Quote:
Originally Posted by radix
Claims such as those should be substantiated by evidence, or at least reasoning. You cannot on the one hand claim vehemently that there is no God, and on the other hand claim vehemently that there must be ETI. You either except that it possible for things to exist without being able to prove their existence or you do not. You're trying to have it both ways, thus my comment about the inconsistency of your thinking.
First of all, the concept of the multiverse is nothing more than hypothesis. It is not theory because it has not withstood the test of fitting in with observed phenomenon. Nobody has any knowledge of the size of the multiverse, as it hasn't been proven that the multiverse hypothesis is true.
As far as Richard Dawkins goes, I've never read his book, but if he claims absolutely that there is no possibility of god, then he is making claims that amount to argumentum ad ignorantiam:
respectively. It's a two way street, those who claim that there must be a god suffer from the same logical fallacy as those who claim that there is no possibility of a god. The only logical answer is "I cannot be certain of the answer".
|
They are substantiated by reasoning: Probability.
Dawkins does not claim there is no possibility, rather that the probability is
very small.
Fair enough about the multiverse.
Also, I never said anything about the life having to be intelligent.