Can anyone determine why my reasoning below with Davian is wrong?
From your position, absolute truth has not been defined, this is why you ask questions. Lets imagine we do somehow fully realize absolute truth, would it make sense for that absolute truth to be falsifiable? It would not makes sense, right? Because if it was falsifiable, it would not be absolute truth.
Remember, falsifi
able only means that there is some
possible evidence out there that, if found, would falsify the statement. It doesn't mean such evidence actually exists. Therefore, if we "realize absolute truth" it means that falsifying evidence does not exist. So here is one area of your reasoning.
What I mean by absolute truth, is just the absolute truth about life, whether that being that life is pointless or that life has a deep meaning.
Why are you limiting "absolute truth" to only that question? Cannot there be "absolute truths" other than that one? How about the absolute truth that gravity exists? Or the absolute truth that the earth orbits the sun? So here is another error in your logic.
I believe there is only two possible absolute truths about life.
1. The absolute truth is that life is meaningless, therefore, all meaning we give life is pointless and we are free to literally do whatever we want as long as no one else finds out to get us in trouble with man's law. Man's law having no meaning in the end.
2. The absolute truth about life is that life actually has deep meaning that we are currently unable to see because it goes beyond the physical, therefore, all meaning we give life does have a point and that point will be realized some time in the future. Therefore, we should not literally do whatever we want, but rather respect the laws and moralities in our reality and listen to our conscience that is telling us there is right and wrong and that its better to do what is right, rather than what is wrong.
Ah, the fallacy of the false dichotomy. So we found another flaw with your logic. I can give you a third alternative: we have evolved to live as social animals, and still live as social animals. Therefore we are hardwired genetically to regard some behaviors as "good" and others as "bad" because the good behaviors contribute to the success of us in the group and the success of the group. Those of our ancestors who "did what they wanted" to their selfish benefit but ignoring the benefit of the group did not survive to pass on those notions. Thus our "conscience" and those "laws and moralities" have a very practical application. However, notice that sometimes our conscience conflicts with the current laws and moralities. The antislavery movement in the USA comes immediately to mind.
There are many possible meanings to life, some of which are rooted in the physical. One such meaning would be to have offspring and pass your alleles into the gene pool of the next generation.
If there is no reason for life then searching for truth does not makes sense because in the end the absolute truth would be that there is no reason for life, rendering truth meaningless.
Again, you are assuming (without presenting evidence) that the only "absolute truth" is whether life has meaning or not. Maybe the meaning of life is looking for those other truths.
Infinite timeless existence, in which you're finite existence on this earth depends upon.
That is an inadequate definition of God in the Judeo-Christian faith.
Yes, I understand I'm claiming by beliefs to be true without physical evidence to back my claims, but I'm backing my claims with sound reason that makes sense and if you refuse to believe sound reason that makes sense, you are then the one who is being unreasonable.
Your beliefs
should rest on evidence. I notice that you said "physical evidence" as though that is the only evidence. It's not. Also, you are using "physical evidence" as "evidence that
anyone and everyone can see or experience". Most evidence does not fall into that category; it is evidence personal to each individual. In fact, in cases of intimate personal relationships, the evidence we have of someone's love
cannot be applied to someone else. If it is, that is grounds for divorce.
Theistic beliefs rest on evidence: personal experience of deity. Some of that personal experience is written down and some of what is written down is called scripture. But it is not "physical". Moses saw and talked with a burning bush. That evidence certainly convinced him, didn't it? Do you trust that this really happened? If so, then you accept that personal experience as evidence. Your atheist friend does not.
Do you have your own personal relationship with God? If so, that's all the evidence
you need. I forgot to look if you were married. If so, do you need any "physical evidence" of your spouse's love? Isn't your personal relationship sufficient evidence?
Again, your atheist friend's personal experience of God is
no experience of God. That evidence is convincing to him.
You 2 have different data sets and there is no way to reconcile them.
Sound reason that makes sense does not have to be proven. All that is expected is that you believe it until proven otherwise, then when it is proven otherwise you are justified in changing your beliefs.
Poor reasoning. This is the opposite of poor atheist reasoning that something should be disbelieved until you have evidence. Do you agree with that? Well, whatever reasons you have for disagreeing with that apply to your own argument.
Again you have a false dichotomy (which the atheist also uses in his/her argument: that you either believe or disbelieve. There is a third choice:
neither believe nor disbelieve but reserve judgement until evidence is found, one way or the other. When applied to deity, this is called "agnostic".
There are many, many problems with that statement "sound reason that makes sense does not have to be proven." Right there you have the failure of ancient Greek science. They thought reason was enough to discover truth, so they didn't experiment. The problem with this is "contingency". Reason does not determine reality.
Actually there is sound reason to believe that extraterrestrials do not exist. Have you ever heard of Drake equation or Fermi paradox. According these, we should have come into contact with aliens a long time ago. I don't have personal evidence of aliens, so it would be unreasonable for me to believe in aliens and in fact I've been given sound reason to believe they don't exist. You've been given sound reason to believe God does exist, yet you continue to deny for reasons unknown, other than you're just being unreasonable.
Pot, meet kettle! You just gave your atheist friend the sound reason not to believe in God. He doesn't have personal experience of God. He doesn't believe the experiences of other people. YOU don't have personal experience of extraterrestrials. YOU don't believe the experiences of other people. So YOU believe extraterrestrials do not exist.
Quite frankly, you have a non-sequitor reasoning error there. What you have done is reject the evidence that extraterrestrials have visited earth. Therefore, your only valid conclusion is that aliens have not visited earth. You cannot make the leap that sentient aliens do not exist elsewhere in the universe. You don't have very sound reasons to say aliens do not exist at all.
Basically, the Fermi
paradox is just that, a paradox. A probability we have by reason has not shown up (yet) in reality. A paradox means that there may be other factors in play that we do not understand. It is not a valid reason to make the leap to believe there are no extraterrestrial sapient species.
So since
you thought the logic was valid, you handed your atheist friend a "valid" reason to conclude deity does not exist. By your own logic, he is being reasonable. Congratulations. That is an impressive job of shooting yourself in the foot.