> You can keep repeating your claims if you wish, but that
>doesn't make for much of an exchange of ideas. "What I tell you three
>times is true" isn't a valid method of argument.
> George Murphy
>
I do not know if you read my comment that from the truth that God created
the world, and hence the actual order of nature from among possible orders,
there is no enlightenment as to what that order is. The latter may be
discovered whether or not one believe in God. This fact constitutes the
element of truth in the statement attributed to Laplace, that experimental
science has no need of God. Do you disagree with this statement? Of course,
if you go outside of the experimental sciences, then one has to be careful
whether our conventional notion of science is relevant to the questions
being raised. I will repeat it again that it is not self-evident to me that
the question of origins is an obvious scientific question. Is it obvious to
you?
Moorad