I think we'd better repeat what Bill siad: This is why I often post the formulation, "From false premises, anything follows." It in no way tells us what IS true: it merely points out that IF we find contradictory assertions regarding some idea, in science OR religion..(or in psychology or any other 'soft' science)... we should suspect that there are **some** false premises involved.

I'm glad that Pete agrees with that, but I can't help but wonder about the implications of his agreement. I guess I'm more likely to say, "If this is so, then da da-da, da-da." But we don't really know is "this" is so, so we can't draw any conclusions from it. And then we're back to Square One.

I think I would translate Bill's statement thus: If the logic is valid and the conclusions differ, then there must be a problem with a premise somewhere.

-Joe-