Politics1 min ago
Richard Dawkins V Rowan Williams Round Two
116 Answers
When; Tonight
Where; Cambridge Union;
'To be filmed and made available on line.' In round 1 Prof. Dawkins admitted that there was a (remote) possibility that God existed. Will he acquiesce further against the full power of Williams's intellect, no longer Archbishop? Oh, to be there!
Where; Cambridge Union;
'To be filmed and made available on line.' In round 1 Prof. Dawkins admitted that there was a (remote) possibility that God existed. Will he acquiesce further against the full power of Williams's intellect, no longer Archbishop? Oh, to be there!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
@Khandro - The only crap being dealt here Khandro is your insistence that an acknowledgement of the extremely remote, extremely unlikely event of their being a god equates to uncertainty;
Nothing in the evidence gathered to date offers any prospect of gods existence, despite the many attempts by the faithful to rewrite or reject the evidence base.
@Argorstran. Several points, in response to your post, the details of which have been raised before, interminably. You suggest that because human eyesight can only pick up a tiny fraction of the EM spectrum, or that our hearing only works within a set range of frequencies, that somehow this suggests that we can no know anything about the range of the various spectrums.
This is, with respect, utter garbage. We know the theory behind the EM spectrum and can and have constructed many many different tests to prove the theory. We can construct instruments and sensors and equipment that all can monitor those parts of the spectrum that we cannot with our own eyes.
And the existence of life itself is no proof of god. Even if life was an incredibly remote chance event, the sheer length of time the universe has existed and the sheer number of stars and planets mean that even the more remote possibilities could occur.
The development of life is not just random chance either; Evolution is not random chance. It is change through selection, a powerful directing trend. And whilst people point to the idea of an anthropic universe, but that would be to ascribe a cause and effect relationship, whereas it is simply that evolution obeys the laws of physics etc, shaping and moulding life to get where we are.
Nothing in the evidence gathered to date offers any prospect of gods existence, despite the many attempts by the faithful to rewrite or reject the evidence base.
@Argorstran. Several points, in response to your post, the details of which have been raised before, interminably. You suggest that because human eyesight can only pick up a tiny fraction of the EM spectrum, or that our hearing only works within a set range of frequencies, that somehow this suggests that we can no know anything about the range of the various spectrums.
This is, with respect, utter garbage. We know the theory behind the EM spectrum and can and have constructed many many different tests to prove the theory. We can construct instruments and sensors and equipment that all can monitor those parts of the spectrum that we cannot with our own eyes.
And the existence of life itself is no proof of god. Even if life was an incredibly remote chance event, the sheer length of time the universe has existed and the sheer number of stars and planets mean that even the more remote possibilities could occur.
The development of life is not just random chance either; Evolution is not random chance. It is change through selection, a powerful directing trend. And whilst people point to the idea of an anthropic universe, but that would be to ascribe a cause and effect relationship, whereas it is simply that evolution obeys the laws of physics etc, shaping and moulding life to get where we are.
LG; I hope your scientific activities are not done in the sloppy manner of your use of language. [that] //an acknowledgement of the extremely remote, extremely unlikely event of their being a god equates to uncertainty;// Of course that denotes uncertainty, substitute any word you like for god, the sentence is still paradoxical.
As to your further statement that evolution simply (!) obeys the laws of physics, I think you need to tell us from where you think the 'laws of physics' originate.
As to your further statement that evolution simply (!) obeys the laws of physics, I think you need to tell us from where you think the 'laws of physics' originate.
khandro #I think you need to tell us from where you think the 'laws of physics' originate. #
This is the same old tired out answer . The universe could not have happened on its own ! So there must be a God. !!
You have no evidence to back up that assumption. You don't know !
Your vacuous answer of God may satisfy your inner need.
It may be the crutch that helps you through life.
It may give you joy and comfort.
You may be biologically programmed to be believe
in a supernatural entity for anything you don't understand.
Whatever the reasons are yourself they are not provable evidence
for those who want more than an assumption.
This is the same old tired out answer . The universe could not have happened on its own ! So there must be a God. !!
You have no evidence to back up that assumption. You don't know !
Your vacuous answer of God may satisfy your inner need.
It may be the crutch that helps you through life.
It may give you joy and comfort.
You may be biologically programmed to be believe
in a supernatural entity for anything you don't understand.
Whatever the reasons are yourself they are not provable evidence
for those who want more than an assumption.
Khandro, we don't know where the laws of physics 'came from'. As I said earlier, primitive man would always produce some god or other to explain things he didn't understand.
This is precisely what you are doing. You haven't got the humility to say 'I don't know'. You have to claim that, unlike the rest us, you have the answer - your god. What conceit!
This is precisely what you are doing. You haven't got the humility to say 'I don't know'. You have to claim that, unlike the rest us, you have the answer - your god. What conceit!
We are not putting words into your mouth. You have repeatedly said you beleve in God and as proof you trot out the same cliche ., with mild variations of:
'Something can't come from nothing . therefore it had to be created, therefore there had to be a creator, therefore there has to be an intelligence, and that intelligence is God. ' Todays variation is where do the laws of physics come from . We /I /You dont know. You don't/wont admit you don't know but instead claim it's God.
However let's drop all this pedantic nonsense, and hiding behind , definitions, or what you get from a belief in your everyday life .
Please answer one simple Yes or No question. :
Do you khandro personally believe it was God who created the universe ?
'Something can't come from nothing . therefore it had to be created, therefore there had to be a creator, therefore there has to be an intelligence, and that intelligence is God. ' Todays variation is where do the laws of physics come from . We /I /You dont know. You don't/wont admit you don't know but instead claim it's God.
However let's drop all this pedantic nonsense, and hiding behind , definitions, or what you get from a belief in your everyday life .
Please answer one simple Yes or No question. :
Do you khandro personally believe it was God who created the universe ?
"...you just don't get it do you...."
"...the same tired old argument..."
"...irrational...."
"...PROVE it..."
Modeller , Lazygun , Naomi , with you three it's the same tired old catchphrases I'm afraid (and a fair bit of disrespect thrown in as well).
So life created itself ? - PROVE it
(Get ready for catchphrase no.5 - "...oh no,we don't have to prove it , you do...")
"...the same tired old argument..."
"...irrational...."
"...PROVE it..."
Modeller , Lazygun , Naomi , with you three it's the same tired old catchphrases I'm afraid (and a fair bit of disrespect thrown in as well).
So life created itself ? - PROVE it
(Get ready for catchphrase no.5 - "...oh no,we don't have to prove it , you do...")
Creation is a presumption that ignores the need to gain knowledge about and understanding of the means and process by which that which ones presumes to have been 'created' came to be, a knowledge and understanding which is itself prerequisite to that which gives rise to creative ability.
Intentional, purposeful creation implies the pre-existence of a highly evolved complex entity capable of such an enterprise prior to which such an ability had not yet emerged on the scene.
In order to make a custard pie you first need the custard . . . however deeply you might be longing for a taste of it.
Intentional, purposeful creation implies the pre-existence of a highly evolved complex entity capable of such an enterprise prior to which such an ability had not yet emerged on the scene.
In order to make a custard pie you first need the custard . . . however deeply you might be longing for a taste of it.
modeller; // let's drop all this pedantic nonsense, and hiding behind , definitions,// It isn't pedantic nonsense, and I for one am not hiding behind definitions or anything else. If the language we use isn't correct, then what is said isn't what is meant. (Confucius)
To your question; "God" means different things to different people. The God whom you eschew continually on here, is a deity which you appear to think can be accessed by reason alone. You do not seem to be aware that many believers might deny such a Deity too. Why should the human brain which evolved to cope with the life of our remote ancestors living on the African Savannah, and has miraculously got so far as understanding the world of the quantum, not be as limited now as it was then of concepts still unknown?
You ask if I believe God created the universe, the short answer is yes, but the God (for want of a better name) I believe in, can not, unaided by grace, be grasped by human reason.
I adopt a position of what has been called one of "learned ignorance"; I respect the limits of human knowing, and am convinced that God lies beyond those limits. I side with Aquinas's calm certainty that something we call "God" exists but I do not know what that is, but my "learned ignorance" requires me to know with total clarity, what God is not.
To your question; "God" means different things to different people. The God whom you eschew continually on here, is a deity which you appear to think can be accessed by reason alone. You do not seem to be aware that many believers might deny such a Deity too. Why should the human brain which evolved to cope with the life of our remote ancestors living on the African Savannah, and has miraculously got so far as understanding the world of the quantum, not be as limited now as it was then of concepts still unknown?
You ask if I believe God created the universe, the short answer is yes, but the God (for want of a better name) I believe in, can not, unaided by grace, be grasped by human reason.
I adopt a position of what has been called one of "learned ignorance"; I respect the limits of human knowing, and am convinced that God lies beyond those limits. I side with Aquinas's calm certainty that something we call "God" exists but I do not know what that is, but my "learned ignorance" requires me to know with total clarity, what God is not.
Argostran, //you just don't get it do you//
//So life created itself ? - PROVE it//
Let me put it this way. Even if life did not create itself, there is no rational reason whatsoever to believe it was created by the ‘God’ of the bible/koran or by any other ‘supernatural’ entity. That’s what you don’t ‘get’. All you’re really saying is ‘I don’t know how it happened so the God that people told stories about in an old book must have been responsible – even though I have no idea what such a creature might be or whether it has ever existed’.
How valid would you consider my claim that Greek mythology gives us the true story of the creation? I read it in an old book, so it must be true.
Khandro, How petulant you become when people disagree with you.
//So life created itself ? - PROVE it//
Let me put it this way. Even if life did not create itself, there is no rational reason whatsoever to believe it was created by the ‘God’ of the bible/koran or by any other ‘supernatural’ entity. That’s what you don’t ‘get’. All you’re really saying is ‘I don’t know how it happened so the God that people told stories about in an old book must have been responsible – even though I have no idea what such a creature might be or whether it has ever existed’.
How valid would you consider my claim that Greek mythology gives us the true story of the creation? I read it in an old book, so it must be true.
Khandro, How petulant you become when people disagree with you.
To presume the universe was created is to impose arbitrary limits on acquiring knowledge of what the universe is and how it came to be, insisting that it could only have come about by virtue of your ignorance of and refusal to investigate the process, committing yourself instead to intellectual laziness while engaging in self-deception.
Presuming the existence of a creator is to presume 'knowledge' of a universe about which one has consigned oneself to remain ignorant.
Presuming the existence of a creator is to presume 'knowledge' of a universe about which one has consigned oneself to remain ignorant.
Thanks Khandro . It took you 250 odd words to say YES ! I don't want to misquote you, but you said :
#yes, but the God (for want of a better name) I believe in, can not, unaided by grace, be grasped by human reason. #
#God whom you eschew continually on here, is a deity which you appear to think can be accessed by reason alone.#
So you are saying there is no human reasoning to believe in God but you believe anyway . In other words it is in your mind. or as you put it :
#"learned ignorance"; I respect the limits of human knowing, and am convinced that God lies beyond those limits.#
May I sum up by saying although you have no evidence outside your own mind you are #convinced that God lies beyond those limits#.
If my summing up is correct I think that you want or need to believe, in a God which is beyond human logic and reason or as you put it # beyond those limits # and that's OK it's your choice.
May I assume from that you would never consider the remote chance that you may be wrong.
May I thank you again for clarifying the reason for your personal belief. It's a treat not to have the bible used as the reason for that belief.
#yes, but the God (for want of a better name) I believe in, can not, unaided by grace, be grasped by human reason. #
#God whom you eschew continually on here, is a deity which you appear to think can be accessed by reason alone.#
So you are saying there is no human reasoning to believe in God but you believe anyway . In other words it is in your mind. or as you put it :
#"learned ignorance"; I respect the limits of human knowing, and am convinced that God lies beyond those limits.#
May I sum up by saying although you have no evidence outside your own mind you are #convinced that God lies beyond those limits#.
If my summing up is correct I think that you want or need to believe, in a God which is beyond human logic and reason or as you put it # beyond those limits # and that's OK it's your choice.
May I assume from that you would never consider the remote chance that you may be wrong.
May I thank you again for clarifying the reason for your personal belief. It's a treat not to have the bible used as the reason for that belief.
@ Khandro I am not taking any lessons in grammar, diction, definition and most especially science from you.
You wilfully misunderstand and misrepresent what science is and does at any opportunity.
No scientist will offer a 100% certainty or guarantee about anything, because there always has to be an acknowledgement of the infinitesimal. It appears you cannot grasp this. And of course evolution is bounded by the laws of physics - Everything is underpinned by the laws of physics.
@Argorstran - It is you who assert that life was created by a divine creator. The onus is on the believer to offer credible evidence.
You wilfully misunderstand and misrepresent what science is and does at any opportunity.
No scientist will offer a 100% certainty or guarantee about anything, because there always has to be an acknowledgement of the infinitesimal. It appears you cannot grasp this. And of course evolution is bounded by the laws of physics - Everything is underpinned by the laws of physics.
@Argorstran - It is you who assert that life was created by a divine creator. The onus is on the believer to offer credible evidence.
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.