Joined: April 2006
Good question from the old thread from improvius ...
|Or you can just change the meaning of "logic" to help you rationalize this junk.|
Here's my logic ...
1) We hypothesize a Super-Intelligent Creator ... we can only imagine Him somewhat like a human mind because that is what we are familiar with, but much more intelligent ... this is my "B"
2) We observe a Surprising Fact that all over the world, people claim to have received messages--written and oral from some 'god' character. It's a surprising fact because quite frankly it's WEIRD ... this is my "A"
3) LOGIC: If B were true, then A would follow naturally based on our own experience with Intelligent Agents (i.e. they communicate verbally and in writing)
4) CONCLUSION: There is reason to suspect that B is true (not proof, obviously, but reason)
Now how is this "junk" logic?
Again, I am saying that I am not using Deductive Reasoning ... I am using Abductive Reasoning and drawing an Inference to the Best Explanation. This is used regularly by both scientists and historians, Meyer's Napoleon scenario being an excellent example. Again, for other readers, see http://www.arn.org/docs/meyer/sm_returnofgod.pdf
|In all that time, going through several religions, it never made it past first base into the realm of deductive science.|
A DILEMMA FOR THE COMMITTED NATURALIST
A Hi-tech alien spaceship lands on earth ... DESIGNED.
A Hi-tech alien rotary motor found in a cell ... NOT DESIGNED.