Mondays, I know what you're talking about. I've been there. I would have kicked his ass, but, you know, that's one hell of a defense tactic. *rolls eyes*
...It was required for the definition to be revamped. The god we think of today has been formatted to fit this screen, so to speak. And I also must inquire what, then, was the causality of the first cause? FURTHERMORE, because something is dependent on an element, does not exempt the cause of that something from being dependent. I need nutrients, I am a cause of my parents. My parents are also dependent on nutrients. You see? Anyways... Good show old boy, but I think your theory needs a little work.
Good hard work with this. I'm not going to vote on it, however, because your logic doesn't sit right with me. It was going nicely until the end when you said "That sounds like God to me". That parallel is based on a human concept of what god is, not a scientific proof of what god is. Furthermore, this more than likely sounds like god because that is what we have defined god as, this definition resulting directly from acknoledgement of these facts. So to keep god coinciding with modern science....
