Doug:
You are one of my favorite people and you know that.
Actually I didn't. I'm honoured!
The whole overwhelming evidence and that already proven theory might have been otherwise doomed!
Gawd forbid that I unsettle the entire foundation of the universe by wild assertions
Dan:
I thought it might contain something that would really challenge me, really fire me up, get me thinking. But then it concluded with such a tepid argument. I was expecting something better I guess.
Well, lets se if we can't remedy that here, then
First lets take our conclusion one more step before backtracking, ergo: just as language isn't real, neither is thought itself, being the interpretation of a mass of firing neurons, interpreted by... a mass of firing neurons
That being the case thought and language is actually all we have. Even language itself is developed along the lines of evolving frameworks of understanding; assumptions; belief; and interpretation. Hence the framework to which we adhere has a very direct affect on the way we interpret the information that overloads our senses.
Generally speaking the human animal will not intentionally attempt to construct an illogical interpretation of events. Our minds seek patterns (even where there are none) and stability to make sense of the world around us, by imprinting an internal map.
The scientific method has evolved to the point where for most things it is the best logic model to allow us to categorise the "what" and the "how" of things. It struggles to wrangle with some of the "why"s, however, and the mind itself is a bastion that it has yet to full storm (though it is having some success).
It is quite within the bounds of the scientific method to take an assumption such as a "first cause" when constructing a hypothesis as long as the assumption is stated. This is the beginning point of every objective enquiry, and at the very least amounts to a "variable/constant x" or "god of the gaps". As such theology is a well respected philosophical science.
Now if the original assumption should prove incorrect then the experiment is still not proved flawed, rather then null hypothesis is shown statistically viable. Of course all the debating that rested on the discounting of the null hypothesis is then rendered so much mental masturbation, but that's the risk that every philosopher has taken. We don't berate them for it, but rather learn from their lessons, and build upon their shoulders.
Thus language and frameworks of thought continue to evolve and develop.
What is the net result of using "God" as a prior assumption, aside being a handy mathematical device? For that I have to further delve into the philosophical, or maybe into the psychosomatic. Taking an ethical risk analysis of it, does it benefit or harm (and here I refer to the base assumption, not the towering edifices that have been built upon it)? I would suggest that at the very least it has provided "comfort" for the internal maps of most every homo sapien sapien down through the ages. It is only being contested in our modern age, and as yet has not been successfully replaced by so effective an assumption.
So far this is all very philosophical, and I haven't even dipped into whether or not such a "Person" actually exists or cares. Its meant as discussion, though, and in that context I offer these few rambling thoughts.