[mike777]

helene_t, on Jan 3 2008, 05:09 AM, said:

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 01:24 AM, said:

In any case I am still trying to figure if the selfish, souless, godless, human gene has the right to kill other genes or it does simply because it can.

Suppose you have an under-cooled glass of water. You drop a tiny ice crystal into it and watch it growing until it has converted all the water to ice. Is the ice selfish? Does it have the "right" to be selfish? FWIW the process is well understood, you can simulate it on your computer or predict mathematically that it will happen.

The "selfish" gene is selfish in the same sense as the ice crystal. Some people find the term "selfish" useful, some find it confusing. That is not important. The important thing is to understand how evolution works.

hhm so the human gene is going around killing other genes left and right like a crystal? This sounds like a star trek episode, I know it is. Or maybe some killer virus.

As for evolution, as I mentioned before, I find it much more fun to keep in mind we are still evolving, well some of you are, and what that may be rather than worrying about some missing link.

[Al_U_Card]

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 03:37 PM, said:

Al_U_Card, on Jan 2 2008, 02:45 PM, said:

Hmmmnnnn let's see....

Bridge = Religion?

Takes up a lot of time

Requires a large set of rules

Engenders belief in the abilities of others

Gives you hope for what comes next

Causes heated "discussions" at times over very fine points

Develops fervent followings of a specific creed or practice

Encourages the formation of stable "partnerships"

Yup, they are the same.

not bad, al... not bad

Thanks J

I find that the level of seriousness of a debate about that which is personal prerogative requires a certain amount of ego-deflation from time to time.

The big problem with the ego's use of the intellect is overkill. Minute, hair-splitting detail. Forget the big picture or what you need to know.....get going with that hammer and tong until you have spent your last breath defending your right to defend your rights to the last breath....

The underlying precepts of all of the conceptions that we have are the same. We are all humans, of like mind and similar capacity. The diversity that we demonstrate within the continuum of the consciousness that we express is a necessary aspect of our existence. We should try to enjoy it a bit more.

[helene_t]

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

hhm so the human gene is going around killing other genes left and right like a  crystal?

It works like this: There are two competing alleles of the same gene, say the blue-eyes allele and the brown-eyes allele of the eye color gene. If you have one copy of each, they compete for a particular limited resource, namely the eye-color genes of your children. Usually it will just be survival of the fittest: if you live in a country with bright sunshine, the brown-eyed children will have slightly better chance of survival. But some genes have more aggressive modes of competition. For example, a virus is, loosely speaking, a group of genes that are able to bypass normal sexual reproduction and copy themselves into adult cells, within or between organisms.

By the same token, liquid water and ice are two substances that compete for a limited resource, namely the molecules of the water in the glass. Maybe a better example would be an system of different crystals, growing from the same raw materials. The crystal forms that grow fastest and have a composition best matching the available resources would win the race. However, crystal forms don't (AFAIK) mutate into similar but slightly different crystals, but suppose they did. Some day a mutant crystal might acquire the ability to catalyze the synthesis of an acid that breaks down competing crystals, thereby making more raw materials for itself. At that point one might say the crystals had become life.

Quote

As for evolution, as I mentioned before, I find it much more fun to keep in mind we are still evolving, well some of you are, and what that may be rather than worring about some missing link.

Right, why bother about the past, we can't do much about it anyway. The future is much more exiting.

[mike777]

helene_t, on Jan 3 2008, 10:02 AM, said:

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 04:39 PM, said:

hhm so the human gene is going around killing other genes left and right like a  crystal?

It works like this: There are two competing alleles of the same gene, say the blue-eyes allele and the brown-eyes allele of the eye color gene. If you have one copy of each, they compete for a particular limited resource, namely the eye-color genes of your children. Usually it will just be survival of the fittest: if you live in a country with bright sunshine, the brown-eyed children will have slightly better chance of survival. But some genes have more aggressive modes of competition. For example, a virus is, loosely speaking, a group of genes that are able to bypass normal sexual reproduction and copy themselves into adult cells, within or between organisms.

By the same token, liquid water and ice are two substances that compete for a limited resource, namely the molecules of the water in the glass.

Quote

As for evolution, as I mentioned before, I find it much more fun to keep in mind we are still evolving, well some of you are, and what that may be rather than worring about some missing link.

Right, why bother about the past, we can't do much about it anyway. The future is much more exiting.

hmm I am talking about genes killing genes.....humans killing cows or plants or bugs or a virus, killing lots of genes with pollution or other ways. Many times killing genes so we can eat or drink way too much or of course killing genes to "protect or grow our replicated genes"....because the ultimate religion of faith, us, says we can.

See star trek and the killer crystal.


2) I agree lets talk about the future or in the case of Kenrexford's post maybe the future is here today in the form of him?

[helene_t]

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 05:07 PM, said:

2) I agree lets talk about the future or in the case of Kenrexford's post maybe the future is here today in the form of him?

Interesting theory. Maybe Ken is a cyborg or some such?

[mike777]

helene_t, on Jan 3 2008, 10:11 AM, said:

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 05:07 PM, said:

2) I agree lets talk about the future or in the case of Kenrexford's post maybe the future is here today in the form of him?

Interesting theory. Maybe Ken is a cyborg or some such?

hmm well if anyone knows anything about biology perhaps they can tell us the difference between a cyborg and a human?

[helene_t]

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 05:13 PM, said:

hmm well if anyone knows anything about biology perhaps they can tell us the difference between a cyborg and a human?

A human is a cyborg who lost its extensions at the casino.

[Fluffy]

Talking about the future... if we ever colonice Mars My prediction is that in 3 or 4 generations humans born there will adapt their body to the new gravitation and mutate, this goes against natural selection so probably hundred forum regulars will want to crucify me for saying so .

[hrothgar]

Fluffy, on Jan 3 2008, 07:09 PM, said:

Talking about the future... if we ever colonice Mars My prediction is that in 3 or 4 generations humans born there will adapt their body to the new gravitation and mutate, this goes against natural selection so probably hundred forum regulars will want to crucify me for saying so .

Mutations are random. They (typically) aren't triggered by the environment one is living in.

You are proposing a Lamarcking scheme which has been widely discredited

[mikeh]

Fluffy, on Jan 3 2008, 11:09 AM, said:

Talking about the future... if we ever colonice Mars My prediction is that in 3 or 4 generations humans born there will adapt their body to the new gravitation and mutate, this goes against natural selection so probably hundred forum regulars will want to crucify me for saying so .

It depends what you mean. The martian environment will expose humans to lower gravity, amongst other matters. What that will mean for such things as bone density, skeletal development, cardio-vascular development and so on is interesting. I suppose that it might well be that children born and raised in martian conditions will exhibit significant developmental differences from their earthly cousins: but this will not be hereditary: it will not be the result of genetic mutation, but of the exposure of a consistent genotype to strange conditions.

It is possible that there will be differences in the environment that might increase the rate of mutation, altho my understanding is that the martian environment is so inhospitable that humans will be insulated in artificial environments for many generations even if we decided and were technologically able to terraform the planet. So I suspect that most humans on the planet would not be exposed to mutagens in excess of those present on earth.

And the vast majority of mutations are likely to be detrimental: increased infant mortality or the birth of sick, or disabled children. Beneficial mutations are the exception, not the norm. And the idea that meaningful but unintended evolutionary change can occur in a few generations in a population that will be trying to maintain a closely controlled environment reveals a misunderstanding of the time scales involved in slow-reproducing, large multicellular animals like us.

Finally, even if beneficial mutations developed, in an artificially controlled environment, such mutations might not afford any competitive advantage and might not spread through the population. In fact, the 'mutant' might be socially ostracized

If we do colonize Mars, and I see no likelihood of that happening in my lifetime, I would suspect that any 'evolutionary' adaptation would be deliberately engineered.

[Al_U_Card]

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 10:13 AM, said:

helene_t, on Jan 3 2008, 10:11 AM, said:

mike777, on Jan 3 2008, 05:07 PM, said:

2) I agree lets talk about the future or in the case of Kenrexford's post maybe the future is here today in the form of him?

Interesting theory. Maybe Ken is a cyborg or some such?

hmm well if anyone knows anything about biology perhaps they can tell us the difference between a cyborg and a human?

Wasn't he Victor Borg's brother.....but they were both human so, no diff, I guess.

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Jan 3 2008, 06:55 AM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 3 2008, 01:29 PM, said:

i don't think a belief that is untestable is inherently illogical and for some reason you won't say whether you agree or not...

If Mike is supposed to answer your question, maybe he would need to know your definition of "logical". Anyway, Mike actually did answer your question:

Quote

it isn't, imho, 'by definition' illogical or irrational (and I take helene's point that maybe 'rational' is a better term than is 'logical').

("it" here referring to belief in a higher power. I suppose that's an example of an untestable hypothesis)

helene, as far as i know i haven't addressed any of mike's posts in this thread.. i just asked a question of barmar and jdonn seems to think that the asking of that question was a claim of some sort... it wasn't, it was just a question

aside from that, the burden of proof lies with the person making the assertion... that's why i asked barmar the question and, i suppose, why he hasn't answered... if a certain thing can be both untestable and logical, and i believe it can be, there is no problem... the analogy han commented on, sentient life in a different part of the universe, was one of two i gave... the other concerned a cell or molecule or something in a primordial soup at sometime evolving into the greek civilization... is it illogical to believe that? i don't think it is, but barmar (and i guess others) do

[mikeh]

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

if so you are in essence saying

1) all untestable beliefs are illogical
2) a belief in the resurrection is untestable
therefore such a belief is illogical

to believe that, it seems to me that one must also believe that hidden things will remain hidden... do you believe there is other sentient life in the universe? would such a belief be illogical, by your definition? do you believe that all life on earth, in all its present forms, evolved from one organism (molecule, cell, whatever)? is such a belief illogical?

You are conflating belief with thought: a failing that is common, but to which (it seems to me) people of religious faith are particularly prone. I once asked a witness, in cross-examination at trial, whether she understood that there was a difference between belief and knowledge, and she answered 'I'm beginning to'.

I do not think that many of the non-believing posters here would go so far as to say that an untestable belief is illogical, but I think many of us would say that the holding of an untestable belief as bring 'true' is irrational. BTW, I am indebted to helene for pointing out that I was misusing the word 'illogical' when I should have used 'irrational'.

A belief in 'the resurrection' is itself untestable precisely because it is it based on the premise that supernatural forces were at play.

If the belief were that humans can resurrect themselves or that prayer from others can resurrect them, then that belief is testable, and I suspect that we all know the probable outcome of any experiment

As I tried to argue earlier, there was probably (I'd say: definitely, but I wasn't there) a long period in our history and pre-history during which invocation of supernatural beings represented a rational response to phenomena that were literally inexplicable by any of the (few) physical mechanisms understood at the time.

But to hold to those beliefs in the presence of the vastly increased understanding we (as a species, if not as individuals) now have, is, imo, irrational.

As I argued earlier, I think most educated, rational people today would acknowledge that there are questions, relating to ultimate causes, that are not yet explicable by physics, science, whathaveyou. So in these rapidly shrinking areas of human ignorance, there remains the possiblity that the final answer will involve a god. So, from my perspective, it is not irrational to argue that maybe a god exists, but the bulk of the evidence, it seems to me, suggests that a god, in the sense of the entities worshipped by religious believers, is a low-probability answer, and, as such it is irrational to believe that such a god does in fact exist.

As to whether all life evolved from a single molecule: a 'belief' that such happened is not the same as accepting as probably correct the hypothesis that such occurred.

Personally, my opinion (not my belief: I hold to no belief since I lack the knowledge to cement my opinion as belief) is that there is at least the possibility that the precursor molecule can into existence in many instances: we are dealing with a soup of chemicals that gradually became more complex until a particular form of molecule exhibited a sufficiently consistent self-replication as to set it on the path of evolution, and it makes sense to me that this molecule formed from its constituent chemicals many, many times. Since the molecules would, by definition, be identical, it seems to me that a number of them, ranging from 1 to many thousands or millions would begin to replicate, and that over the course of generations of replications, copying errors (or the influence of different chemicals in the immediate environment, or other factors) would begin the path of evolution.

The hypothesis that life began in such a way appears to me to be logical and rational, while a belief that woman was created from the rib of Adam seems both illogical (who gave birth to Adam if not a woman?) and irrational.

In my case, my reading of the (layperson's version of) the evidence surrounding the beginning of life has elevated my view of some of the probabilities to a belief... but a belief that I am prepared to revise in the face of new evidence: a process that seems to me inherently different from the attitudes of the religious.

[mycroft]

Mike, it is possible to be a Christian without being a Bible literalist, and without assuming that just because they don't have a sense of humour doesn't mean that either G-d (as I'm primarily discussing the Hebrew Scriptures here, I'll use the forms that Jews would) or the writers of the Bible didn't as well.

It's almost 100% that there are made up stories, known to be stories, in the Bible. That doesn't mean that it's not a good teaching tool or good scripture, or even a good attempt to make clear G-d's ineffable will, just because it's not literal history. It may mean that it's better at those three things because it isn't literal history.

It's 100% that there's an erotic poem in the Bible. It's quite probable that it was written as an erotic poem to a real human, and not simply as a religious allegory. That doesn't mean that it isn't good scripture, a good attempt to make clear (a different portion of) G-d's ineffable will, just because it's an erotic poem (not so sure about its value as a teaching tool).

It's 100% that there are inconsistencies in the Bible. After all, there are two creation stories, and a key part of the New Covenant is that it supersedes some of the Old (which parts seem to be hotly debated, especially by the so-called Bible literalists. In their leaders' opinion (because they are discouraged from making their own), the parts that are inconvenient to them are superseded; the ones they don't like, and that they wouldn't violate themselves, aren't. At least, that's what it looks like to me).

I (obviously, from my other posts) think that it is possible to be a good Christian (or even a hoping to get to, or trying to be a, good Christian) by honouring the clear intent of the New Covenant, and the two Great Commandments, over instisting that every last bit of a truly great and useful mythology is 100% accurate. ICBW, but I'll probably do better for humanity this way.

Having said all of that - there could be a god or gods that aren't The G-d of the Abrahamic religions, and all of those arguments still apply.

Having said all of that, logic requires only axioms and tests. Using the right axioms, things that are absolutely impossible in "real life" are logical and correct.

Finally, rationality is overrated.

Michael.

[mikeh]

mycroft, on Jan 3 2008, 05:03 PM, said:

Mike, it is possible to be a Christian without being a Bible literalist, and without assuming that just because they don't have a sense of humour doesn't mean that either G-d (as I'm primarily discussing the Hebrew Scriptures here, I'll use the forms that Jews would) or the writers of the Bible didn't as well.

It's almost 100% that there are made up stories, known to be stories, in the Bible.  That doesn't mean that it's not a good teaching tool or good scripture, or even a good attempt to make clear G-d's ineffable will, just because it's not literal history.  It may mean that it's better at those three things because it isn't literal history.

It's 100% that there's an erotic poem in the Bible.  It's quite probable that it was written as an erotic poem to a real human, and not simply as a religious allegory.  That doesn't mean that it isn't good scripture, a good attempt to make clear (a different portion of) G-d's ineffable will, just because it's an erotic poem (not so sure about its value as a teaching tool).

It's 100% that there are inconsistencies in the Bible.  After all, there are two creation stories, and a key part of the New Covenant is that it supersedes some of the Old (which parts seem to be hotly debated, especially by the so-called Bible literalists.  In their leaders' opinion (because they are discouraged from making their own), the parts that are inconvenient to them are superseded; the ones they don't like, and that they wouldn't violate themselves, aren't.  At least, that's what it looks like to me).

I (obviously, from my other posts) think that it is possible to be a good Christian (or even a hoping to get to, or trying to be a, good Christian) by honouring the clear intent of the New Covenant, and the two Great Commandments, over instisting that every last bit of a truly great and useful mythology is 100% accurate.  ICBW, but I'll probably do better for humanity this way.

Having said all of that - there could be a god or gods that aren't The G-d of the Abrahamic religions, and all of those arguments still apply.

Having said all of that, logic requires only axioms and tests.  Using the right axioms, things that are absolutely impossible in "real life" are logical and correct.

Finally, rationality is overrated.

Michael.

I enjoyed this post (and many others in this and other threads, even when I disagree with the underlying tenets).

It seems to me that there are two distinct aspects of Christianity: whether the other major religions share this dichotomy, I don't know as well, altho my take on matters is that they do.

On the one hand, the religion affords us a moral code... altho different sects espouse different codes.

I suspect that the code by which you live is a code that is very close to the way in which I'd like to live, and to which I aspire and occasionally reach.

To the extent that Christianity is viewed as a moral code, and leaving aside some of the more pernicious values espoused by some sects, including Catholicism, it is admirable.

But the other aspect is the insistence that man is flawed, and that he must be (and has been) 'saved' by the intervention of a divine or semi-divine 'son of god'. The insistence tnat there is a god who will sit in judgment of our immortal souls, and whose word is heard by self-proclaimed seers/priests/prophets who thus gain both the power and the duty to command other people, including people who reject these superstitious (or worse) beliefs.

If christians viewed Jesus as buddhists do the buddha, then, while I would probably not be a christian per se, I would have infinitely more regard for the institution than I do currently. Lest that comment be misunderstood: my disdain for organized religion is not a disdain for individual members of the christian community. I do have contempt for some: the hypocrites who profess to be born-again either after or while sexually assaulting children or defrauding their fellow-believers are typical of those.

But for those who truly do try to live by a (liberal) christian philosophy, I have the greatest of respect, even while I hold to the opinion that they are indulging in an irrational superstition when it comes to their beliefs on the ultimate questions.

What I suppose I am trying to articulate, in my clumsy way, is that I don't see that the question of the existence of a god entity has anything to do with a moral code. I am sure... I believe... as a matter of faith... that people are inherently the same with or without a religious justification for their behaviour. A murderer will kill whether or not he or she goes to church or prays every day. I give to the homeless (not often, I admit) and to the United Way and other charities including the Salvation Army without thinking that doing so will make it easier for me to get into heaven. Others steal from the collection box in church!

If the belief in a god has any impact on morality, my skewed perspective suggests that, if anything, those who profess religion may be (I stress: in individual cases, not as a general propensity) more likely to act in an immoral way than atheists, if only because they can tell themselves that a sincere repentance can absolve them of their sins. As an atheist who has, on occasion, acted in a way that caused me later shame or embarrassment, I can tell you that I believe that there is no supernatural pardon coming my way. I can't gloss over the harm I may do (and have done) others by obtaining redemption. I can avoid moral pain only by acting morally now.

[luke warm]

mikeh, on Jan 3 2008, 02:12 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

if so you are in essence saying

1) all untestable beliefs are illogical
2) a belief in the resurrection is untestable
therefore such a belief is illogical

to believe that, it seems to me that one must also believe that hidden things will remain hidden... do you believe there is other sentient life in the universe? would such a belief be illogical, by your definition? do you believe that all life on earth, in all its present forms, evolved from one organism (molecule, cell, whatever)? is such a belief illogical?

You are conflating belief with thought: a failing that is common, but to which (it seems to me) people of religious faith are particularly prone. I once asked a witness, in cross-examination at trial, whether she understood that there was a difference between belief and knowledge, and she answered 'I'm beginning to'.

i don't think i am, mike... i was simply asking jdonn if those premises and that conclusion represent what he was talking about... if i had been that witness and i had answered "knowledge is impossible without belief although belief is possible without knowledge" what would you have said?

Quote

I do not think that many of the non-believing posters here would go so far as to say that an untestable belief is illogical, but I think many of us would say that the holding of an untestable belief as bring 'true' is irrational. BTW, I am indebted to helene for pointing out that I was misusing the word 'illogical' when I should have used 'irrational'.

then i ask you the same thing i asked others... do you believe all life on earth came from one organism? never mind, i see you addressed this below

Quote

A belief in 'the resurrection' is itself untestable precisely because it is it based on the premise that supernatural forces were at play.

something i stipulated earlier; however is it illogical (or irrational)? you seem to think it is, although you didn't *state* that it is... a big difference

Quote

But to hold to those beliefs in the presence of the vastly increased understanding we (as a species, if not as individuals) now have, is, imo, irrational.

the use of "imo" works in your favor... but i'd ask you what exactly you mean by "... vastly increased understanding ..." i assume you mean relative to past generations but not necessarily relative to future generations (those that, possibly, will look on us as we look on the ghosts of generations past - as ignorant, superstitious, irrational, and/or gullible)

Quote

~~So in these rapidly shrinking areas of human ignorance, there remains the possiblity that the final answer will involve a god. So, from my perspective, it is not irrational to argue that maybe a god exists, but the bulk of the evidence, it seems to me, suggests that a god, in the sense of the entities worshipped by religious believers, is a low-probability answer, and, as such it is irrational to believe that such a god does in fact exist.

i don't understand this part... how is it rational to argue that ("maybe") a god exists but irrational to argue that a *particular* god exists?

Quote

The hypothesis that life began in such a way [primordial soup, etc] appears to me to be logical and rational, while a belief that woman was created from the rib of Adam seems both illogical (who gave birth to Adam if not a woman?) and irrational.

and this, to me, is the one thing i have the most trouble with... i consider myself a logical man and i fail to see how the one can be viewed as logical and the other illogical without presupposing it to be so

Quote

In my case, my reading of the (layperson's version of) the evidence surrounding the beginning of life has elevated my view of some of the probabilities to a belief... but a belief that I am prepared to revise in the face of new evidence: a process that seems to me inherently different from the attitudes of the religious.

i suppose it is different, although if your view is a belief as you say, is it irrational or illogical? i say no

[han]

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

Hannie, on Jan 2 2008, 02:32 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 02:09 PM, said:

do you believe there is other sentient life in the universe?

Great analogy.

It doesn't make much sense to me to believe that there is other sentient life, and it also doesn't make much sense to believe that there is not. I think I would have a hard time believing in one or the other even if I wanted to. It seems that I am missing some gullibility skills.

Still, this question makes a lot more sense than asking about god. It is better defined and we can try to find an answer. Certainly it is conceivable that one day we obtain evidence that there is other sentient life. It is even possible that some day we can say with some confindence that there is not.

Until then, I won't spent much time thinking about it.

that's fine, han, but do you think either believing or not believing that sentient life exists in other parts of the universe is inherently illogical? i don't, fwiw

As others, I don't understand what you mean by this. I'm also not sure that arguing with you about semantics is interesting.

I don't think that it is possible to come to a conclusion about other sentient life by mere logic.

I am not able to have a belief in the existence of other sentient life. If some scientists find strong evidence for the existence of other life on a distant planet later this year then I am likely to believe them. Not believing in the sense that I will be convinced that they are right no matter what. Rather, it may seem likely to me that it is true, and if convincing evidence to the contrary is presented then I may change my opinion.

There are few things that I can completely believe in. I can be convinced that some mathematical argument is correct, but even in mathematics I have often made mistakes.

I find it hard to understand how someone can completely believe something for which they have very little evidence.

[han]

luke warm, on Jan 3 2008, 06:32 PM, said:

Quote

~~So in these rapidly shrinking areas of human ignorance, there remains the possiblity that the final answer will involve a god. So, from my perspective, it is not irrational to argue that maybe a god exists, but the bulk of the evidence, it seems to me, suggests that a god, in the sense of the entities worshipped by religious believers, is a low-probability answer, and, as such it is irrational to believe that such a god does in fact exist.

i don't understand this part... how is it rational to argue that ("maybe") a god exists but irrational to argue that a *particular* god exists?

I think the word "maybe" was relevant in Mike's sentence. By taking away the word the meaning of the sentence changes.

How can you think of yourself as being a logical man when you are this careless with language. You can't understand logical arguments without a language to work in.

[jdonn]

luke warm, on Jan 3 2008, 06:29 AM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 2 2008, 06:16 PM, said:

luke warm, on Jan 2 2008, 03:32 PM, said:

jdonn, on Jan 2 2008, 02:53 PM, said:

Let's try something else. Why do you believe that what you referred to is logical? Perhaps I am having trouble forming an argument for a claim that I don't see has really been explained yet.

the only claim i made was that the "scientific method" and logic aren't of necessity mutually exclusive... i then gave an example of a belief i hold and asked why that belief, even though it can't be proved by that method, is considered illogical... i asked so that the answer could enlighten me, so that i could see where (if) i am wrong... so far nobody has answered that question...

That's exactly my point. If this is the only claim you made, then what are you trying to see someone prove you wrong about? Something you have steadfastly avoided claiming at all, even though you clearly believe it is true? That's why I'm asking you to actually make the claim. Why is what you believe is logical?

The fact you keep dancing around answering that makes me think that you can't even think of a reason, other than that it's what you believe gosh darnit...

you seem to have missed exactly what started this... here's the original quote:

barmar, on Jan 1 2008, 01:47 PM, said:

~~So if you're religious, you are essentially required to believe that there are things about the world that are beyond the reach of logic and the scientific method.

me said:

you lump 'logic' and 'the scientific method' as if i (for example) can't make use of one and not the other, or the other and not the one... i believe Christ was crucified and arose... this is not testable, but how is my belief illogical?

barmar made the statement that a belief (i substitute that for "religious person") is unavailable to the scientific method *and* is illogical... i was perfectly within my rights in asking in what way it is illogical... you then made this assertion:

jdonn, on Jan 1 2008, 10:36 PM, said:

So your definition of logical is "unable to be proven false"?

i never stated any such thing, i simply asked a question... you are the one who made assertions and who refuse to clarify your position.

When you say

you said:

i believe Christ was crucified and arose... this is not testable, but how is my belief illogical?

then you seem to strongly imply that you think your belief IS logical. You are trying very hard to avoid saying that directly, but it's clearly what you think (isn't it??) So I am asking a simple question (not trying to answer your original question, which I never was.) My question is: Why is your belief logical? As I said before, you of course can refuse to answer but that only leads me to even further believe what I already do, which is that you have no good reason at all.

I'll put this another way. My position is that your belief is not logical. Yours, I am assuming, is that it is logical. Obviously someone has to say why they hold their position or it's not a very useful discussion. I have sort of done so, by saying that there is no strong evidence supporting logic in your position. You can either dispute that by presenting strong evidence, offer another reason you think it's logical, or....well say anything else you want, but only the prior two options would continue the discussion in any meaningful way.

[mike777]

This site has some interesting stuff.
http://en.wikipedia....xistence_of_God


"....Religious apologists offer the supernatural nature of God as one explanation of the inability of empirical methods to decide the question of God's existence. In Karl Popper's philosophy of science, the assertion of the existence of a supernatural God would be a non-falsifiable hypothesis, not in the domain of scientific investigation. The Non-overlapping Magisteria view proposed by Stephen Jay Gould also holds that the existence (or otherwise) of God is beyond the domain of science...."