Well, John, I said it was untestable - - if you assert the nature of God is one of those (and they are multiple) described in a Christian document such as one ofthe testaments, while someone else asserts the nature of God is that described in the Koran, and yet another asserts yet another nature, we have a mess which asserts itself as the truth in three contradictory ways, depending on the model. The mess is not resoluble by analysis because it calls on phenomena that are not known on an evidentiary basis, cannot be measured or experienced on a predictable footing. Why should such un-rational stuff be entered in tot he commons when it is not needed to resolve the issues?? That is the critical point. Data that is not needed for a given solution is extraneous.

Additionally it is perverse to take religion, which is a private interface between one's deepest spiritual self and the universe, and try to diminish it by making it objective. I am sorry -- the whole effort to instantiate religion as a social truth is just wrong-headed and non-productive. Over the centuries it has again and again proven itself as a source of misery, crime, slaughter, and vainglory.

A