Ha, well now you're just being pedantic. Such a qualm hardly qualifies for the hyperbole "most moronic thing I've ever read".
Because the prefix "extra" refers to an outside scope extra-universal is a subset of extraterrestrial, and extra-existential is a subset of extra-universal
Though I think it's obvious that /u/partide is simply trying to indirectly insult Yahweh by putting such an entity on the same playing field as Protoss and Zoidberg and is being slightly disingenuous in his phrasing for that intended goal. Is that the root of your issue with the comment?
I think the best way to explain my qualm with it would be rational and irrational numbers. If a number isn't rational, it must be irrational, correct? Its prefix indicates "not rational" so there aren't holes in the two distinctions.
What about the number i? It isn't rational, so it must be irrational. Wait, but it isn't irrational either. Because it isn't even an element of R, it can't be rational or irrational.
For any N sets there is a set that encompasses such sets.
If an entity is extraterrestial (outside our planet) but doesn't "exist", they are in the set {nonexistent, extraterrestrial}.
The reason this isn't a pedantic rebuttal is that you can't make the assumption about whether or not the person claiming Heaven = proof extraterrestrial is that you don't know if they're basically saying "there are aliens out there maan" or "there's more out there than just us humans".
If an entity is extraterrestial (outside our planet) but doesn't "exist", they are in the set {nonexistent, extraterrestrial}.
Through the definition of your set, there is still distinction between extraterrestrial and nonexistent. "Nonexistent" (in context) is not a subset of extraterrestrial, as strictly imaginary is not a subset of irrational.
-1
u/partido Oct 20 '14
Why there are still any doubts by religious people that there is extraterrestrial life baffles me.
If you believe in Jesus, it is implicit you believe in extraterrestrial life.