Originally Posted by
Michael66 
Hi Mr Tumble
On your first point you have fallen into the trap of believing in the logical fallacy of a false dichotomy - where you set two non-contradictory and non-exclusive possibilities against each other. It's very simple - if I am ill I go to the doctor, I pray, and I ask other people to pray for me. They are not, in logic, antonymic pairs - which are pairs where only one can be true (such as there being a God or there not being a God). My first instinct if ill, though, is always to pray - but not necessarily for cures; we all age and get ill and maybe even illness has something to teach us.
im sorry, but its not a logical fallacy, let me see if i can be more clear.
your motivation to pray for a cure is driven by "faith", the lord may or may not hear your prayer, he may or may not decide to intervene, you can never really know what effect if any you will have by inviting Him to get involved. the success is not measurable (especially if you have no science to tell you what the problem is in the first place)
However, if you have a heart problem that requires a heart transplant, you know with some certainty that a successful heart transplant will fix you up. the learnings that lead to humanity having the capability to transplant a heart didnt come about from a bunch of monks sitting around praying all day, it came from science.
so on the one hand you have a belief system that would lead to your demise and on the other a belief system that has lead to the restoration of your health. the fact that you chose to pray and have the transplant, doesnt take away the fact that only the transplant will save your life... does it?
So tell me, which belief system is more logical.