In the light of the closure of a different thread I thought I would open one on a similar subject which is more purgatorial.
There is no strong evidence for or against the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son and Messiah. As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?
The only evidence for God is Jesus. There is no 'evidence' whatsoever apart from Him: it's 100% physicalism and Jesus. Nothing we can find on Earth or anywhere on out for 13.8 GLY can increase that percentage. Ever. Jesus stands alone, on His own recognizance, crap historiography and all. As the ultimate, outrageous orthogonal claim against 100% meaningless nature.
Christians believe that God was reponsible for creation. The Earth exists and so does everything that has been created. That's what I call evidence
You spelled 'begging the question' wrong.
What on earth are you on about ????
You're assuming the conclusion - that God created the universe. The conclusion and the starting premise are the same thing.
What's that got to do with "You spelled 'begging the question' wrong."
Because that's what begging the question is: assuming your conclusion in your premises.
Proof of the existence of the world is not hard to come by. To go on and prove that God did it, that's a further step.
In the light of the closure of a different thread I thought I would open one on a similar subject which is more purgatorial.
There is no strong evidence for or against the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son and Messiah. As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?
The only evidence for God is Jesus. There is no 'evidence' whatsoever apart from Him: it's 100% physicalism and Jesus. Nothing we can find on Earth or anywhere on out for 13.8 GLY can increase that percentage. Ever. Jesus stands alone, on His own recognizance, crap historiography and all. As the ultimate, outrageous orthogonal claim against 100% meaningless nature.
Christians believe that God was reponsible for creation. The Earth exists and so does everything that has been created. That's what I call evidence
Evidence of what? Belief?
Evidence of the existence of the earth and all that's on it. That's what we have
If you want to prosecute someone for theft, the first thing you need to do is prove that something has been stolen. If you want to prove that God made the earth the first thing you need to do is prove that the earth exists
The evidence of the existence of the earth is under my feet and all that's on it I've seen in my travels and in images.
If you want to prove that God made the earth the first thing you need to do is prove that God exists. That's all you need to do.
In the light of the closure of a different thread I thought I would open one on a similar subject which is more purgatorial.
There is no strong evidence for or against the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son and Messiah. As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?
The only evidence for God is Jesus. There is no 'evidence' whatsoever apart from Him: it's 100% physicalism and Jesus. Nothing we can find on Earth or anywhere on out for 13.8 GLY can increase that percentage. Ever. Jesus stands alone, on His own recognizance, crap historiography and all. As the ultimate, outrageous orthogonal claim against 100% meaningless nature.
Christians believe that God was reponsible for creation. The Earth exists and so does everything that has been created. That's what I call evidence
You spelled 'begging the question' wrong.
What on earth are you on about ????
You're assuming the conclusion - that God created the universe. The conclusion and the starting premise are the same thing.
What's that got to do with "You spelled 'begging the question' wrong."
Because that's what begging the question is: assuming your conclusion in your premises.
Proof of the existence of the world is not hard to come by. To go on and prove that God did it, that's a further step.
It's a further step. It's existence is merely the first step. I narrowing it down to possible claimants and I am struggling to get past One
In the light of the closure of a different thread I thought I would open one on a similar subject which is more purgatorial.
There is no strong evidence for or against the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son and Messiah. As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?
The only evidence for God is Jesus. There is no 'evidence' whatsoever apart from Him: it's 100% physicalism and Jesus. Nothing we can find on Earth or anywhere on out for 13.8 GLY can increase that percentage. Ever. Jesus stands alone, on His own recognizance, crap historiography and all. As the ultimate, outrageous orthogonal claim against 100% meaningless nature.
Christians believe that God was reponsible for creation. The Earth exists and so does everything that has been created. That's what I call evidence
You spelled 'begging the question' wrong.
What on earth are you on about ????
You're assuming the conclusion - that God created the universe. The conclusion and the starting premise are the same thing.
What's that got to do with "You spelled 'begging the question' wrong."
Because that's what begging the question is: assuming your conclusion in your premises.
Proof of the existence of the world is not hard to come by. To go on and prove that God did it, that's a further step.
It's a further step. It's existence is merely the first step. I narrowing it down to possible claimants and I am struggling to get past One
In the light of the closure of a different thread I thought I would open one on a similar subject which is more purgatorial.
There is no strong evidence for or against the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son and Messiah. As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?
The only evidence for God is Jesus. There is no 'evidence' whatsoever apart from Him: it's 100% physicalism and Jesus. Nothing we can find on Earth or anywhere on out for 13.8 GLY can increase that percentage. Ever. Jesus stands alone, on His own recognizance, crap historiography and all. As the ultimate, outrageous orthogonal claim against 100% meaningless nature.
Christians believe that God was reponsible for creation. The Earth exists and so does everything that has been created. That's what I call evidence
You spelled 'begging the question' wrong.
What on earth are you on about ????
You're assuming the conclusion - that God created the universe. The conclusion and the starting premise are the same thing.
What's that got to do with "You spelled 'begging the question' wrong."
Because that's what begging the question is: assuming your conclusion in your premises.
Proof of the existence of the world is not hard to come by. To go on and prove that God did it, that's a further step.
It's a further step. It's existence is merely the first step. I narrowing it down to possible claimants and I am struggling to get past One
In the light of the closure of a different thread I thought I would open one on a similar subject which is more purgatorial.
There is no strong evidence for or against the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son and Messiah. As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?
The only evidence for God is Jesus. There is no 'evidence' whatsoever apart from Him: it's 100% physicalism and Jesus. Nothing we can find on Earth or anywhere on out for 13.8 GLY can increase that percentage. Ever. Jesus stands alone, on His own recognizance, crap historiography and all. As the ultimate, outrageous orthogonal claim against 100% meaningless nature.
Christians believe that God was reponsible for creation. The Earth exists and so does everything that has been created. That's what I call evidence
You spelled 'begging the question' wrong.
What on earth are you on about ????
You're assuming the conclusion - that God created the universe. The conclusion and the starting premise are the same thing.
What's that got to do with "You spelled 'begging the question' wrong."
Because that's what begging the question is: assuming your conclusion in your premises.
Proof of the existence of the world is not hard to come by. To go on and prove that God did it, that's a further step.
It's a further step. It's existence is merely the first step. I narrowing it down to possible claimants and I am struggling to get past One
In the light of the closure of a different thread I thought I would open one on a similar subject which is more purgatorial.
There is no strong evidence for or against the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son and Messiah. As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?
The only evidence for God is Jesus. There is no 'evidence' whatsoever apart from Him: it's 100% physicalism and Jesus. Nothing we can find on Earth or anywhere on out for 13.8 GLY can increase that percentage. Ever. Jesus stands alone, on His own recognizance, crap historiography and all. As the ultimate, outrageous orthogonal claim against 100% meaningless nature.
Christians believe that God was reponsible for creation. The Earth exists and so does everything that has been created. That's what I call evidence
You spelled 'begging the question' wrong.
What on earth are you on about ????
You're assuming the conclusion - that God created the universe. The conclusion and the starting premise are the same thing.
What's that got to do with "You spelled 'begging the question' wrong."
Because that's what begging the question is: assuming your conclusion in your premises.
Proof of the existence of the world is not hard to come by. To go on and prove that God did it, that's a further step.
It's a further step. It's existence is merely the first step. I narrowing it down to possible claimants and I am struggling to get past One
Since the Genesis creation story was brought up, I was looking for an interpretation of the story. I found a video for it. I posted it on the Kerymania board. Feel free to view it. It has some interesting insight into the meanings of some words, the order of creation, and the use of the numb
In the light of the closure of a different thread I thought I would open one on a similar subject which is more purgatorial.
There is no strong evidence for or against the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son and Messiah. As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?
The only evidence for God is Jesus. There is no 'evidence' whatsoever apart from Him: it's 100% physicalism and Jesus. Nothing we can find on Earth or anywhere on out for 13.8 GLY can increase that percentage. Ever. Jesus stands alone, on His own recognizance, crap historiography and all. As the ultimate, outrageous orthogonal claim against 100% meaningless nature.
Christians believe that God was reponsible for creation. The Earth exists and so does everything that has been created. That's what I call evidence
You spelled 'begging the question' wrong.
What on earth are you on about ????
You're assuming the conclusion - that God created the universe. The conclusion and the starting premise are the same thing.
What's that got to do with "You spelled 'begging the question' wrong."
Because that's what begging the question is: assuming your conclusion in your premises.
Proof of the existence of the world is not hard to come by. To go on and prove that God did it, that's a further step.
It's a further step. It's existence is merely the first step. I narrowing it down to possible claimants and I am struggling to get past One
In the light of the closure of a different thread I thought I would open one on a similar subject which is more purgatorial.
There is no strong evidence for or against the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son and Messiah. As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?
The only evidence for God is Jesus. There is no 'evidence' whatsoever apart from Him: it's 100% physicalism and Jesus. Nothing we can find on Earth or anywhere on out for 13.8 GLY can increase that percentage. Ever. Jesus stands alone, on His own recognizance, crap historiography and all. As the ultimate, outrageous orthogonal claim against 100% meaningless nature.
Christians believe that God was reponsible for creation. The Earth exists and so does everything that has been created. That's what I call evidence
You spelled 'begging the question' wrong.
What on earth are you on about ????
You're assuming the conclusion - that God created the universe. The conclusion and the starting premise are the same thing.
What's that got to do with "You spelled 'begging the question' wrong."
Because that's what begging the question is: assuming your conclusion in your premises.
Proof of the existence of the world is not hard to come by. To go on and prove that God did it, that's a further step.
It's a further step. It's existence is merely the first step. I narrowing it down to possible claimants and I am struggling to get past One
The other possibility is None.
Is it a possibility you accept ?
Accept? Or believe?
Believe
Why does that matter? Why make this about me?
Fair enough. You don't know whether or not you believe. I will now know where you are coming from.
In the light of the closure of a different thread I thought I would open one on a similar subject which is more purgatorial.
There is no strong evidence for or against the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son and Messiah. As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?
The only evidence for God is Jesus. There is no 'evidence' whatsoever apart from Him: it's 100% physicalism and Jesus. Nothing we can find on Earth or anywhere on out for 13.8 GLY can increase that percentage. Ever. Jesus stands alone, on His own recognizance, crap historiography and all. As the ultimate, outrageous orthogonal claim against 100% meaningless nature.
Christians believe that God was reponsible for creation. The Earth exists and so does everything that has been created. That's what I call evidence
You spelled 'begging the question' wrong.
What on earth are you on about ????
You're assuming the conclusion - that God created the universe. The conclusion and the starting premise are the same thing.
What's that got to do with "You spelled 'begging the question' wrong."
Because that's what begging the question is: assuming your conclusion in your premises.
Proof of the existence of the world is not hard to come by. To go on and prove that God did it, that's a further step.
It's a further step. It's existence is merely the first step. I narrowing it down to possible claimants and I am struggling to get past One
The other possibility is None.
Is it a possibility you accept ?
Accept? Or believe?
Believe
Why does that matter? Why make this about me?
Fair enough. You don't know whether or not you believe. I will now know where you are coming from.
In the light of the closure of a different thread I thought I would open one on a similar subject which is more purgatorial.
There is no strong evidence for or against the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son and Messiah. As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?
The only evidence for God is Jesus. There is no 'evidence' whatsoever apart from Him: it's 100% physicalism and Jesus. Nothing we can find on Earth or anywhere on out for 13.8 GLY can increase that percentage. Ever. Jesus stands alone, on His own recognizance, crap historiography and all. As the ultimate, outrageous orthogonal claim against 100% meaningless nature.
Christians believe that God was reponsible for creation. The Earth exists and so does everything that has been created. That's what I call evidence
You spelled 'begging the question' wrong.
What on earth are you on about ????
You're assuming the conclusion - that God created the universe. The conclusion and the starting premise are the same thing.
What's that got to do with "You spelled 'begging the question' wrong."
Because that's what begging the question is: assuming your conclusion in your premises.
Proof of the existence of the world is not hard to come by. To go on and prove that God did it, that's a further step.
It's a further step. It's existence is merely the first step. I narrowing it down to possible claimants and I am struggling to get past One
The other possibility is None.
Is it a possibility you accept ?
Accept? Or believe?
Believe
Why does that matter? Why make this about me?
Fair enough. You don't know whether or not you believe. I will now know where you are coming from.
I started seriously questioning Christian belief a few years ago, with science being one of the angles that raised many questions. One of the books I came across at that time was Why Science does not disprove God, by Amir Aczel. I had read his book about Fermat's Last Theorem which was good, but this one was a stinker. It is full of strawman arguments, quotes taken out of context, generalisations, anecdote and logical non-sequiturs. What the book made me realise was that the idea of God is not amenable to scientific method, as it makes no testable predictions and is unfalsifiable, so his thesis is correct: Science cannot disprove God. Critically thinking about the tenets of Christianity makes many of them inherently extremely improbable and the complete set (to me) beyond credibility.
I now identify as a Rationalist: one who rejects anything supernatural, be that (among others) deity, demons, devils, prophesy, miracles, sacred revealed writings and any idea of there being a continuation of our existence after our bodily death. All these are teachings of religion that have no evidence for them and need a contortion of the mind to accept.
I started seriously questioning Christian belief a few years ago, with science being one of the angles that raised many questions. One of the books I came across at that time was Why Science does not disprove God, by Amir Aczel. I had read his book about Fermat's Last Theorem which was good, but this one was a stinker. It is full of strawman arguments, quotes taken out of context, generalisations, anecdote and logical non-sequiturs. What the book made me realise was that the idea of God is not amenable to scientific method, as it makes no testable predictions and is unfalsifiable, so his thesis is correct: Science cannot disprove God. Critically thinking about the tenets of Christianity makes many of them inherently extremely improbable and the complete set (to me) beyond credibility.
I now identify as a Rationalist: one who rejects anything supernatural, be that (among others) deity, demons, devils, prophesy, miracles, sacred revealed writings and any idea of there being a continuation of our existence after our bodily death. All these are teachings of religion that have no evidence for them and need a contortion of the mind to accept.
You are well named
Barnabas62Purgatory Host, 8th Day Host, Epiphanies Host
In the light of the closure of a different thread I thought I would open one on a similar subject which is more purgatorial.
There is no strong evidence for or against the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son and Messiah. As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?
The only evidence for God is Jesus. There is no 'evidence' whatsoever apart from Him: it's 100% physicalism and Jesus. Nothing we can find on Earth or anywhere on out for 13.8 GLY can increase that percentage. Ever. Jesus stands alone, on His own recognizance, crap historiography and all. As the ultimate, outrageous orthogonal claim against 100% meaningless nature.
Christians believe that God was reponsible for creation. The Earth exists and so does everything that has been created. That's what I call evidence
You spelled 'begging the question' wrong.
What on earth are you on about ????
You're assuming the conclusion - that God created the universe. The conclusion and the starting premise are the same thing.
What's that got to do with "You spelled 'begging the question' wrong."
Because that's what begging the question is: assuming your conclusion in your premises.
Proof of the existence of the world is not hard to come by. To go on and prove that God did it, that's a further step.
It's a further step. It's existence is merely the first step. I narrowing it down to possible claimants and I am struggling to get past One
The other possibility is None.
Is it a possibility you accept ?
Accept? Or believe?
Believe
Why does that matter? Why make this about me?
Fair enough. You don't know whether or not you believe. I will now know where you are coming from.
DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
Please don't shout at me .
That's more than enough from both of you. Kindly take your personality conflict to Hell (Commandment 4). No more here please.
I started seriously questioning Christian belief a few years ago, with science being one of the angles that raised many questions. One of the books I came across at that time was Why Science does not disprove God, by Amir Aczel. I had read his book about Fermat's Last Theorem which was good, but this one was a stinker. It is full of strawman arguments, quotes taken out of context, generalisations, anecdote and logical non-sequiturs. What the book made me realise was that the idea of God is not amenable to scientific method, as it makes no testable predictions and is unfalsifiable, so his thesis is correct: Science cannot disprove God. Critically thinking about the tenets of Christianity makes many of them inherently extremely improbable and the complete set (to me) beyond credibility.
I now identify as a Rationalist: one who rejects anything supernatural, be that (among others) deity, demons, devils, prophesy, miracles, sacred revealed writings and any idea of there being a continuation of our existence after our bodily death. All these are teachings of religion that have no evidence for them and need a contortion of the mind to accept.
Hmmmm. I've been on a parallel path. That diverges. Science is the handmaiden of rationality. And it's that that is utterly prevenient. That that stands alone and entire and complete. Sufficient. There is no need for God in it. Apart from psychological need, rather than logical. You and me both have had to deconstruct belief and for you there is no reconstruction. For me there is. Beyond rationality. Science, rationality do not have to disprove God. He's utterly unnecessary. Null. There is zero probability of the supernatural. It's completely excluded. That's the butterfly wing beat difference in our chaos. Which paradoxically allows me to make Kierkegaard's uncontorted leap for the first time.
In the light of the closure of a different thread I thought I would open one on a similar subject which is more purgatorial.
There is no strong evidence for or against the existence of God, or that Jesus was his Son and Messiah. As we find new things about life here on this planet does that erode the case for. Christanity?
The only evidence for God is Jesus. There is no 'evidence' whatsoever apart from Him: it's 100% physicalism and Jesus. Nothing we can find on Earth or anywhere on out for 13.8 GLY can increase that percentage. Ever. Jesus stands alone, on His own recognizance, crap historiography and all. As the ultimate, outrageous orthogonal claim against 100% meaningless nature.
Christians believe that God was reponsible for creation. The Earth exists and so does everything that has been created. That's what I call evidence
You spelled 'begging the question' wrong.
What on earth are you on about ????
You're assuming the conclusion - that God created the universe. The conclusion and the starting premise are the same thing.
What's that got to do with "You spelled 'begging the question' wrong."
Because that's what begging the question is: assuming your conclusion in your premises.
Proof of the existence of the world is not hard to come by. To go on and prove that God did it, that's a further step.
It's a further step. It's existence is merely the first step. I narrowing it down to possible claimants and I am struggling to get past One
The other possibility is None.
Is it a possibility you accept ?
Accept? Or believe?
Believe
Why does that matter? Why make this about me?
Fair enough. You don't know whether or not you believe. I will now know where you are coming from.
DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
Please don't shout at me .
That's more than enough from both of you. Kindly take your personality conflict to Hell (Commandment 4). No more here please.
No argument from me there of course! The difference as far as I'm concerned is that I only had a belief in God, and knew that the rest was stories with, for example, a moral. It caused a slight problem occasionally when I was a child because other children would ask, 'Are you a Christian?' I wasn't quite sure what to answer and I don't think my parents ever had a good answer for that either!
Seems to me that science doesn't disprove God. But that a scientific explanation for any phenomenon is inevitably a rival to a supernatural explanation.
Where does that lead ?
To Christianity as a Way of living, a thing of the heart ? Not a thing of the mind, a propositional truth to be proved or disproved ?
In my less optimistic phases, I suspect that intelligent, modern, western post-Enlightenment Christianity seems quite careful to make no statements which are falsifiable, because any past falsifiable statements have, in fact, been falsified.
Does anyone else suspend their critical judgement?
Why would I do that? That's how people get conned. I'm not sure I even can, to be honest. It's like trying to not think of purple elephants.
allow for possibility?
allow for. Assume based on, well I don't know quite what since critical judgement has been abandoned, no, not really. That sounds well on the way to the Mark Twain definition of faith - "believing what you know isn't true".
I'm objecting to consideration of religion from a science perspective.
I get that. I struggle to grasp what people suggest be put in place of rationality, that's all.
Supending critical judgement does not mean setting aside your brain. It means approaching something "as if" it might have merit, be true or partly true. Example: I read a book and there is interstellar travel, covering 100s of light years in mere hours to days. To continue to read the book, I must suspend my critical judgement about that. Can I allow my mind to understand that I've suspended judgement on that to get something out of the rest.
I find that there is something like hunger that I feel for food. I also find that there is some hunger for something more than the logical positivism and materialism of science. But other times I'm quite convinced that tribal god images and the associated miraculous is nonsense. Totally inconsistent. I've seen the same in avowed atheists when they're at extremity. I consider myself a mere heretic, on both sides of this question.
When I read a book containing FTL travel I don't suspend anything; I just know it's a fictional device but not possible as far as we know. But it's fiction. When I read someone claiming for real that all the physicists are wrong and FTL travel is possible and they know how to do it then I know they're talking out of their arse.
Thing is, religious claims are the latter sort of claim. They claim God's really there, and make objective claims about him. When people make objective claims, it seems appropriate to ask "how do you know this?"
Richard Dawkins (who I am not a huge fan of, but he has his moments) has said that religious ideas are scientific hypotheses - they claim to be able to explain the origin of the universe, and how it works. Therefore religion should be subject to the same testing and verification as any other scientific hypothesis. There is of course the problem of non-falsifiability, but Dawkins argues (to his satisfaction at least), that even though the existence of God cannot be disproved, it is extremely unlikely, which is good enough for a scientific proof, as opposed to a mathematical one.
The more our knowledge of the universe expands, the more we realise that God is not really necessary to our understanding of it. All phenomena seem eventually to go the way of the rainbow - something that was once so amazing and baffling that it could only be explained by the actions of a divine being, actually has a very simple physical cause.
I once heard David Jenkins (the former bishop of Durham) say on a TV programme: The only reason people still believe in God is because God keeps people believing in Him.
I'm always deeply suspicious of claims that something is unlikely when we have no means by which to quantify its likelihood. At least with (for example) extra-terrestrial life we have some ideas of the factors, even if we don't know the figures to plug into the formula. What would the probability of God equation actually look like?
It isn't an equation, that's kind of the point. There is no objective way of measuring the divine. "The God Delusion" is largely devoted to laying out the argument and it's a long book. Very well-written, deeply flawed and with an appalling title.
Seems to me that science doesn't disprove God. But that a scientific explanation for any phenomenon is inevitably a rival to a supernatural explanation.
Where does that lead ?
To Christianity as a Way of living, a thing of the heart ? Not a thing of the mind, a propositional truth to be proved or disproved ?
Science doesn't have to disprove God. He's not in the equation. There is no rival explanation for nature. Nature explains nature.
It isn't an equation, that's kind of the point. There is no objective way of measuring the divine. "The God Delusion" is largely devoted to laying out the argument and it's a long book. Very well-written, deeply flawed and with an appalling title.
Dawkins is, by all accounts, an excellent biologist. Outside of that area he's just a bad advert for atheism. When you are talking about one-off occurrences, like the existence of the universe, you can't talk about likelihood because we've no basis for comparison, which is an essential element in assessing likelihood.
I certainly take Dawkin's later works with a large pinch of salt. His early books on evolution are superb. ISTM that his grasp of biology is world-class, but his physics is stuck in the 19th century where the universe is regarded as a big box of atoms which are all rattling around according to the laws of Newtonian mechanics. Not a model that any modern physicist would recognise,
I do, though, tend to agree with him that there is almost certainly no God. Such faith as I have exists in a rather narrow space.
It isn't an equation, that's kind of the point. There is no objective way of measuring the divine. "The God Delusion" is largely devoted to laying out the argument and it's a long book. Very well-written, deeply flawed and with an appalling title.
Dawkins is, by all accounts, an excellent biologist. Outside of that area he's just a bad advert for atheism. When you are talking about one-off occurrences, like the existence of the universe, you can't talk about likelihood because we've no basis for comparison, which is an essential element in assessing likelihood.
That's mere empiricism. Rationality says otherwise. What in Dawkins' rationality lacks?
I certainly take Dawkin's later works with a large pinch of salt. His early books on evolution are superb. ISTM that his grasp of biology is world-class, but his physics is stuck in the 19th century where the universe is regarded as a big box of atoms which are all rattling around according to the laws of Newtonian mechanics. Not a model that any modern physicist would recognise,
I do, though, tend to agree with him that there is almost certainly no God. Such faith as I have exists in a rather narrow space.
Mere empiricism again. What is the magnitude of almost certainly? Rationally God doesn't have to be reached for.
It isn't an equation, that's kind of the point. There is no objective way of measuring the divine. "The God Delusion" is largely devoted to laying out the argument and it's a long book. Very well-written, deeply flawed and with an appalling title.
Dawkins is, by all accounts, an excellent biologist. Outside of that area he's just a bad advert for atheism. When you are talking about one-off occurrences, like the existence of the universe, you can't talk about likelihood because we've no basis for comparison, which is an essential element in assessing likelihood.
That's mere empiricism. Rationality says otherwise. What in Dawkins' rationality lacks?
Rationality without scientific observation is just theology for atheists.
I've only seen a couple of extracts from The God Delusion, but nearly every paragraph that I did see contained a logical gap or fallacy hidden in rhetorical flannel.
So: Dawkins discusses the 2005 July bombers. IIRC:
1) He says that if they hadn't believed in religion they would be just the sort of cricket-playing member of society whose company one enjoys.
I may be doing Dawkins a disservice but I'm inclined to doubt Dawkins' hobbies involve driving round Leeds finding young men playing cricket to enjoy their company. Dawkins is bullshitting.
2) He says that there was no genuine goal they could have hoped to accomplish by the bombing.
In 2004 terrorists targeting trains in Madrid had brought about the downfall of the government that had supported the Iraq invasion and the election of a government that pulled Spain out of Iraq. The circumstances in London were much less favourable to success - it wasn't in the middle of an election campaign - but there was a clear example of someone accomplishing something by a similar action. Dawkins is saying something that is false.
3) He says that when there are no political or economic or personal goals to be achieved only religion can motivate people to commit horrific acts with nothing to gain.
Logically, you can rewrite that as: If someone kills people, and they don't do it for a political cause or for economic gain or for personal ambition or etc then they must be doing it for religion. Which is, If someone kills people then they are doing it for political reasons or economic reasons or religious reasons or personal ambition. The only is a rhetorical flourish that has genuine logical value and yet the argument as presented depends upon it. Dawkins is bullshitting again.
Shades really of What have the Romans ever done for us?
Reg Dawkins (played by John Cleese): Apart from political reasons and economic reasons and personal ambition and sexual jealousy only religion can motivate people to kill. Crosses arms, leans back.
Voice from audience: what about football hooliganism?
Reg Dawkins: Oh shut up.
Richard Dawkins (who I am not a huge fan of, but he has his moments) has said that religious ideas are scientific hypotheses - they claim to be able to explain the origin of the universe, and how it works. Therefore religion should be subject to the same testing and verification as any other scientific hypothesis.
He says that, but he's wrong: they're not scientific hypotheses. The sense in which they claim to explain the origin of the universe is not the sense in which scientists try to explain the origin of the universe. This argument was made by Aquinas well before the scientific revolution: it's not an attempt to salvage belief in God in the wake of the success of the scientific revolution.
Richard Dawkins (who I am not a huge fan of, but he has his moments) has said that religious ideas are scientific hypotheses - they claim to be able to explain the origin of the universe, and how it works. Therefore religion should be subject to the same testing and verification as any other scientific hypothesis.
He says that, but he's wrong: they're not scientific hypotheses. The sense in which they claim to explain the origin of the universe is not the sense in which scientists try to explain the origin of the universe. This argument was made by Aquinas well before the scientific revolution: it's not an attempt to salvage belief in God in the wake of the success of the scientific revolution.
Dawkins wrote a book preaching to the unconverted. It made him a lot of money.
Dawkins is a brilliant communicator of scientific ideas. When his obvious love of science and delight in its ability to explain things becomes an obsessive dislike of religion and and religious people, he talks utter guff. As you have observed, his supposed commitment to rationality and evidence-based conclusions flies out of the window.
Comments
Because that's what begging the question is: assuming your conclusion in your premises.
Proof of the existence of the world is not hard to come by. To go on and prove that God did it, that's a further step.
Cute, but what does it mean?
I took it to mean *incapable of proof one way or the other* - neither right, not wrong, but I dunno...
The evidence of the existence of the earth is under my feet and all that's on it I've seen in my travels and in images.
If you want to prove that God made the earth the first thing you need to do is prove that God exists. That's all you need to do.
Be my guest.
It's a further step. It's existence is merely the first step. I narrowing it down to possible claimants and I am struggling to get past One
The other possibility is None.
Is it a possibility you accept ?
Accept? Or believe?
VLADIMIR
He didn't say for sure he'd come.
ESTRAGON
And if he doesn't come?
VLADIMIR
We'll come back tomorrow.
ESTRAGON
And then the day after tomorrow.
VLADIMIR
Possibly.
ESTRAGON
And so on.
Well, I don't know if they're true, and I don't see a path to knowing any better, or any worse.
Who gives a rat’s about what anyine else thinks?
...and they didn't leave the Zoom meeting.
You don't think there's somewhere in the middle, where you don't know?
Believe
Best criticism of the play I've ever read.
Not entirely my idea, though - over to Tom Gauld:
https://theguardian.com/books/picture/2021/jan/30/tom-gauld-imagines-waiting-for-godot-in-the-pandemic-cartoon
Why does that matter? Why make this about me?
So what you meant to say was, "I don't see how the claims of Christianity are even wrong."
Fair enough. You don't know whether or not you believe. I will now know where you are coming from.
DO NOT PUT WORDS IN MY MOUTH.
Those who are kicking the tyres of their epistemology. Those who still seek faith on doubt.
I now identify as a Rationalist: one who rejects anything supernatural, be that (among others) deity, demons, devils, prophesy, miracles, sacred revealed writings and any idea of there being a continuation of our existence after our bodily death. All these are teachings of religion that have no evidence for them and need a contortion of the mind to accept.
That's more than enough from both of you. Kindly take your personality conflict to Hell (Commandment 4). No more here please.
Barnabas62
Purgatory Host
Hmmmm. I've been on a parallel path. That diverges. Science is the handmaiden of rationality. And it's that that is utterly prevenient. That that stands alone and entire and complete. Sufficient. There is no need for God in it. Apart from psychological need, rather than logical. You and me both have had to deconstruct belief and for you there is no reconstruction. For me there is. Beyond rationality. Science, rationality do not have to disprove God. He's utterly unnecessary. Null. There is zero probability of the supernatural. It's completely excluded. That's the butterfly wing beat difference in our chaos. Which paradoxically allows me to make Kierkegaard's uncontorted leap for the first time.
Done.
No argument from me there of course! The difference as far as I'm concerned is that I only had a belief in God, and knew that the rest was stories with, for example, a moral. It caused a slight problem occasionally when I was a child because other children would ask, 'Are you a Christian?' I wasn't quite sure what to answer and I don't think my parents ever had a good answer for that either!
Where does that lead ?
To Christianity as a Way of living, a thing of the heart ? Not a thing of the mind, a propositional truth to be proved or disproved ?
Why would I do that? That's how people get conned. I'm not sure I even can, to be honest. It's like trying to not think of purple elephants.
allow for. Assume based on, well I don't know quite what since critical judgement has been abandoned, no, not really. That sounds well on the way to the Mark Twain definition of faith - "believing what you know isn't true".
I get that. I struggle to grasp what people suggest be put in place of rationality, that's all.
I find that there is something like hunger that I feel for food. I also find that there is some hunger for something more than the logical positivism and materialism of science. But other times I'm quite convinced that tribal god images and the associated miraculous is nonsense. Totally inconsistent. I've seen the same in avowed atheists when they're at extremity. I consider myself a mere heretic, on both sides of this question.
Thing is, religious claims are the latter sort of claim. They claim God's really there, and make objective claims about him. When people make objective claims, it seems appropriate to ask "how do you know this?"
Richard Dawkins (who I am not a huge fan of, but he has his moments) has said that religious ideas are scientific hypotheses - they claim to be able to explain the origin of the universe, and how it works. Therefore religion should be subject to the same testing and verification as any other scientific hypothesis. There is of course the problem of non-falsifiability, but Dawkins argues (to his satisfaction at least), that even though the existence of God cannot be disproved, it is extremely unlikely, which is good enough for a scientific proof, as opposed to a mathematical one.
The more our knowledge of the universe expands, the more we realise that God is not really necessary to our understanding of it. All phenomena seem eventually to go the way of the rainbow - something that was once so amazing and baffling that it could only be explained by the actions of a divine being, actually has a very simple physical cause.
I once heard David Jenkins (the former bishop of Durham) say on a TV programme: The only reason people still believe in God is because God keeps people believing in Him.
Science doesn't have to disprove God. He's not in the equation. There is no rival explanation for nature. Nature explains nature.
Christianity is a faith thing.
Dawkins is, by all accounts, an excellent biologist. Outside of that area he's just a bad advert for atheism. When you are talking about one-off occurrences, like the existence of the universe, you can't talk about likelihood because we've no basis for comparison, which is an essential element in assessing likelihood.
I do, though, tend to agree with him that there is almost certainly no God. Such faith as I have exists in a rather narrow space.
Yes it's clear Dawkins is very self-satisfied.
That's mere empiricism. Rationality says otherwise. What in Dawkins' rationality lacks?
Mere empiricism again. What is the magnitude of almost certainly? Rationally God doesn't have to be reached for.
Rationality without scientific observation is just theology for atheists.
So: Dawkins discusses the 2005 July bombers. IIRC:
1) He says that if they hadn't believed in religion they would be just the sort of cricket-playing member of society whose company one enjoys.
I may be doing Dawkins a disservice but I'm inclined to doubt Dawkins' hobbies involve driving round Leeds finding young men playing cricket to enjoy their company. Dawkins is bullshitting.
2) He says that there was no genuine goal they could have hoped to accomplish by the bombing.
In 2004 terrorists targeting trains in Madrid had brought about the downfall of the government that had supported the Iraq invasion and the election of a government that pulled Spain out of Iraq. The circumstances in London were much less favourable to success - it wasn't in the middle of an election campaign - but there was a clear example of someone accomplishing something by a similar action. Dawkins is saying something that is false.
3) He says that when there are no political or economic or personal goals to be achieved only religion can motivate people to commit horrific acts with nothing to gain.
Logically, you can rewrite that as: If someone kills people, and they don't do it for a political cause or for economic gain or for personal ambition or etc then they must be doing it for religion. Which is, If someone kills people then they are doing it for political reasons or economic reasons or religious reasons or personal ambition. The only is a rhetorical flourish that has genuine logical value and yet the argument as presented depends upon it. Dawkins is bullshitting again.
Shades really of What have the Romans ever done for us?
Reg Dawkins (played by John Cleese): Apart from political reasons and economic reasons and personal ambition and sexual jealousy only religion can motivate people to kill. Crosses arms, leans back.
Voice from audience: what about football hooliganism?
Reg Dawkins: Oh shut up.
Dawkins wrote a book preaching to the unconverted. It made him a lot of money.