Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Dawkins - will he debate the existence of God?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Umm .. so .. no word then?
    Where is the evidence for a global flood?
    E≈mc2
    "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

    "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
    -Bob B.

    Comment


    • Why?
      Psalms 58:10
      The righteous shall rejoice when he seeth the vengeance: he shall wash his feet in the blood of the wicked.

      CONFESSION OF AN EX-ABORTIONIST

      Comment


      • I agree that Hitchens would make for a better debate..

        Dawkins philosophical background, is well erm. Well judging from his commentary of Thomas Aquanis he's similar to a college freshman that took Philosophy 101 and considers himself a master of all forms of philosophy.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by CRASH View Post
          Why?
          What why?
          Where is the evidence for a global flood?
          E≈mc2
          "the best maths don't need no stinkin' numbers"

          "The waters under the 'expanse' were under the crust."
          -Bob B.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by johhny-turbo View Post
            I agree that Hitchens would make for a better debate..

            Dawkins philosophical background, is well erm. Well judging from his commentary of Thomas Aquanis he's similar to a college freshman that took Philosophy 101 and considers himself a master of all forms of philosophy.
            Have you ever encountered an atheist who did not consider himself so?

            Comment


            • At any rate I don't think anybody here ever thought Dawkins would take this offer seriously. Personally I like Hitchens's style better, but I wouldn't hold your breath for that, either.




              Comment


              • Originally posted by Frank Ernest View Post
                Have you ever encountered an atheist who did not consider himself so?
                Oh come on.

                Here is the problem - there is no evidence that can be considered "scientific" to support the existence of God.

                So you have to fall back on personal experience (which is subject to interpretation, as millions do to "prove" all sorts of things that cannot be demonstrated, including contradictory religious beliefs), or you have to fall back on various logical arguments which, as Wittgenstein noted about philosophy, just becomes a discussion about the meaning of words.

                ID was all about trying to put some scientific muscle behind Paley's watchmaker argument, but it has been a total failure in that department, as demonstrated by how the DI and others have pretty much given up on it. After all the smoke clears, ID is no more than an argument from personal incredulity.

                So you are left with faith - this is what you believe. Dawkins has stated that God's existence is as likely as Russel's idea that there is a teapot orbiting in space - you can't actually prove that it is not out there, but there are pretty good reasons to doubt. You can read what he has to say here, and see for yourself.

                The kicker is that, so far, science has not had to invoke "God did it" to explain anything about the natural world. Quite the opposite, so far, all the things we have found out about the world shows that it works according to natural principles.

                All the objections (the origin of the cosmos, the transition from non-life to life, the DNA molecule, etc.) do not constitute proof of God, but simply a lack of knowledge. "We don't know" is not the same thing as "God did it." You may believe that God did it, but that does not make you right (or wrong, as of yet).

                So what is the point of a debate? He's made his case, people have responded over and over - what would a verbal joust prove?
                When a person needs to motivate folks to believe things that are not true (in the religious, political or economic realm), you'll find them attacking science.

                Comment

                Working...
                X