(Hiya all, allow me to jump into the discussion - I found it by
accident. As for myself, I'm a spiritual teacher and a Kundalini-yogi,
I live in Croatia, blah blah, nice to meet you all, now let's get to
the point:)

George Hammond  wrote:
>http://people.ne.mediaone.net/ghammond/Creationcall.html

I read the article.

First of all, it starts with a bad or nonexistent definition of God.
God is the Absolute, the supreme reality. To make an analogy, God is
the computer and the programmer and the operating system, and this
universe is merely a running application. This means that every single
thing around us is God, and yet, none of them is, because God is
transcendental to this "reality". 
Also, this means that, since God is the fundamental reality of every
being, He is the basis of our innermost core, the essence of our
being; the only problem is to identify it, and there are serious
practices within most religions, with that goal.

Having that in mind, it is obvious that Hammond's "evidence" doesn't
mean anything. You can't prove the existence of the computer if you
think in terms of a videogame; within the game, there is no computer.
The best you can do is to conclude that there might actually be a
higher reality outside the game, but while you're identified with the
game, there's no chance of getting anything even remotely similar to
the evidence; the only way of obtaining that would be to gradually
"wake up" and start observing more of the real world, which is around
you all the time, only you don't notice it because your attention is
limited to the contents of the game.

As for the article, I would remind everybody of the basics of science:
first, you need to choose the field of observation;
then, you need to perform a preliminary observation;
based on the preliminary observation, you need to form a hypothesis;
using the hypothesis, you make a prediction.
Then you make observations, and, if the obtained data is consistent
with the prediction, the hypothesis can be accepted as a working
theory, until disproved by observation.

This article is a total mess, it starts without a defined object of
study, it makes strange conclusions without elaborating, and is full
of arrogant, unfounded claims that reveal superficiality and
ignorance. The only thing that it does show, however, is the author's
lack of theological education, because, if he had any, he would know
that any serious theological system defines God as the foundation of
reality, or, less precisely, as the origin of the causal chain (the
uncaused cause of all). There are other definitions of God, of course,
but they are not used by serious thinkers. To conclude, this article
and its "proofs" are theologically irrelevant.

These are more-less my thoughts on the matter.

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