X-Ftn-To: Gromit 

Gromit  wrote:
>> A causal chain is a chain of A caused B caused C caused D...
>> So, when we talk about things, we can ask, is this thing here forever,
>> or does it have a cause somewhere outside itself? Apparently, all
>> physical objects originate from the Big Bang, so, this expanding
>> singularity is the source of all things. Now, you ask yourself, is the
>> Big Bang origin of the causal chain, or are there any links to the
>> left? 
>
>Your description of what my question was is excellent. Thank you for
>putting in simple words the concept I was trying to get across to george.

I don't believe that he'll comply, because once he does, his bubble is
gonna burst.

>George has attempted to address this but in my opinion he has failed to show
>that his god is the Christian God. Causeless, timeless, omnipresent are all 
>Christian concepts that do not seem to combine with George's god.

Agreed. He defines "God" as a psycho-physiological phenomenon, which
is closer to Freudian or Marxist, than to Christian views of the
matter. Freud said that the idea of God was caused by repressed
sexuality, and Marx said that it was a product of class exploitation.
Hammond really does fit this company nicely. :)

>That's what I have been asking for. Hammond claimed that he does not define god,
>he proves god. But in order to prove something you have to define it otherwise the 
>proof is meaningless.

Exactly. Before _every_ attempt of expressing scientific evidence, one
must first elaborate _what_ he's proving, _how_ he's going to do it,
and _why_ the evidence is conclusive and relevant. The actual evidence
must be placed into a wider context that makes it understandable.
Here, he would first need to define God, and prove that his definition
is theologically acceptable. Then, he would need to explain the
connection between physics, biology and God. After that, he would
bring out the actual data and interpret it. Then, he would have to
explain why his interpretation is the most probable one (by Occam's
razor or something similar), and why the conclusion about God's
existence necessarily follows from it all. Then, he should express
caution regarding the logic and data involved in the process, and
invite the experts to question his theory, and calmly answer all their
questions. If they find something he can't explain convincingly, he
should thank them for finding an error in his theory and reconsider
his conclusions.

Frankly, I'm afraid of the possibility that this guy's diploma is
genuine. This would mean that it's possible for someone to have a
specialized knowledge of one specialized application of science, and
to be utterly clueless regarding the scientific methodology, which is,
frankly, a disaster.

-- 
Homepage: http://www.danijel.org