Questionnaire about climate change in my neighborhood


Sorry, but that comes across sounding brain dead.

You dismissed intuition, but I think you’re using your intuition to decide that matters of faith are wrong. Perhaps you don’t even know God exists.

You cite the historical account of Jonah as an example of something that doesn’t “square.” You’re guided by intuition. Surely you’ve seen someone come out of something alive when intuition dictated there was no chance they could live.

The only issues with Jonah would be whether the stomach acid in the belly of the fish was weak enough and whether it kept gulping enough air to allow him to breath without exertion. Apparently there was and it did. Odd circumstance? Yes. Impossible? You say yes, the Word of God says no. I doubt it even needed any supernatural (outside of science) help.

It’s a historical account of the most extremely unpleasant experience imaginable. Jonah ran away from the assignment the Lord God gave him so God taught him a lesson he was unlikely to forget.

BTW, do you realize Harvard University was founded by Puritans for the purpose of educating Christian clergy? I’ll bet they taught logic. Many colleges were founded for similar reasons.


Annnnnd by definition it outside the boundaries of logic and reason.

I think what you are saying is that the “boundaries” simply haven’t caught up yet, but How does that change the veracity of what I’ve said?

Thus you cannot use logic and reason to explain miracles. Saying that we just lack sufficient knowledge to explain an event is admitting that it cannot currently be explained using logic and reason.

If miracles are logical and reasonable, then NOTHING is logical and reasonable because everything that cannot be explained within the boundaries of what is currently known can simply be dismissed as logical and reasonable IF the requisite knowledge to understand was known. That can literally be true of EVERYTHING.


1 I don’t even begin to see the logic of this statement.

2 No, the boundaries are immutable, like the workings of a computer. If you have insufficient information, you get garbage in, garbage out. I cannot use logic and reason to completely explain miracles; but that doesn’t mean they can’t be explained. How does it change the veracity of what you said? You definitively said that miracles “can’t be explained with logic and reason.” That is what I addressed; it’s a statement that, logically, you cannot know (like proving the nonexistance of God). Proving a definite impossibility in secular terms is somewhere between difficult and, well, impossible…

3 Honestly, this statement is illogical and unreasonable. You’re stating that two contradicting things are true.
4 Can be dismissed, but not necessarily rightfully so.
5 Theoretically. But I don’t think you believe it is in reality any more than I do.


Since we’re discussing logic in connection with global warming, let me share the logic I use in approaching this subject.

I know that I don’t begin to have enough knowledge to accurately assess the claims made about anthropomorphic global warming (AGW). But I have observed that essentially everyone who claims there’s a problem that requires action falls into one of two groups: 1) people who believe more government control is good (predominantly leftists), and 2) people who haven’t thought anything out but are just going along with what they’ve heard (the herd).

Similarly, the people who soundly reject AGW are people who believe in less government and more freedom.

Here’s the big question I ask myself. Why oh why would intelligent people who own property and businesses in low sea-level locations (like New York City), reject AGW if global warming threatened to destroy their life’s investment?

In fact, why does the issue of staving off catastrophe have any political aspect at all? But indeed, it seems to be purely political. The issue divides mostly along party lines.

I figure that a lot of people smarter than me have reason to believe that it’s a hoax wielded for political benefit.