You didn't want because it disagrees with your inane insistence on debating a meaningless point of context. Thompson_NCL clarified his position as being relative to a modern understanding...that really should have been the end of that and the discussion moved on to something interesting.
Richard Dawkins sums up religion
- Thread starter Merlin5
- Start date
You didn't want because it disagrees with your inane insistence on debating a meaningless point of context. Thompson_NCL clarified his position as being relative to a modern understanding...that really should have been the end of that and the discussion moved on to something interesting.
Shouldn't you be in speakers corner being a bore? Or have you skipped in here to do that and rabbit on with a pretentious air of superiority to everyone else?
What's up, can't think of an adequate reply so have to resort to insults and nonsense?
You are only proving Thompson_NCL's criticism of you.
[FnG]magnolia;25424346 said:I'm trying to think of some joke about wanting God on your Hide and Seek team but ... nope, it's not coming. I'll be sure to keep you informed of any progress I make
If he's doing the seeking then its going to be a very short game indeed....and if he's doing the hiding then its going to be a very looooong game indeed....
Perhaps that's what happened. Moses got God to hide first.
So who wanted your opinion exactly?
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
Aren't there passages in the bible where god is asking where someone is? Genesis if memory serves me.
It's like getting rid of an annoying kid. Send them off to hide and then watch TV.
Yes exactly, they're tucked away inside the minds of those who believe.
Any reason you wanted to stick your beak in here for any other reason than brown nosing?
its easy but its completely flawed thinking -'puddle thinking' - there are so many planets out there - life happens to exist on this one (and may on some others) as a result of the right conditions being present. We've adapted and evolved to the conditions that allowed us to exist in the form we currently do.
Your thinking is like that of the sentient puddle:
Well yeah - the more we come to understand the universe the less we can attribute to magic, gods any other stories humans choose to make up & cling to as some form of explanation of an area we don't fully understand. The fact that people do still cling to these beliefs is a bit silly these days....
Cargo cults are a funny one - pacific islanders in WW2 observed US supply planes and then formed a religion around them...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cargo_cult#Pacific_cults_of_World_War_II
there is even a religion where people worship Prince Phillip
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prince_Philip_Movement
its no more or less laughable than primitive people in the middle east following the likes of Jesus or Mohammed back in the day... the fact that people in developed countries still believe in that nonsense today is a bit sad though. Attributing magic explanations to things we don't yet sufficiently understand is just applying the same primitive and flawed thinking we humans have done countless times before....
@ Elmarko
Why do you assume that because you didn't receive a reply with five minutes of you posting there wasn't going to be one?
Nobody denies post priori observations relate to what are generally convened as "natural laws" but natural laws are nothing more than faith based summaries or generalization's intended to convey a depiction of what we believe things are supposed to be.
You do not logically derive a law of physics since do so would require you to go beyond the evidence and no amount of experimental testing can ever prove a scientific theory since it would be impossible to test a theory at all points in "space and time."
It's not science per se that I speak of But Dawkins and his associates who fail to show that there is no logical conflict between reason - giving explanations which concern mechanisms, and reason - giving explanations which concern the plans and purposes of an agent, human or divine. This is a logical point, not a matter of whether one does or does not happen to believe in God oneself. For it is an invalid reason for rejecting the concept of a divine creator, that we understand how the world came into being. But this point is one which Dawkins consistently overlooks. He fails to acknowledge that there is no logical contradiction between the claim that living things arethe outcome of evolution by natural selection and that they could also be the outcome of the plan and purposes of an agent God.
Why do you assume that because you didn't receive a reply with five minutes of you posting there wasn't going to be one?
Nobody denies post priori observations relate to what are generally convened as "natural laws" but natural laws are nothing more than faith based summaries or generalization's intended to convey a depiction of what we believe things are supposed to be.
You do not logically derive a law of physics since do so would require you to go beyond the evidence and no amount of experimental testing can ever prove a scientific theory since it would be impossible to test a theory at all points in "space and time."
It's not science per se that I speak of But Dawkins and his associates who fail to show that there is no logical conflict between reason - giving explanations which concern mechanisms, and reason - giving explanations which concern the plans and purposes of an agent, human or divine. This is a logical point, not a matter of whether one does or does not happen to believe in God oneself. For it is an invalid reason for rejecting the concept of a divine creator, that we understand how the world came into being. But this point is one which Dawkins consistently overlooks. He fails to acknowledge that there is no logical contradiction between the claim that living things arethe outcome of evolution by natural selection and that they could also be the outcome of the plan and purposes of an agent God.
Last edited:
You did reply, just without an explanation.
They are not faith based, they are based off experimentation & observation.
Please explain why a theory would need to be tested at all points in space & time to be valid (in that is has predictive value).
Please explain exactly how you know that to derive a law of physics would require you to go beyond the evidence.
You seem to be bundling up all his arguments then cherry picking which one is against which concept.
His work on evolution he specifically states related to the claims regarding intelligent design (by the assumption a creator is needed to design, which is proven to be false).
His other talks on the subject of morality, ethics or if there is any justifiable reason to believe in god are different subjects he's countering.
You also mistakenly take an argument against say, Christianity (or say the biblical account for creation) then attempt to apply that argument against everything else (which is going to result in some differences).
Where does he specifically state that "there is a logical contradiction between the claim that living things are the outcome of evolution by natural selection and that they could also be the outcome of the plan and purposes of an agent God" - what your are proposing is creationism, which frankly due to the lack of evidence is just another unsupported assertion with no evidence to back it up.
The reason you so talk of also takes into account the acceptance & requirement of evidence to form views & beliefs or opinions - ideas & concepts which reside outside of evidence are not part of reason in the sense most use it (due to the element of verifying facts in standard reason which is omitted in standard theology, as for the core of it - it's faith based & therefore not verifiable).
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
I would like to think there is a god but as I rely on evidence I can not pretend to agree with it. I like the line of thought about god, that if there is a god then i would hope that he does not write a silly book for us to try and interpret.
The existence of the universe isn't evidence of the existence of a being we can't detect in this universe.
Soldato
- Joined
- 3 Jun 2005
- Posts
- 7,614
So, the only possible cause of the universe is a god? Why?
Detect with our minds, thoughts and hearts. Not with human technology.
These minds thoughts & hearts are not reliable, people hallucinate - the mind can fracture, people are deluded - mental illness is rife.
Looking at the world through the lens of just subjective human experience isn't taking into account human fallibility.
People die for others they love and you can't objectify love. Some people just know how they feel and that's that.