Quote:
Originally Posted by radix
Well it's true. Put in the form of a syllogism:
Code:
Major premise: There exist no things for which we have no evidence of their existence.
Minor premise: We have no evidence that alien life exists.
Conclusion: No alien life exists.
or, changing the major premise.
Code:
Major premise: There may exist things for which we have no evidence of their existence.
Minor premise: We have no evidence that (god|aliens) exist(s).
Conclusion: There is a possibility that (god|aliens) exist(s).
In other words, if you you accept that alien life exists as a matter of fact, sans evidence, then logically you're leaving yourself open to agnosticism. Somewhat interestingly, if you accept the first major premise as true, then you also preclude the possibility of scientific discovery. Since the fact of the matter is that we've discovered new things over the past few centuries, dark matter for instance, the major premise in the first syllogism is demonstrably false. Thus we have to accept that there may exist things that we have no compelling evidence for. Ergo, there is the possibility of ETI, and there is the possibility (however remote) of the existence of a god. This is why, to me, the smartest answer, and the one that is in keeping with the best traditions of science, is:
If there's one thing science has proven, it's that dogma seldom works. |
blah blah blah, leave your preaching to another thread. There's no reason to inject your beliefs in this thread. Leave your God debate to the designated subforum.