Jim Henderson wrote:
> Irrational to you - that's part of what I'm saying, if I say "God told me 
> x", you might see it as irrational because it wasn't God who was talking 
> to you, but to me it's entirely rational because God talked to me.

That's not the meaning of the word "rational" I was using.

> Even if they did happen, they wouldn't be proof of the existence of God.  
> Even if modern science had no rational explanation for them, they still 
> wouldn't prove the existence of God.

Yes, I know.

> Nostradamas, anyone?  Some say he was very specific (something I disagree 
> with, but it's all a matter of perspective).

In the things for which he was very specific, he was also wrong.

And again, if you take a prediction that's sufficiently vague, and you 
allow for minor errors, it's easy to find *something* that matches.

Mash any five keys on your keyboard. Now go try to find what word that 
*might* be in a big dictionary. How often will you find something?

>> Well, the logic rules we use are scientifically supported, and science
>> seems to continue to obey the laws of logic.
> 
> That doesn't seem much different than "the bible is consistent because 
> the bible says it is".....

I was simply pointing out the difference between science and logic. 
Science isn't right because science say it's right. Science is right 
because science changes until it matches the observed world.

>> If modus ponens didn't work, we wouldn't use it. Since begging the
>> question doesn't work, we don't use it.
> 
> Now I need to go and try again to understand modus ponens. :)

If A implies B, and A is true, then B is true.

> Sounds a lot like something I'd enjoy - thanks again for the reference, 
> will definitely have to find a copy.

Amazon!


-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message