:rotfl: Seems to be a perfunctory analysis by a nut job fundy Dawkinsite.
Richard Dawkins - will he debate the existence of God?
- Thread starter Nathon Detroit
- Start date
csuguy
Well-known member
uck... I read the thread you started over there. As if any of the issues their bringing up have anything at all to do with Enyart's credentials or ability to debate the topic! I started an account over there some time back but, as you've said, they are not a welcoming bunch. If you can actually get the debate going that would be awesome, but I don't think its going to happen...
Seeing as how the first time you quoted that was just a couple posts up, I don't think you needed to refer us to it again. Don't be a tool.
johhny-turbo
New member
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.
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.
What why?
Have you ever encountered an atheist who did not consider himself so?
laughsoutloud
New member
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?