Maybe I didn't understand Stu, or maybe he was assuming that because I said something about an Intelligent Designer, that I was trying to prove that a Designer existed.

I was just talking about logic. As I see it, logic is more-or-less a verbal form of mathematics, a systematic way of outlining cause and effect. If conditions for two events are the same, then the result should be the same.

Now, logic depends on premises. If people don't agree on the premises, then they won't agree on conclusions. People may follow the rules of logic absolutely; but if they posit the existence of a Prime Mover or Intelligent Designer, they will come to vastly different conclusions from those of people who do not accept those premises.

Nonetheless, logic is an essential tool for separating fact from opinion.

Now, it seems to me that science and nature don't have opinions, so the processes of science and nature should follow logic quite absolutely. And therefore, I would conclude that the laws of science and nature are strictly logical. Our views of science and nature may differ, but the realities of science and nature are completely logical.

Or am I wrong?

As for a Prime Mover or Intelligent Designer, I'll just leave that question open because I see it as a personal opinion that can be neither proved or disproved - so it's better left alone. I think we can all live quite well without having an answer to that question, and we'll get along better if we accept the fact that intelligent people have varying opinions on that question.

Back to logic - I suppose it's old-fashioned, superseded by the Law of the Internet: that he who is loudest, most dramatic, and most verbose - is right. I don't accept that law. I prefer logic.

-Joe-