Bertrandd Russell's China Teapot

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil

1. A nonexistent entity saves you from inquiring on whether it is a physical entity or a nonphysical.

You are asking me, “If I ask a non-physical entity exists or not, should I expect a response?”

Yes, you should expect a response from me, because I have a response [imagine that I raise my hand].

Here is my response to you on your question, “[Does] a non-physical entity exist or not?”

First, before anything else, now that we are getting more deep, and you are the one bringing up the distinction between a non-physical entity and a nonexistent entity:

[Post #152]

What is (are) the most reliable way(s) to distinguish between a non-physical entity and a nonexistent entity?

I like to invite you to work with me to concur on what is an existent entity and what is a physical entity.

Is that all right with you?

You have the right to be the first to tell readers here what is your concept of an existent entity and also a physical entity, because you bring up the two terms which are based by negation on the two terms existent entity and physical entity.

Or would you rather I be the first to present my concept of what is an existent entity and my concept of what is a physical entity?

That is my response to you for a beginning at this point of the thread on Russell’s teapot.

Ryrge

 

[Area_Man]

You are asking me, “If I ask a non-physical entity exists or not, should I expect a response?”

Yes, you should expect a response from me, because I have a response [imagine that I raise my hand].

Here is my response to you on your question, "[Does] a non-physical entity exist or not?"First, before anything else, now that we are getting more deep, and you are the one bringing up the distinction between a non-physical entity and a nonexistent entity:

I like to invite you to work with me to concur on what is an existent entity and what is a physical entity.

Is that all right with you?

You have the right to be the first to tell readers here what is your concept of an existent entity and also a physical entity, because you bring up the two terms which are based by negation on the two terms existent entity and physical entity.

Or would you rather I be the first to present my concept of what is an existent entity and my concept of what is a physical entity?
That is my response to you for a beginning at this point of the thread on Russell’s teapot.

Ryrge

                                 First of all, I apologize for not being able to do the multi quote thing very well. I hope that won’t be a hindrance. Second I wasn’t clear in my question. I should have said, “If I inquire a non-physical being on weather it exists, should I expect a response from the non-physical being?” I did use the term entity, but being would be more accurate for the question I was asking.

I would like to try to find common ground on what is an existent entity and what is a non-physical entity. I think we also need to define the term entity. Are we talking about something intelligent, or are we just talking about “a thing?” A thing is the most broad so I’m going to propose that as my definition.

As I’ve thought about this question, I have come up with four possible categories any entity can fit into.

I. Entities with physical properties that exist. This is pretty easy to define. Objects as small as atoms and as large as the universe go in this category.

II. Entities with physical properties that do not exist. This is where logical absurdities and incoherent concepts belong. In this category you will find the married bachelors, invisible pink unicorns, and square circles.

III. Entities with non-physical properties that do not exist. There is an infinite list of possibilities for this category, but I cannot think of a way to know if there is anything here or if this is an empty set. If I had to shoehorn an example into this category it would be ESP.

IV. Entities with non-physical properties that exist. Electromagnetic waves are all around us, but I cannot experience them with my senses. However I can confirm the existence of radio waves with my senses if I have a radio telescope. I put human thoughts, emotions, and memories in this category as well.

I think it’s important to point out that radio waves and human thoughts may be non- physical, but they are contingent on some thing from category I for them to exist. The universe creates and radio waves, and human emotions are contingent on the human brain. Maybe you can give examples of existing non-physical entities that are not contingent on a category I entity.

So there is my starting point. I will admit that my question about how to tell the difference between a non-physical and non-existent entity doesn’t fit this model. I hope you won’t see this as moving the goal posts. When I realized that there are really four possible categories, it was clear my question was ill formed.

I look forward to an enlightening discussion.

 

[KingCoil]

Dear Area Man, yes! I really love to have a serious exchange of thoughts with you on non-existent things and non-physical things, in this thread on Russell’s teapot.

I keep mentioning Russell’s teapot because it is the topic of this thread and we must avoid digressing from it.

Now, the way I see Russell, he is not doing any serious thinking at all because he does not define his terms: teapot, Christian God, Gods of Olympus or Valhalla, and in that respect I say that we must not give any serious thinking to his thinking or non-thinking on the probability [sic] of God existing.

You say: “Are we talking about something intelligent, or are we just talking about ‘a thing’? A thing is the most broad so I’m going to propose that as my definition.”

That is a very good thought, that “A thing is the most broad so I’m going to propose that as my definition.”

I concur with you on a thing is the most broad word and concept to keep in mind on non-existent things and non-physical things.

So, I will use the word thing to refer to concepts about a thing, which thing covers everything at all that refers to our to be concurred on concept of what is a thing.

First, how do we at all get to concur on a concept of what is a thing?

Here is my suggestion, we can before anything else concur that we are both talking about what the word thing refers to in our each one’s respective mind.

Here is my thinking on what is a thing in our each one’s respective mind, it is what we can concur on to be a thought in our minds.

We have many thoughts in our mind which thoughts can each one be called a thing.

So, let us give examples of thoughts in our mind which we can and do call things, about which when we concur on to be in our minds, then we can get connected at all as to talk on the same thoughts or things.

For examples of thoughts or things in our minds: you and me, the posts in this thread, a computer, a dog, God, invisible pink unicorn, teapot, etc., etc., etc.

So, when we talk about the thing called God and we concur on the thought in our mind which we call God, we can talk on the same thing or thought, that is a connected exchange of thinking, and not a case of talking past each other’s head.

Now, let us call that thought or thing or word for example God, which thought, thing, or word we talk about in connection together, let us call it ’ a concept’.

Wherefore, a thing insofar as we are talking in connection together is a concept.

Next, we ask ourselves the question, Does this concept God have a corresponding object in actual objective reality of existence?

If it does then we can agree that the concept God has an object outside our mind that corresponds to the concept of God in our mind.

Are you following me, namely, that we now have two thoughts in our mind:

1. Concepts in our mind
2. Objects outside our mind

Let us think about concepts in our mind and objects outside our mind, in this direction, namely, that

A concept can correspond to an object outside our mind or it can just be only in our mind.

So also an object can correspond to a concept in our mind or it can just be outside our mind.

At this point, let me read about your thinking on what is a thing.

Ryrge

 

[KingCoil]

Please everyone posting here, give me your reaction to my thinking in the above message posted since Nov. 14, 2013 12:24 pm.

It is now in my place (8 hours in advance of Greenwich), 05:12 am, Nov. 20, 2013, Wednesday.

Do some thinking, please.

Kingcoil

 

[Area_Man]

Next, we ask ourselves the question, Does this concept God have a corresponding object in actual objective reality of existence?

If it does then we can agree that the concept God has an object outside our mind that corresponds to the concept of God in our mind.

Are you following me, namely, that we now have two thoughts in our mind:1. Concepts in our mind
2. Objects outside our mindLet us think about concepts in our mind and objects outside our mind, in this direction, namely, thatA concept can correspond to an object outside our mind or it can just be only in our mind.

So also an object can correspond to a concept in our mind or it can just be outside our mind.At this point, let me read about your thinking on what is a thing.

Ryrge

I’ll just cut to the chase and tell you what I believe. I believe that all concepts of God(s) are the product of human thinking, and do not correspond to any object in actual objective reality of existence. Primitive humans invented Gods to explain events that, in their time, were unexplainable. I believe that the concept of God is the way many modern humans explain things that science has yet to explain. Concepts of God, heaven, hell, the soul, an afterlife… are the way many modern humans cope with the certainty and fear that we have knowing that we are all going to die some day. People use these concepts to resolve uncertainty in their own mind, and then rationalize their beliefs with explanations like ‘God is a non-physical being outside of time and space that cannot be proved by the methods of science.’

I believe that the universe acts as we would expect it to act if there were no God(s) exerting their influence into the universe. Without good evidence of influence from a God, I have no reason to believe in one.

Russell’s China Teapot is not a refutation of any concept of God. It is an illustration of who has the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with the side making the positive claim. Absent proof of existence of a china teapot out in space or a God outside of time and space, a person is justified in their belief that neither exists.

 

[KingCoil]

Please, do some reading and of course thinking and tell people what is your information of the concept of God in the Christian faith.

Ryrge

 

[Gorgias]

II. Entities with physical properties that do not exist. This is where logical absurdities and incoherent concepts belong. In this category you will find the married bachelors, invisible pink unicorns, and square circles.

Hmm. I guess that this category seems problematic. If a being doesn’t exist, how does it have physical properties? Is there a blond married bachelor, or a Caucasian one, or a tall one? Perhaps this is the categories of non-existent (putatively) physical beings; yet, that wouldn’t jive with your distinction of physical ‘properties’ as being the criterion that’s in play, would it?

III. Entities with non-physical properties that do not exist. There is an infinite list of possibilities for this category, but I cannot think of a way to know if there is anything here or if this is an empty set. If I had to shoehorn an example into this category it would be ESP.

Again, it seems to be the analogue to your category 2. No less infinite than category 2, it seems.

IV. Entities with non-physical properties that exist. Electromagnetic waves are all around us, but I cannot experience them with my senses. However I can confirm the existence of radio waves with my senses if I have a radio telescope. I put human thoughts, emotions, and memories in this category as well.

Hmm… This category needs some work. The distinction you raise isn’t “physical properties that I cannot detect”, but “no physical properties.” Electromagnetic waves really do have physical properties, so they don’t fit into this category! Human thoughts, emotions, and memories have some sort of physical extension, we might claim, inasmuch as we can measure them in a lab, right? (Or, does that blur the distinction between thoughts and the physical manifestations of these thoughts?)

Maybe you can give examples of existing non-physical entities that are not contingent on a category I entity.

Energy. (Of course, I’d still say that it has physical properties, but inasmuch as it meets your definition, it’s fair game.)

 

[Gorgias]

Primitive humans invented Gods to explain events that, in their time, were unexplainable.

Agreed. However, the fact that some cultures invented their own notions of a particular deity (or set of deities) doesn’t imply that the notion of ‘deity’ is a humanly-invented one; nor does it demonstrate that all proposed deities are humanly-invented.

I believe that the concept of God is the way many modern humans explain things that science has yet to explain.

And yet, the notion of God predates science. So, we can’t claim that ‘notions of God explain gaps in scientific theory’, can we? After all, if that were the case, then we should be able to demonstrate that all things physical were explained as manifestations of God, and that just doesn’t hold up for all ‘humanly-created stories of deity.’

People use these concepts to resolve uncertainty in their own mind, and then rationalize their beliefs with explanations like ‘God is a non-physical being outside of time and space that cannot be proved by the methods of science.’

Hmm… you’re claiming that theories of God are reactions to science, right? Then why does the notion of god as non-physical being, outside of time and space… actually precede science? It seems the atheists’ equivalent of ‘folk etymology’: it’s a ‘common-sense’ assumption, plausible on its surface, but without any justification or proof to substantiate it.

I believe that the universe acts as we would expect it to act if there were no God(s) exerting their influence into the universe. Without good evidence of influence from a God, I have no reason to believe in one.

And, as always, it comes down to claims about ‘evidence’. OK … what would be sufficient ‘evidence’? What would make that kind of evidence ‘sufficient’? (Yes, it really comes down to definitions…)

Russell’s China Teapot is not a refutation of any concept of God. It is an illustration of who has the burden of proof. The burden of proof lies with the side making the positive claim. Absent proof of existence of a china teapot out in space or a God outside of time and space, a person is justified in their belief that neither exists.

And yet, taken in the spirit it was offered, it has little force to commend it: Russell’s teapot is a physical entity which has eluded detection; therefore, since all physical entities are putatively detectable, the lack of evidence reasonably leads one to skepticism. On the other hand, God is (by definition) non-physical; the lack of physical evidence does not lead one to a reasonable claim of disbelief, in the same way that the lack of physical evidence of a physical object does.

 

[polytropos]

As I’ve thought about this question, I have come up with four possible categories any entity can fit into.

I. Entities with physical properties that exist. This is pretty easy to define. Objects as small as atoms and as large as the universe go in this category.

II. Entities with physical properties that do not exist. This is where logical absurdities and incoherent concepts belong. In this category you will find the married bachelors, invisible pink unicorns, and square circles.

III. Entities with non-physical properties that do not exist. There is an infinite list of possibilities for this category, but I cannot think of a way to know if there is anything here or if this is an empty set. If I had to shoehorn an example into this category it would be ESP.

Some comments on your categories. I feel like II) and III) are vacuous. If a concept is not coherent, then I don’t know how it could constitute an entity, or why entities which cannot exist should be thought of as entities. The very idea of an entity seems tethered to the idea of existence, so it seems that vacuities are not entities. (That said, square circles would probably be closer to III, since geometrical objects are nonphysical).

IV. Entities with non-physical properties that exist. Electromagnetic waves are all around us, but I cannot experience them with my senses. However I can confirm the existence of radio waves with my senses if I have a radio telescope. I put human thoughts, emotions, and memories in this category as well.

I think it’s important to point out that radio waves and human thoughts may be non- physical, but they are contingent on some thing from category I for them to exist. The universe creates and radio waves, and human emotions are contingent on the human brain. Maybe you can give examples of existing non-physical entities that are not contingent on a category I entity.

Hmm, I would not really think of these things as having non-physical properties, unless that is construed in a very broad sense. I would think of objects with non-physical properties as abstract objects, ie. numbers, perhaps propositions, other abstractions, etc. I’d agree that thoughts are non-physical, though probably not in the sense you would.

To take the case of waves: They seem very physical to me! (It should be noted that you can experience the visual spectrum, which is electromagnetic radiation, with your sight.) You might be referring to their mathematical structure, but if that’s the case, then what doesn’t have some mathematical structure? Certainly the objects in I) do: take an atom. It has some subatomic microstructure. Its arrangement in a certain form makes it one particular atom rather than another. Waves are constituted by photons, and the fact that they have some structure distinguishes them from other sorts of waves (ie. radio from gamma, based on wavelength).

Now, the intuition that the structure is something important, is I think a good one. I would say that the structure is non-material, though, rather than non-physical. The structure isn’t matter, but in the case of waves and atoms, it has a physical basis (and is the proper study of physics).

 

[KingCoil]

I have this idea which I see to be very constructive and productive for the proof of God’s existence in the actual objective reality of existence, that existence in which we all posters here are in.

First we start everyone interested in the question whether God exists, with working to concur on the information of the concept of God in the Christian faith.

Afterwards we proceed to search for God corresponding to the concept we have concurred on in regard to the information of the concept in the Christian faith.

Now, addressing Area Man, will you please just read about the concept of God in the Christian faith, I suggest you take up the Catholic Catechism, it is available freely in the internet.

I really must tell you that you are not at all exerting any efforts to get connected with the issue of whether God exists or not, what you do is to dodge all the time.

How can you at all talk intelligently and relevantly when you keep on taking flight from getting to read the concept of God in the Christian faith, and thus we you and I can work together to concur on what is the most important aspect of the concept of God in the Christian faith, and from there we can you and I proceed to look for God as per concurred on concept, in the total realm of actual objective reality of existence in which you and I are also ourselves located in.

Please, no more dodging now, no more manipulating words to muddle up the issue by in effect flight from the issue, read up on God in the Catholic Catechism.

KingCoil

 

[inocente]

Please, no more dodging now, no more manipulating words to muddle up the issue by in effect flight from the issue, read up on God in the Catholic Catechism.

This is a discussion forum, and it’s not a discussion if you tell people to go away and read stuff. So please, no more dodging now, tell everyone this concept of God in the Christian faith, and once the Christians here agree on it then the non-Christians here can comment.

 

[KingCoil]

Originally Posted by KingCoil
Please, no more dodging now, no more manipulating words to muddle up the issue by in effect flight from the issue, read up on God in the Catholic Catechism.

You, inocente, are a Christian, so you know the Apostles’ Creed and the first verse of Genesis.

Please, read now what I know from stock knowledge of the first verse of Genesis and the first verse of the Apostles’ Creed:

*In the beginning God made heaven and earth. * Gen. 1:1 ]

I believe in God the Father almighty, creator of heaven and earth. * Apostles’ Creed: verse 1 ]***

Now, the way I will put it in words, from the above two verses which are the documentary sources of the Christian faith, I invite you to read and think about this concept of God in His relation to man and the universe, namely:

In the Christian faith, God in relation to man and the universe is the creator of everything that is not God Himself.

Now, inocente, and everyone here participating in this thread and also in this forum, we are as we talk, we are in the realm of concepts in our mind.

Please read my concept of God, and then think and see if you and I can already proceed to look for God the object in the realm of actual objective reality of existence, that object that corresponds to the concept of God as I have presented above.

You see, everyone here, there is a grand fallacy of humans to talk endlessly and never getting down to the objective realm of existence, and look for the object they are talking endlessly about – and using so many words to muddle up the issue, namely, is there the object at all in the realm of objective existence like in the universe, or you are going to talk on and on and on, talking without any purpose except to muddle up the issue, namely, that of looking for the object talked about in the actual objective realm of existence which the universe is a part of.

So, I invite everyone to join me in looking for God as the object corresponding to the concept of God as I have presented it above.

Don’t you notice that Russell is an expert in muddling up the issue about the existence of God by talking about teapot in space and Gods of Valhalla and Olympus, and you think that he is just trying to teach you guys about the burden of proof is with the party asserting something – who does not know that, but that is not an absolute principle in the realm of thinking and reasoning and debating.

The critical principle in thinking and reasoning and debating is that a human who asserts something and claims it to be a truth or a fact has the burden to prove, no matter that his words are an affirming or a negating utterance, as long as he the talker is communicating what for himself and to be for everyone else, a truth and/or a fact.

So, stop already being fooled by the intellectual knavery of one Bertrand Russell.

KingCoil

 

[Area_Man]

And, as always, it comes down to claims about ‘evidence’. OK … what would be sufficient ‘evidence’? What would make that kind of evidence ‘sufficient’? (Yes, it really comes down to definitions…)

Yes, it does come down to evidence! It always comes down to evidence. I do not currently believe in the existence UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy, ESP, clairvoyance, spirit photography, telekinetic movement, full trance mediums, the Loch Ness monster and the theory of Atlantis because those do not have sufficient evidence. If and until they do have evidence for their existence, I am justified in my unbelief.

What would qualify as sufficient evidence for me to believe in a God? A glib response would be to say that an omniscient deity should already know what I will accept as sufficient evidence for me to believe. But I’ll give more than a glib response.

For me to accept an assertion as evidence for God, the assertion must be testable and falsifiable.

The problem is that if I am willing to accept a God claim as true without testable and falsifiable evidence, then why shouldn’t I also accept UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy… or any other assertion without testable and falsifiable evidence?

 

[KingCoil]

Please, Area Man, present your information on what is concept of God from your reading of sources in the Christian faith.

Now, you are bringing in

The problem is that if I am willing to accept a God claim as true without testable and falsifiable evidence, then why shouldn’t I also accept UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy… or any other assertion without testable and falsifiable evidence?

You are again into muddling up the issue with “UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy”; leave them apart, and you keep to the concept of God as you can acquire the information of by reading the sources of the Christian faith, or from me in my message preceding this one.

First, you let people know that you do have information about the concept of God, then we will look for evidence of an object in the actual objective reality of existence, which object corresponds to the concept of God.

You are conspicuously into the intellectual knavery of Russell, with your bringing in “UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy,” you might as well bring in also the space teapot and the Gods of Valhalla and Olympus and the flying spaghetti monster and the invisible pink unicorn and the tooth fairy and Santa.

Do you notice that you are into muddling up the issue with diversionary speculative objects and caricature characters; but the issue is to look for the object in the realm of objective existence that corresponds to the concept of God – and yes by evidence.

Yes, we will or I will go with you into evidence as soon as we two have concurred on the information of the concept of God in the Christian faith in God’s relation to man and the universe.

And yes, of course, we will also consider the kinds of evidence, like testable and falsifiable, and you will notice in your mind that there are also kinds of evidence that are not falsifiable and no need to test them, for example with the concrete specific case of a man who killed himself by shooting himself in the head with a magnum pistol.

Okay, Area Man, no more muddling the issue like Russell does, keep to the issue which is to prove that there exists an object in the actual objective realm of the reality of existence outside our mind that corresponds to the concept in our mind of God.

KingCoil

 

[polytropos]

The problem is that if I am willing to accept a God claim as true without testable and falsifiable evidence, then why shouldn’t I also accept UFOs, astral projections, mental telepathy… or any other assertion without testable and falsifiable evidence?

It depends what you mean by testable and falsifiable. The issues are obviously relevant to those who are asserting that God exists and you should believe in him, but traditional arguments for his existence generally rest on principles that are observable in the world, so they are perfectly falsifiable, perhaps not falsified.

So I wouldn’t expect you to believe someone if they said, “God is real, count on it.” But if someone offered a deductive argument with clearly spelled-out premises, the options for denying it are disputing its premises or showing why the conclusion does not follow (or saying, I just don’t know where it goes wrong, but I won’t believe it). That goes for UFOs, astral projections, and mental telepathy, as well as God. But I don’t believe anyone has constructed such arguments for the first three.

 

[AnimalSpirits]

Okay, Area Man, no more muddling the issue like Russell does, keep to the issue which is to prove that there exists an object in the actual objective realm of the reality of existence outside our mind that corresponds to the concept in our mind of God.

KingCoil

I don’t think Russel muddles the issue, he’s responding to a specific line of reasoning. The fact that something’s existence cannot be disproved is by no means enough to accept their existence- such as the teapot and Thor.

 

[Area_Man]

Please, Area Man, present your information on what is concept of God from your reading of sources in the Christian faith.

KingCoil

God is Omnipotent
God is Omniscient
God is Omnibenevolent

Please let me know if this, in any way, overstates the Christian God’s power, knowledge or goodness.

Okay, Area Man, no more muddling the issue like Russell does, keep to the issue which is to prove that there exists an object in the actual objective realm of the reality of existence outside our mind that corresponds to the concept in our mind of God.

KingCoil

You have made a positive claim. The burden of proof is with the one making the positive claim. Unless and until there is sufficient testable and falsifiable evidence to support your claim, I cannot accept it.

 

[Area_Man]

It depends what you mean by testable and falsifiable. The issues are obviously relevant to those who are asserting that God exists and you should believe in him, but traditional arguments for his existence generally rest on principles that are observable in the world, so they are perfectly falsifiable, perhaps not falsified.

Do you have an example of this? I don’t want to jump to conclusions, so I’m hesitant to say too much until I know which arguments for ‘his’ existence you are talking about.

So I wouldn’t expect you to believe someone if they said, “God is real, count on it.” But if someone offered a deductive argument with clearly spelled-out premises, the options for denying it are disputing its premises or showing why the conclusion does not follow (or saying, I just don’t know where it goes wrong, but I won’t believe it). That goes for UFOs, astral projections, and mental telepathy, as well as God. But I don’t believe anyone has constructed such arguments for the first three.

I think I agree with what you’re saying. The problem is that I can’t think of a logical argument that would prove UFOs, astral projections and mental telepathy. The “Drake Equation” is an argument that makes a plausible case for life elsewhere in the universe, but it proves nothing. Someone could come up with a perfectly reasoned deductive argument for mental telepathy, but without a demonstration under proper conditions, why should I believe the logical argument? Again, it all comes down to evidence!

 

[Peter_Plato]

…without a demonstration under proper conditions, why should I believe the logical argument? Again, it all comes down to evidence!

I, as a conscious subjective entity, exist.

No compelling objective physical evidence can explain my subjective existence.

Absent compelling objective physical evidence some other sufficiently compelling explanation is required. (Logical Principle of Sufficient Reason)

God, as immaterial, eternal, omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent Creator provides a sufficient explanation of my conscious subjective existence.

No other equally compelling explanation exists to account for my conscious, subjective existence.

Therefore, I have sufficient warrant for believing in God.

 

[polytropos]

Do you have an example of this? I don’t want to jump to conclusions, so I’m hesitant to say too much until I know which arguments for ‘his’ existence you are talking about.

ie. the principle of motion (change) or principle of sufficient reason. Some overview/examples/history of the application of such principles to demonstrations of the existence of God can be found here. (I don’t mean to just link at you, but giving a thorough treatment in a forum post is difficult, and you seem to be genuinely interested.)

I think I agree with what you’re saying. The problem is that I can’t think of a logical argument that would prove UFOs, astral projections and mental telepathy.

This is kind of the point I was making. People do claim to have experiences of UFOs, astral projections, and mental telepathy, but I also haven’t seen anything that looks like a knockdown logical argument for them. But I have seen such things for God’s existence, and that is the disanalogy.

I do not think that arguments for God’s existence quite convince anyone. But they’re interesting philosophical topics and lend credibility to belief - and seem to open some people up to faith, who otherwise would not be.

The “Drake Equation” is an argument that makes a plausible case for life elsewhere in the universe, but it proves nothing.

The Drake equation is not a deductive argument. It’s also rather dubious since we don’t know what goes into making life like ours - the two fundamental issues, abiogenesis and intelligence, are quite far from being figured out. We don’t know under what circumstances either could occur.

Someone could come up with a perfectly reasoned deductive argument for mental telepathy, but without a demonstration under proper conditions, why should I believe the logical argument? Again, it all comes down to evidence!

You said before that you could not think of a logical argument for mental telepathy, but now you say that someone could come up with a perfectly reasoned deductive argument for mental telepathy. How so? If it is perfectly reasoned, could it be false? It seems like some premise or inference would have to be false. There are certainly issues like Zeno’s paradox, but even those have a rational resolution that can be found analytically, provided premises are correct.