Darren New wrote:
> The religious stance of "if we can't explain it, it must be God" isn't 
> valid logic.

It might not be valid logic, but it is certainly acceptable (in my book) 
to say "anything unexplainable is the work of something I call 'God'" 
and refining that when you encounter things for which you discover an 
explanation.  However, there will always be a level above the 
explainable that needs 'something else' to describe it.  Is it 
scientific?  No.  Does it need to be?  I personally don't think so.

-- 
Tim Cook
http://home.bellsouth.net/p/PWP-empyrean

-----BEGIN GEEK CODE BLOCK-----
Version: 3.12
GFA dpu- s: a?-- C++(++++) U P? L E--- W++(+++)>$
N++ o? K- w(+) O? M-(--) V? PS+(+++) PE(--) Y(--)
PGP-(--) t* 5++>+++++ X+ R* tv+ b++(+++) DI
D++(---) G(++) e*>++ h+ !r--- !y--
------END GEEK CODE BLOCK------

Post a reply to this message