Hello, Jan,
I hope you will take the time to explain something to me. You seemed to take issue with AMOS when, among other things, he said, "Logic is as subjective as belief." Based on my experience, I have no problem with this. To me it means (among other things) that in the matter of the existence of god logicians seem to omit from the equation what possibly exists but is as yet unknown.
Based on your comments here and several others of yours I've read, you seem to have much more training in the study of logic than I, so please explain:
From a logical perspective, does such an omission (omitting the possibility of something beyond measurable limits) offend "logical" thought? In other words, does logic merely concern itself with what can be tangibly measured? And are all forms of logic the same, leading to the same conclusion with the same evidence, or can separate trained logicians, working with the same evidence, logically come to different conclusions? Is "logic" a perfect science?
To Amos you said, "Logic is distinguished from opinion by not being arbitrary and subjective," that since "there is no real evidence for a God, then it is irrational to believe in one." Again, you may be speaking words with their own particular application in the science of logic, but according to definitions of the word that I've seen, "logic" IS, as Amos said earlier, "shaped by experience, education and belief."
Logic is variously described as a "study"or "art" ( http://www.dictionary.com/cgi-bin/dict.pl?term=logic); a "science", "branch" or "mode of reasoning" ( http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=logic); a "study of principles", a "system of reasoning" ( http://www.bartleby.com/61/5/L0230500.html). All of these expressions seem to require subjective biases, but I could be wrong.
I don't agree that arguing with the absolute truthfulness of a logical point of view is a matter of "deluding" oneself anymore than logicians are delusional. It's simply a different way of looking at the same thing. You said that, "since you (AMOS) have no personal experience about the origins of the universe or life, your intiution (and mine) is useless." Common sense leads one to do nothing more than agree with your statement. Since no one alive was witness to the universe's origins, what's left is for us to guess, whether we base our guess using what tangible evidence exists or base our hypothesis on the same coupled with personal experience, whatever that is.
Finally, you said, "Once you learn what logic is, you may realize that facts and logic makes belief in gods obsolete." That may be true for many who strictly adhere to logical thought, but even for them, there may, I say MAY exist evidence beyond puny man's ability to register at this point in time. Who is to say what presently existing evidence that is beyond our scope, may one day become measurable, making present "logical" viewpoints of god obsolete.
peace,
todd
