He writes that one of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain "how the complex, improbable design in the universe arises", and argues that there are two competing explanations:A theory involving a designer, that is, postulating a complex being to account for the complexity that we see. A theory that explains how from simple origins and principles, something more complex can emerge. This is the basic set-up of his argument against the existence of God, the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit,[15] where he argues that the first attempt is self-refuting, and the second approach is the way forward.[16]Quote from: dahangWhat you quoted wasn't scientific evidence, just a common sense argument. I've never heard of any evidence to the contrary...
What you quoted wasn't scientific evidence, just a common sense argument. I've never heard of any evidence to the contrary...
SUE: To oversimplify your theories hugely, and I hope you'll forgive me for this, Stephen, you once believed, as I understand it, that there was a point of creation, a big bang, but you no longer believe that to be the case. You believe that there was no beginning and there is no end, that the universe is self-contained. Does that mean that there was no act of creation and therefore that there's no place for God?STEPHEN: Yes, you have oversimplified. I still believe the universe has a beginning in real time, at the big bang. But there's another kind of time, imaginary time, at right angles to real time, in which the universe has no beginning or end. This would mean that the way the universe began would be determined by the laws of physics. One wouldn't have to say that God chose to set the universe going in some arbitrary way that we couldn't understand. It says nothing about whether or not God exists - just that He isn't arbitrary.
We should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics,something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even inthe absence of a strongly satisfying crane to match thebiological one, the relatively weak cranes we have at presentare, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidentlybetter than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of anintelligent designer.
Quote from: the god delusionWe should not give up hope of a better crane arising in physics,something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even inthe absence of a strongly satisfying crane to match thebiological one, the relatively weak cranes we have at presentare, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidentlybetter than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of anintelligent designer.
practically no one invents a god to solve problems of improbability.
as I have shown before, believing we are at a pinnacle of understanding doesn't have much scientific basis at best, and is cleary a fundamental stronghold of his argument.
Again, you have quoted the exact opposite of what you are trying to argue against. Your quote consists of admitting we are awaiting a 'Darwin' for the field of physics. You interpret this as Dawkins claiming we're at the 'pinnacle of understanding'.
Ted Nelson, Customer: But why do they put a guarantee on the box? Tommy: Because they know all they sold ya was a guaranteed piece of shit. That's all it is, isn't it? Hey, if you want me to take a dump in a box and mark it guaranteed, I will. I got spare time.
to Dawkin's comparing god to a flying teacup may seem rational, but to many people (probably billions), god is not about specifics. the question is, does a god exist or not
"Russell's teapot, of course, stands for an infinite number of things whose existence is conceivable and cannot be disproved. [...] A philosophical favorite is the invisible, intangible, inaudible unicorn, disproof of which is attempted yearly by the children at Camp Quest. [...] That you cannot prove God's non-existence is accepted and trivial, if only in the sense that we can never absolutely prove the non-existence of anything. What matters is not whether God is disprovable (he isn't) but whether his existence is probable. That is another matter. Some undisprovable things are sensibly judged far less probable than other undisprovable things. There is no reason to regard God as immune from consideration along the spectrum of probabilities. And there is certainly no reason to suppose that, just because God can neither be proved nor disproved, his probability of existence is 50 per cent."
to Dawkin's comparing god to a flying teacup may seem rational, but to many people (probably billions), god is not about specifics. the question is, does a god exist or notQuote from: quadzIt seems you may have missed the point? Dawkins isn't "comparing god to a flying teacup."
It seems you may have missed the point? Dawkins isn't "comparing god to a flying teacup."
When I read the above on the plane the other night, my first thought was: Reaper has got to read this. Because we have been over this same ground so many times on this thread, and every time you seem to retreat to some definition of god that scoots out to just beyond the fringes of our ability to make scientific observations, (like before the big bang), and go, aha! NOW you can't say anything about whether god is likely to exist!But these are the very probabilities that should not be ignored. There is less and less reason to invoke the supernatural to explain any event in the last 15 billion years since the big bang.If we choose to ignore the weight of the mouting evidence that no supernatural meddling was needed to explain the unfoldment of the universe since the big bang, and instead scoot back before the big bang and claim, "nobody knows!", then we have simply reduced our argument to one that is "accepted and trivial." I.e. we are now entering the Flying Spaghetti Monster and invisible unicorn zone. But we can only get there by blithely ignoring the implications of the lack of necessity for supernatural involvement for the past 15 billion years.
he takes time to disect every possible reason for existance of god, which if he were right, would make god "a flying teacup".
I think he discounts solid evidence of god
I don't understand what you're driving at. Even if we were able to shoot down every possible reason extraterrestrial life might exist, it wouldn't make extraterrestrial life into flying teacups. I don't understand why you are saying doing the same for god would make god "a flying teacup." I don't know what that means.
I think he discounts solid evidence of godSuch as?
Quote from: quadzI think he discounts solid evidence of godSuch as?life itself
the perfection of the world
a purpose of the universe
god solves the problem of chance at the start of the big bang.
belief in god is ingrained in people, it would seem to me the burden of proof would be on anyone saying god doesn't exist, to provide some sort of alternative explanation.
fuck religion, religion is for neocons like bush to justify invading other nations.
I think he discounts solid evidence of godSuch as?life itself
Everything except the spark of the bacterium-like life 4 billion years ago is explained through our modern understanding of the theory of evolution, which is an extremely economical, elegant, simple theory where apparently no supernatural intervention is required.
It seems to me that debating such things is rather pointless anyway. What is to be gained from the knowledge of our origins? The disproving of divine creationism? What will be changed here and now by it's discovery?
As basically an atheist, there are many people like me who believe that evolution is fact. I'm not so sure. Of course there is medical research which proves that viruses and diseases can morph into drug resistant strains. Our own bodies are capable of similar change through the immune system. But laying aside all the mountains of evidence provided which would prove or disprove the theory of evolution, I can only look objectively at one thing. It is theorized that man evolved from ape. If survival of the fittest is absolutely true, why are there plenty of other primates existing today? I would think they would have all been the WEAKER species and would have died off long ago.
It seems to me that debating such things is rather pointless anyway.
What is to be gained from the knowledge of our origins? The disproving of divine creationism? What will be changed here and now by it's discovery?