Mark wrote in part:
"So your argument is valid I must say, but it side-steps the message of the student's argument: evil doesn't exist, God exists and in his absence you'll find sin. Energy exists, and in its absence you find a void (cold and dark)."

Thank you Mark. My point is exactly that while the mystical poetry of a church may unfreeze our
higher mind and show us a glimmer of truth -- the first step in scientific discovery -- we must never do the evil thing that has been done before: use technically untrue metaphors in the final stage of establishing the truth of a matter. I worry because invoking God's name has not prevented burnings at the stake etc.
Unless you are defending what I feel are excesses in religious history, we must admit God has been present in name, at least, during terribly evil events. Thus, I look for technical correctness, whether God's name is being chanted or not. "Technical" should not mean "in the fine print" but "actually, according to the best-conceived rules we know."
What do you think of that? Nothing?
Mike

• Mike, I have to give you credit - stormcrow - May 30, 2003 - 04:00 UTC
  • As far as I'm concerned, - smartguy - May 30, 2003 - 17:46 UTC
    • I haven't changed my assumptions but I'm learning - whomi - May 30, 2003 - 18:13 UTC