On Tue, 11 Dec 2007 18:48:26 -0800, Darren New wrote:

> 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.

I wasn't aware of a different meaning in that context...

>> 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.

So I guess I still don't see how those miracles you listed would prove to 
you that God exists rather than just proving to you that we don't know 
enough to understand why they occurred (assuming that one or more of them 
did).

>> 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.

True, at least to some readings.  There are people who have worked out in 
their own logic that he was right and that those who don't see that just 
haven't figured out how right he was.  But then again, that borders on 
religious reasoning rather than logical reasoning.

> 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.

Yep, absolutely.

> 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?

avoih :-)

>>> 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.

Well, I think it's more that science changes logically until it matches 
the observed world.  Removing logic from that process makes science take 
a lot longer - at least usually.  But I see your point.

>>> 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.

Ah, OK - that's what I thought, but the reference I found last time 
around got far too involved to make sense without a lot of study.  Even 
using my trusty OED confused me, though now I read it again, I must've 
just been overtired, because now it makes sense to me there (since it 
says essentially what you said).

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

I'm thinking the library - we've got a couple pretty good ones.  Of 
course, it probably would help for me to have a library card (that way my 
wife doesn't have to check out all these books for me).

Jim

Post a reply to this message