[soon2bepro]

Whether I can produce a scientifically correct argument or not makes no difference to the matter (if there's logic in it or not).

I'll agree that when people refer to something as "logical" or "illogical" what they're actually saying is whether that is scientifically correct or not; or maybe even "logically correct" or not [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

But if you use my definition of logic, there is no argument, no explanation, no reasoning, no concept that doesn't use logic as it's method.

That doesn't mean, however, that they're all scientifically/logically/rationally correct.

Neither does that mean that everything does in fact work with logic. Only that we can only comprehend things that do. (and therefore, for practical purposes, we must assume that everyhing does)

What I want you to understand, is that when someone says: "*This* (B) happened because *God did it* (A)", he's using logic to explain why that happened.

You can then ask how God did it, demand an explanation or whatever. You can question the credibility, the reasoning behind that argument. You can even deem it as a fairy tale. It will nonetheless be an argument based in logic.

I can say: "*The mountains on earth are high* (B) because *there's a very small organism in tokio called kiku that likes to fly around and sing metallica songs* (A)"

Does that make any sense to you? No, it doesn't. But it's still based in human logic.