(March 17, 2010 at 5:40 pm)AngelThMan Wrote:Frank Wrote:Cosmological arguments and other apologetic devices (e.g. intelligent design) are merely post-hoc attempts to justify a preexisting belief system (which is the exact opposite of how science actually discovers things).AngelThMan Wrote:When scientists explore the possibility of UFOs, they do not start out by asking why people believe in UFOs. They delve into other possibilities, not excluding witness accounts, which could be likened to the faith-based experiences of believers.Frank Wrote:Is there something analogous to cosmological arguments commonly used to support the existence of UFO's?I guess the closest kin would be the argument affirming a belief that there must be life outside of earth, though there's no conclusive proof. The argument I presented is that witness accounts of UFOs are analogous to faith-based experiences, such as when believers proclaim they have felt God's presence in their hearts. Both require the consideration of personal testimony. And if scientists can consider UFO witness accounts, they should also be able to consider accounts of inner faith. I tend not to separate science and faith like a lot of atheists, as well as a lot of Christians, do.
AngelThMan Wrote:Though we've seen many situations in which leaders have been killed, and no new religion has been created. The point is who can say whether what you claim is true or not?Frank Wrote:It simply refutes a commonly held notion (examining the motives of would be myth makers is relevant if you're interested in studying religous mythology).It is relevant, but certainly not conclusive.
You're indeed correct on this point - it's not conclusive (merely relevant). However, cases are commonly won on circumstantial evidence. Eventually the weight of evidence can build to a point where a position becomes unreasonable (even though no single piece of evidence was conclusive in itself).