by slimboyfat 78 Replies latest jw friends
I don't follow you. He has not been shy or dishonest about admitting that 'God' is possible.
I understand his point that atheism is not an absolute position and there are necessarily varying degrees. But he here specifically allows for the possibility that life on earth was designed by godlike aliens, what others might term a God. I think he admitted rather more than in retrospect he would have wished.
But he here specifically allows for the possibility that life on earth was designed by godlike aliens, what others might terms God. I think he admitted rather more than in retrospect he would have wished.
I guess we're both reading the words and then reaching very different conclusions.
The possibilities are, literally, INFINITE.
Example: If I were to ask him, 'Richard, is it possible that Santa Claus and The Easter Bunny live in an unkown galaxy and they created the Earth?', his HONEST answer must always be....Yes, it's possible.
When there is insufficient contradictory evidence of something, it is, by definition, possible. Without evidence, how can we rule anything out?
This is what I took away from it.
Example: If I were to ask him, 'Richard, is it possible that Santa Claus and The Easter Bunny live in an unkown galaxy and they created the Earth?', his HONEST answer must always be....Yes, it's possible.
Nah this was not a chocolate teapot orbiting the earth type comment. Dawkins was clearly entertaining the real possibility that life on earth may have been designed by superior aliens. He had simply not fully thought through the implications of that concession: that such aliens might reasonably be styled gods. Later he regretted the admission. But his original "innocent" conjecture was more candid and telling.
Do you really believe that Slim, or are you pulling our chains?
Do you really believe that Dawkins originally only meant to say that aliens designing life on earth was "possible" in the sense that Santa Claus and pretty much anything is technically "possible"?
Do you really believe that Dawkins originally only meant to say aliens designing life on earth was "possible" in the sense that Santa Claus and pretty much "anything is possible"?
Yes.
Watch it again. He is being very serious when he outlines the scenario that aliens designed life on earth. And in conclusion he calls it an "intriguing possibility".
I can't imagine him calling the Santa Claus theory of Christmas presents an "intriguing possibility" can you? Seriously?
And in the video you posted he even cited scientists who support this theory called "directed panspermia". I don't recall Dawkins ever citing scientists who support the Santa Claus theory do you?
Clearly Dawkins was saying that aliens designing life on earth is "possible" in a somewhat stronger sense of the word than one might flippantly state that even Santa Claus is technically "possible" because it can't be disproved.
I thought about responding again but I said it all in my last post.
When I used Santa Claus, I was not referring to the delivery of Christmas presents.
I was trying to say that these "aliens" are on par with Santa Claus, as an explanation for how life came to the Earth. (We have verifiable, contradictory evidence regarding the delivery of presents. I've got the receipts to prove it.)
If there is zero supporting and zero contradictory evidence for both, they are equal.
The universe could have come from a big bang we don't know, their is no evidence to disprove or prove it.I personally believe in Evolution, becuase evidence backs it up.
