At 12:30 pm 21/12/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>Grimer wrote:
>> At 10:42 am 21/12/2005 -0500, you wrote:
>>
>>>Mike Carrell wrote:
>>
>>
>>>>The Lord works in mysterious ways.
>>>
>>>Jed: He would if he existed, but he doesn't so he doesn't.
>>
>>
>> Frank; Yes he does.
>>
>> Jed: No he doesn't
>>
>> F: Yes he does.
>>
>> J: No he doesn't.
>>
>> F: Yes he does.
>>
>> J: No he doesn't.
>>
>> F: Yes he does a thousand times and no returns.
>>
>> Ah! that takes me right back to my
>> school playground when we were 5. 8-)
>
>There are valid methods for determining the likely provenance of sacred
>texts. There are valid methods for determining certain details of how
>ancient manuscripts were constructed. There are, in fact, valid
>arguments that may eventually lead to an almost certainly correct
>solution to the synoptic problem. (Actually I think the solution to
>that one's already clear, but like cold fusion, the academic
>establishment has largely rejected it FWTW.) Hence, arguments over such
>things could plausibly be considered appropriate for a science-oriented
>discussion group.
>
>But the statement that "God exists" is too vague to be testable (i.e, no
>matter what facts were discovered, for any imagined experiment no matter
>how impractical, it could never be proved false) and hence there are no
>valid arguments on either side of that particular issue, which puts it
>clearly off-topic.
Agreed. And if Jed will abstain from saying He don't exist -
I wont feel conscience bound to insist that He does exist.
As Basil Fawlty said to his German diners,
"...you invaded Poland." 8-)
Frank
