(ctd)
>>showing the existence of god I feels more challenging. Science may soon be able to make new predictions based on the Higgs particle<<

What you mean by “showing” is apparently evidence that would be convincing to all atheists (Theists have enough evidence that does not need “showing” but they have to admit that it is subjective.) A God, whose existence would be as convincing to contemporary atheists as the existence of, say, electrons or Alpha Centauri, would be a God who forces himself on his creation, which is not how God is understood by educated theists in our century.

I agree with the second sentence, however finding the Higgs boson would confirm the Standard Model of Particle Physics, not decide against or in favour of “God’s existence”, despite being called the God particle by some (atheist) media.

>>regressing physical phenomena back to a god, is hard, elusive and probably impossible<<
Not probably, but principally, because God is not to be found through investigating physical phenomena, like no sharp knife can (mechanically) split an atom to get to electrons. Of course, there is clear (i.e. understood by physics) evidence for the Big Bang, but, like the Higgs boson, it is irrelevant to questions about God’s existence.

George wrote: >>Is there a Captain at the wheel or is existence the product of a non-divine driver entangled in nature, there, without the immanence of a god? <<
This is an interesting formulation of the crucial question of philosophy, why is there something rather than nothing.

Dear George,

This seems to me another version of the God of the Gaps. Is there a controlling divinity or is there a non-divine driver? Why assume any sort of a driver? A non-divine driver is a quasi-divinity.

It is also a particular version of God, the Creator God. There may be a God. However, God may not be the Creator but part of creation.

I don't see your speculation as having anything to do with the question of, why is there something rather than nothing.

I also don't agree that that is the crucial question of philosophy. We can live our lives in a satisfactory manner without knowing the answer to that question. To me the crucial questions of philosophy are: "What is a good life?" and "How can we lead such a life?"

Dear David,
The formulation is Oliver’s not mine. I cannot speak on his behalf, however I don’t think he had “the God of gaps” (a “deus ex machina” answer to questions that belong to the competence of science but science does not have yet an answer to) in mind. Also, as far as I understood him, by “non-divine driver” he had in mind things like emergence, self-organisation (see e.g. Stuart Kaufman in the biological context), Paul Davies’ causal loops (The Goldilocks Enigma, Allen Lane 2006), etc, all assumptions or just speculations that do not involve anything “supernatural”.

I agree that I should not have spoken of THE crucial question but rather of ONE of the crucial questions of philosophy or, better, ontology. What question is and is not crucial is subjective (e.g. when writing my PhD thesis, some hundred years ago, there was a number of crucial for me questions I needed to answer that most people could not care less about).

My usual formulation of the “crucial” alternatives - based on the undefined concepts of cause and purpose - followed the part you quoted:

EITHER the physical world is its own cause and purpose (c.f. Davies’ “causal loops”)
OR there is Something not reducible to it, that is the cause and purpose of the physical world as well as of Itself.

I usually add that I do not see any compelling rational reason for the one or the other alternative. The reasons are personal, hard to communicate accross this either-or divide. (ctd)

(ctd)
>>It is also a particular version of God, the Creator God. There may be a God. However, God may not be the Creator but part of creation. <<
I can only understand this as meaning that one can accept the second alternative without accepting the Judeao-Christian (and Muslim) model of that Something as the cause and purpose of everything, including Itself.

I agree, although my understanding of the biblical God as Creator is exactly in the sense of Him being the cause and purpose of everything, (though I do not understand why you would call something “God” if it is part a creation).

The concept of creation does not make much sense without the background of time, hence the transcendent-immanent duality in Polkinghorne’s understanding of God I referred to above, where God is seen both as being beyond time and as participating in the continuous self-creation of the world, a theological equivalence of evolution (Darwinian and cosmic).

OH/dear

OL'deer/hart..to ol'liver

'did you hear the news today?
[the british..[evolutionist]'s..-army..has just lost the war..
it hadnt noticed/that the times had changed...'

poke holes/into this

QUOTE..<,(AFP)–5 hours ago

LONDON —What came first,..the chicken or the egg?..

Scientists in Britain think/it was..probably the chicken,..after using new computer technology..to try and crack the age-old riddle.

Researchers at the Universities/of Sheffield and Warwick,..in northern and central England,..say the secret*..lies in the eggshell...specifically..the vital role played/by..a chicken protein in forming it.

Scientists already knew that the protein,..vocledidin-17 (OC-17), plays a part in eggshell formation,..but the new technology allowed the team to demonstrate..exactly how/the protein makes it happen.

In a computer simulation,..the OC-17 protein/acted as a catalyst to kickstart..the formation of crystals/that make up an eggshell by clamping itself/..on-to calcium carbonate particles.

The OC-17 protein/then dropped off..when the crystal nucleus was large enough..to grow on its own,..freeing up the protein to start the process again.

Eggshells are created/when this happens many times over within a short period of time.

"Understanding how chickens/..make eggshells is fascinating in itself but can also give clues..towards designing new materials and processes,"..said Professor John Harding from Sheffield University,/one of the authors of the research.

"Nature"..has found innovative solutions/..that work for all kinds of problems/in materials science and technology/..>>

..<<we can learn a lot from them," he added.>>>
so i add..learn from/HIM...not them...;

i added..he did it..get it?

SO WHO'MADE'THE CHICKEN...
if the chicken...didnt emerge..from a snake egg
[or..present a snake..that has this proteen..
or a snake..that lays chicken eggs

PRESENT FACT...faulsify
present..faulsifyables

GODS...is/nature*
god/the natural/nature..behind nurture/..

t'is him*..that done it...made the chicken
him*..that made the chicken/..egg
not the serphant

http://news.google.com.au/news/more?q=chicken+or+egg+news&hl=en&prmd=n&resnum=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dyOxdDBP7MTK3KMZ3CMQ6JxGuhTqM&ei=Eyk-TJHLBsaecay90aIB&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&cd=1&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQqgIoADAA

continues
but to reply..david...what makes a good-life..
activity...having special intrests/passions/loves

the after life...
seems mainly to be about fully-filling..
ALL our unmet needs...

GAINED/...l-earned..acquired..in these realms
the equal base/..we all must gain/attain...to go the next level

cnn/adds more detail

http://news.google.com.au/news/more?q=chicken+or+egg+news&hl=en&prmd=n&resnum=1&um=1&ie=UTF-8&ncl=dyOxdDBP7MTK3KMZ3CMQ6JxGuhTqM&ei=Eyk-TJHLBsaecay90aIB&sa=X&oi=news_result&ct=more-results&cd=1&resnum=1&ved=0CCMQqgIoADAA

<<They also found that the egg..can't be produced/without the protein ovocledidin-17...*in the chickens' ovaries,..so that means that the chicken/must have..come first...Right?

"Obviously,..it's not really/what we were trying to get out of our simulations,..but it's an interesting question isn't it?"/Freeman said.

Rather than putting an end/to bickering..over the true order of the egg,/the researchers were trying to understand/more about how shell is formed..so that they can apply their findings/in other disciplines,..including medicine.

"The quote my colleague John Harding/always says is,..'could we ever be as clever as algae?'"..Freeman said.

"They produce/these wonderful shells..that protect them in the North Sea...That crystal structure is far/in advance of anything..that we as humans can create in the lab,"..Freeman said,..adding, "We can't make a human skeleton in the lab..."

Perhaps/one day..they will-be/able to...And perhaps/one day..someone will..conclusively..put an end/to the argument..was it/the chicken or the egg?>>>

noting..there are two/OTHER/science topic's..emerging..*seeking to submerge this one...aint the media/system..so predictable....lol

will they/go with the bony/fish..destraction..or the pre/human..or the egg...we live in..interesting/times...eh?

to continue....david/quote...<<.. However,..God may not be the Creator..but part of creation.>>>in essence...god..is all...

but if in the state..of at-one-meant...he as a unity/one..good/god...he/can survive..even the big collapse...that preceeds the big-bang..though he might not consist..of the same cellular/memories

<<I don't see your speculation/as having anything to do..with the question of,..why is there something..rather than nothing.>>>action/reaction..

we saw god/still hadnt..gotten..it together..the last time...
but the NEXT..big bang..the collective..that remains..the one...
will be so much more wiser[if he holds fast to the belief..in himself]

<<We can live our lives/in a satisfactory manner..without knowing the answer..to that question>>yes...but there yet needs be logic/logus...holding it all together..so gravity is gravity...etc

<<To me/the crucial questions/of philosophy.are:.."What is a good life?">>>one that supplies the means to a great ending

<<and.."How can we lead such a life?">>>simply by..following the goods...of life that we love...be ruled by passion...that dosnt threaten...the one-ness