Tim Cook wrote:
> 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'" 

Well, would it be OK for me to say it's the work of Satan?  It seems 
kind of odd to define "God" as "that which I don't understand." I mean, 
if you're going to start giving attributes to God, such as omnipotence, 
benevolence, etc, then you *do* think you understand something about God.

If you're just going to say "when I say flying saucer, I *mean* UFO", 
then sure. But you've just eliminated one of those two words.

I'm not sure why you wouldn't just call it "unexplainable".

> However, there will always be a level above the 
> explainable that needs 'something else' to describe it.  

Including God.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     It's not feature creep if you put it
     at the end and adjust the release date.

Post a reply to this message