing to the fact that prayer doesn't influence events.

There's lots. Every study fails to find any correlation.

Perhaps, but I doubt you can prove it to be a fact.

I can't prove anything absolutely. To go around in this life qualifying everything is silly and a big waste of time.

The only problem I have is when you imply that your opinion is fact.

So if I state that the sun will rise tomorrow will you argue with me because I did not state that it is simply my opinion? That's just silly.

Under most circumstances I would agree with you. However, I cannot say that it would necessarily be the case under any and all circumstances. It is possible that someone has good reason to believe the snow was put there by aliens. Although the chances are great that such a belief is irrational, it is not necessarily irrational.

NOTHING IS NECESSARILY TRUE!!!!!

So what? We have to qualify every statement with the modifier that this is just opinion? Are you suggesting that school textbooks be re-written to declare all propositions counter to the propositions we hold as true are not necessarily false? Come on, you can't really believe this?

I completely agree. And I never said otherwise. However, to say that their claim is necessarily irrational is to assume that they don't have any such evidence.

Therefore every claim counter to our understanding of the laws of physics is not necessarily true and scientists, educators, etc., can't make statements as to the validity of arguments or the truthfulness of a proposition without a qualifier that these are all just opinions?

I'm sorry, but that's just another way of saying that it's your opinion rather than fact.

That the sun will necessarily rise tomorrow is an opinion.
That I necessarily had a grandfather is just an opinion.
That the real world necessarily exists is just an opinion.

There are no absolute facts. There are only probabilities and certainties. Science holds no absolutes.

Unfortunately, when you use the words "necessarily irrational" or state outright that it's not just opinion, you are stating a fact, contradicting your statement that all propositions are held provisionally.

2+2=4 is not necessarily true. E=MC2 is not necessarily true. Gravity is not necessarily true.

RandFan
All propositions that are considered true are held provisionally. We don't hold propositions as correct as also not necessarily correct because they could be false.

Bri
I'm sorry, but that's just another way of saying that it's your opinion rather than fact.

Wow, so, facts are out. We can only express opinions.

Does this mean that you believe that Intelligent Design should be taught in public school science classes? Do you think educators should always inform their students that since all propositions are considered true and are held provisional then it is all just opinion?

If they were in fact held provisionally, then you wouldn't argue that they're fact.

Oops... sorry Bri, remember, there is no such thing as facts. You will need to find a different word. However, in the other hand, you could continue to use the word if you would embrace the scientific use of the word.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty"; there ain't no such animal in an exciting and complex world. The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us falsely for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

Got that? That's it Bri, all in a nutshell. That we only hold truths as provisional doesn't mean that all truths are mere opinion. You are fighting the same fight the ID proponents are fighting. I'm curious, are you an ID proponent? This isn't meant as an ad hominem but it would go along way to understanding your misconceptions of science and truth.

Yes, it would be if that was a valid conclusion to my logic. It's not. Most textbooks are careful not to state opinions as facts.

You simply haven't a clue.

Except in cases where you happen to agree with the proposition, such as intelligent life existing elsewhere in our galaxy and others you've mentioned previously in this thread.

(see induction, logic, reason and inference).

 

[RandFan]

Yes, I was being redundant to make a point that if two things are possible, one cannot be more possible than the other (they are both 100% possible). There is no such thing as a <100% possible occurrence. That was my point.

I agree and will modify my use of the word "possible". Possible is that which is logically possible.

That said, there is a huge difference between the probability of the existence of inteligent life outside of our solar system given the sheer number of galxies and stars. We know what is required for life. We have a pretty good understanding of the distribution of elements in the universe. We have good reason and can use induction to infer the likelyhood of inteligent life on other planets.

We know that there is one planet that has inteligent life and we know the conditions necassary for that life. For science it isn't a matter of faith that leads them to conclude that inteliegent life exists beyond our solar system, it is our understanding of statistics and the known natural world.

For God we got zip, nothing, nada. At best theologists have faith and a possibility.

I get that you can't see the difference but I assure you that scientists and others trained to think critically and who understand logic and reason see a huge difference.

Many of us have tried to demonstrate the difference to you but we can't make you understand what you won't consider.