For logic to be valid, it only requires

1. That we can identify unique entities in reality ( 'Law of identity' );

2. That we can distinguish each such entity from the rest of reality ( A is distinct from not A, ie 'Law of non-contradiction' );

Any reality not meeting such criteria would be a formless void or fog.

So a 'reality' meeting the basic criteria for logic to apply would be a pre-requisite for any entity to exist, whatever its nature.

Logic by itself cannot prove anything in reality, it can only show whether or not one proposition is consistent with another. The basic 'truth' of any proposition that is input to a logical analysis can only be determined empirically, ie, as a probability by how well it fits in with all other propositions.

The most successful model of reality, which is all we can ultimately have, can only be judged by things like Bayes Theorem, which helps us rigorously apply assessed probabilities, and Occam's Razor, which suggests that the model with the fewest arbitrary assumptions is going to be the most useful, ie, easiest to apply and refine.

You are ignoring the fundamental point that unlike the other inherently futile tasks I was referring to, Science is NOT "in the realm of hypothesis". It employs hypotheses as a way of coming up with new ideas, but does not stop there.

New theories start as a hypothesis, but then go into the next phase, that of empirical testing against reality, and are discarded if they do not pass this this vital process. Which is precisely what distinguishes Science from those other 'disciplines', which is why they remain pointless waffle. Do you really not see that? The 'testing' in most of those 'disciplines' amounts to little more than 'it feels right'.

Science does not consider a hypothesis as truth, even as anything close to it, until it passes the testing phase.

It is almost all inductive, but that doesn't mean we are always left with a hypothesis. We don't have to "prove" or "guarantee" something to reach a scientific conclusion. A claim can be more likely or less likely to be true. Also, measurements such as distance and time are accurate and predictable at the macro level. That's good enough.

Jumbo,

"It (god-belief) feels right" is where it begins and ends.

Adding on "so the God of the Bible is the true and living God" falsifies the statement.

Good example of what I meant - the non-scientific approach would base the decision on whether prayer or treatment 'feels right' for treating cancer, whereas science would point out we have tested those options, and prayer fails in the vast majority of cases.

The rates of 'cure' when only prayer is employed are well within the rates of spontaneous remission, ie when nothing is done. Some illnesses actually get worse when the patients are aware people are praying for them, as they feel guilty in some way if they don't seem to be getting better.

        Where have you been hidding and why  don't you come around more often?

Wonkles - what does a theist believe omnipotence actually is? Would you say it's the capability to do anything a creator could logically be expected to do that doesn't make him look silly?

Things like eating his cake and having it, too?

1. It is an established fact that prayer doesn't work, in terms of some external effect, ie, apart from making the person praying feel a little better.

2. There are people who do treat prayer and treatment as exclusive alternate options, mainly among those who are skeptical of mainstream medicine.

3. I have no real problem with people praying in medical situations, as long as it doesn't get in the way of getting real treatment. I was referring to a large scale study of prayer where groups of patients were prayed for by prayer groups. In accordance with proper experimental design, some groups were not prayed for, some were informed that people were praying for them, and some weren't.

There was no detectable positive correlation of being prayed for and recovery rates, in fact there was a slight negative correlation in certain classes of patients when they knew they were being prayed for. 

Whether that is something to take into account in real situations, probably not, although perhaps it should affect the way anxious friends and relatives speak to the afflicted individual.

I wouldn't bother taking the ineffectiveness of prayer as evidence against the existence of God, they are far too many ways to 'explain' that away by making various assumptions about God's motives, and a possible refusal to be 'tested', etc.

Actually, this is specifically in response to your post which included the request "I would need you to clarify your position on prayer and medicine", so it was not so much about what "feels right". "Medicine" seems to involve whether it works.

And I am sure you realize I was referring to more than just people who were just praying to "feel better" personally - I included the words "in terms of some external effect", to emphasize what I had in mind. I should have included the qualification "incidentally" in referring to it making someone "feel better", to make it clearer that I was considering the cases where someone was praying for the real health or survival of someone, which could be the person praying. But specifically something more concrete than just "feeling better", which is in the same domain as other placebos. 

Jehovah's Witnesses position on blood transfusion is just another example of the fallacy of basing actions purely on what "feels right", especially if such feelings are mainly based on the teachings of some faith or other.

I don't think you fully understand what I am driving at:

The pattern here is what you think the right and wrong thing to do actually is. I am sorry if it looked as if I was contrasting medicine and religion with each other, but I did say:

IOW, I believe medicine and prayer/religion are compatible. Furthermore, the majority of christian, to my knowledge hold the same belief.

I am not arguing with the stats on what works.

Running out of time, will post more later.

EDIT:

Ok, back again.

Yes I do/did realise that... I was expecting a meta-ethical dialogue, perhaps a little beyond the layman. Maybe you avoided it on purpose, who knows.

In what sense do my previous words

convey the impression that I believe medicine and prayer/religion are "incompatible"?

OK, if you want to go there, which, as usual, you failed to make clear. I may appear less responsive to indirect 'hints' as to what sort of response you are after, precisely because I am very aware of the wide range of expectations/assumptions about other people that individuals can hold.

The feeling that something is "right" is the basis of moral/ethical behavior, of course.

The problem is that we now live in an environment, especially in nominally 'advanced' countries, where the largely instinctive, evolved reactions to circumstance, which tend to strongly influence such feelings, are not always appropriate.

Except maybe in some, more psychological problems, prayer is, at best, irrelevant, and shouldn't be a problem.

It could be a problem in an emergency situation where it may distract from active intervention, a bit like the recent air crash where there is some evidence that the pilot took time to pray which would have been far better spent trying to actually control the plane..

hey thanks ill try that