(December 13, 2015 at 10:03 am)Mr.wizard Wrote:(December 13, 2015 at 9:25 am)SteveII Wrote: So, your defeater for premise 1 is that we don't know (and logically can't know) what life on other planets will tell us. And you think that is more plausible than this argument? arguments are supposed to find the most plausible answer with the data we have. That is what this does. You are biased because of your scientism.
The best answer when you don't know, is "I don't know", making one up is irrational. If you don't know what life on other planets will tell us it impossible to say what is most plausible. Your just plugging god into places we don't have answers (God of the Gaps). Also arguments are not used for finding the most plausible answers, that's called research. Arguments are used to persuade or convince someone about a specific claim or point of view.
No, that is not the best answer to the question. Your scientism is getting in the way. All that science can tell you is that we don't know (and it may be impossible to ever know). It cannot make conclusions as to what it means if X or Y. Luckily philosophy can help us make sense of the world. You are also wrong about the purpose of logical arguments. They help us make sense of facts and other inputs and ensure our conclusions are sound.