Kathy wrote: >Isn't the simplest response ... to point out that ANY >logical argument starts from assumptions, and therefore there is no >choice but faith, the only choice is where to place one's faith? > This gets back to the issue of identifying and justifying the difference between the inductive reasoning that concludes that astrology, santa claus, etc., is fallacious whereas "God" in some non-vacuous sense of the term is not. Without such a justification, one is being inconsistent, at best. The assumption that all natural phenomena have the same a priori probability is applied by believers to any phenomenon (e.g., astrology) except - suspiciously - the one(s) they have previously concluded hold and therefore "have faith in". In short, certain phenomena have special dispensations. The question is how this can be justified, in an "intellectually honest" manner. David
