> > Ed Leafe wrote in response to John Harvey: > > > Everything that occurs is natural. > > > And can be observed, and measured, and so forth. That which > "occurs" > only in thought is supernatural. > > There is no more reality to gods and angels than there is to > unicorns > and leprechauns.
Logic only "occurs" in thought as well. Ever "measure" a syllogism on a bathtub scale? Or "observe" an axiom from, say, a 45-degree angle? Ever test how many atmospheres of pressure are require to "break" a logical fallacy? Yes, in a sense we can "measure" and "observe" syllogistic reasoning--but only in thought. Logical arguments do not have fleshly existence, and so they share that much in common with angles and leprechauns. Is therefore all logic also supernatural? Actually, by Ed's definition and God's... yes. "Come, let us reason together, saith the Lord..." (Isaiah 1:18) "Through faith we know that the worlds were framed by the Word of God so that the things that are seen are not made of the things that do appear." (Hebrews 11:3) Faith and logic are actually joined at the hip, for one cannot come to know reality in its fullness or act in certainty with only one or the other. And with respect to one or the other we can, in a manner of speaking, "fail," leaving us at odds with reality. Usually people pick one or the other, and only consider themselves "wrong" when their chosen means of understanding reality --- faith or reason --- "fails" them. All I mean by the above observation is that if we are incapable of faith than even the loftiest logical argument cannot move us---to act, we must have _faith_ that application of it will produce an outcome which we do not yet see, but which we hope for. "Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." (Hebrews 11:1) For example--one really must have strong faith to believe that "cap and trade" legislation will result in less global warming--and that this is in fact "good" to the point that the benefits outweigh the costs. This belief rests on several assumptions--all unproven, and highly disputed--that relate to its a.) existence, and b.) nature and causes, particularly the relationship between global temperatures and CO2, and our ability to affect it--the argument for which is (supposedly) logical--but also rests on faith in the process used to determine it. Yet whole lobbies are set in motion, and legislatures are preoccupied with "doing something" that they _believe_ will "fix" the perceived crisis. Another simpler example is the observation that no one has yet "seen" an atom. Atoms are hypothesized by logical argument, with other observable phenomena as supporting evidence. Yet everyone "accepts" that they exist, because so far the argument seems copacetic with all other observable phenomena. It takes _faith_ to believe in atoms, but this faith comes easy because of the things we do see that seem to confirm it. Actually, Hebrews 11:3 always comes to my mind when I consider the existence of atoms. The logical argument alone is not what moves voters to the booth, but rather the faith in the outcome promised by the logical argument, and all the assumptions on which it stands. In this respect, all men/women are religious--because we apprehend the _supernatural_ promises of the logicians, theologians, and politicians--and then we believe them. ;-) - Bob > > -- Ed Leafe > _______________________________________________ Post Messages to: [email protected] Subscription Maintenance: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profox OT-free version of this list: http://leafe.com/mailman/listinfo/profoxtech Searchable Archive: http://leafe.com/archives/search/profox This message: http://leafe.com/archives/byMID/profox/[EMAIL PROTECTED] ** All postings, unless explicitly stated otherwise, are the opinions of the author, and do not constitute legal or medical advice. This statement is added to the messages for those lawyers who are too stupid to see the obvious.
