The Case for Theism (page 8)

prologos

Therefore, it is entirely possible that an effect could preceed a cause or in fact there was no connection between cause and effect. Doltologist: with that interesting statement and no movement through time, the concept of an un-created creator becomes a possibility.

Please see the experiments conducted at MIT where a vessel was evacuated of all matter and elemental particles were seen to be created spontaneously without the aid of a supernatural being. Doltologist: while the vacuum void we create is not the pre-big bang condition, if there is energy and fluctuations (time^2) in the void, what would stop a next step in that direction? the source? bsw, the acceleration-energy of the faster expanding universe is theorized to come from "dark energy" of the void that is added during the expansion. "dark energy is a property of the void. A deist /creator worker looms as a possibility to have originated and used that what we have now discovered at the fringes.

Viviane

Doltologist: with that interesting statement and no movement through time, the concept of an un-created creator becomes a possibility.

No, it doesn't. You're just mixing words up in a new type of salad, but it's still a word salad.

A deist /creator worker looms as a possibility to have originated and used that what we have now discovered at the fringes.

It could also be a teapot made of rhinocerus wool spoons. You've provided exactly as much evidence for either or any possibility.

cofty

Outlaw - I know what Dawkin's position is on god just as anybody does who bothers to read his books.

Dawkins says he is agnostic about god in the same way he is agnostic about a pink unicorn.

I have no interest in semantic debates. I actually don't like the label "atheist". Not believing in a delusion doesn't deserve a category.

if you could have proven "No God" you would be World Famous..

You have perfectly illustrated my point. You seem to need to put people in boxes with labels and pay no attention to the facts.

I don't know if you don't bother to read things or you really struggle to understand.

Why do you always resort to childish insults and irrational assertions?

Billyblobber

Outlaw, nobody needs or really tries to prove "No God."

The point is, basically, the accrued rational evidence for any god is so terrible as to be stupid, and doesn't pass any sort of reasonable muster. Nobody has to prove something with practically no evidence "isn't." It's like saying, "people who don't believe in Leprechauns can't prove that there really aren't Leprechauns."

When it comes to specific gods, then some people like to poke holes in the logic/evidence for them. The Christian God needs centuries worth of apologetics to TRY and make any amount of sense, and it gets worse the more we find out about science and history. Then, it's saying "your god is stupid and makes no sense, I can show you why with logical reasons/factual evidence."

freemindfade

can't all us godless people just get along, it's not like we are theists or something

OUTLAW

Dawkins says he is agnostic about god in the same way he is agnostic about a pink unicorn....cofty

You can`t spin it this time cofty..We have the article..

Your just another Slippery Preacher trying to Peddle your Brand of Faith..

Quote:
Richard Dawkins: '6.9 out of seven' sure that God does not exist
He is regarded as the most famous atheist in the world but last night
Professor Richard Dawkins admitted he could not be sure that God does not exist.

Professor Richard Dawkins, left, and Dr Rowan Williams outside Clarendon House at Oxford University before the debate Photo: REUTERS

By John Bingham, Religious Affairs Editor
8:21PM GMT 23 Feb 2012
He told the Archbishop of Canterbury, Dr Rowan Williams, that he preferred to call himself an agnostic rather than an atheist.
The two men were taking part in a public “dialogue” at Oxford University at the end of a week which has seen bitter debate about the role of religion in public life in Britain.
Last week Baroness Warsi, the Tory party chairman, warned of a tide of “militant secularism” challenging the religious foundations of British society.

The discussion, in Sir Christopher Wren’s Sheldonian Theatre, attracted attention from around the world.
As well as being relayed to two other theatres, it was streamed live on the internet and promoted fierce debate on the Twitter social network.
For an hour and 20 minutes the two men politely discussed "The nature of human beings and the question of their ultimate origin" touching on the meaning of consciousness, the evolution of human language – and Dr Williams’s beard.

For much of the discussion the Archbishop sat quietly listening to Prof Dawkins’s explanations of human evolution.
At one point he told the professor that he was “inspired” by “elegance” of the professor’s explanation for the origins of life – and agreed with much of it.

Prof Dawkins told him: “What I can’t understand is why you can’t see the extraordinary beauty of the idea that life started from nothing – that is such a staggering, elegant, beautiful thing, why would you want to clutter it up with something so messy as a God?”
Dr Williams replied that he “entirely agreed” with the “beauty” of Prof Dawkins’s argument but added: “I’m not talking about God as an extra who you shoehorn on to that.”
There was surprise when Prof Dawkins acknowledged that he was less than 100 per cent certain of his conviction that there is no creator.
The philosopher Sir Anthony Kenny, who chaired the discussion, interjected: “Why don’t you call yourself an agnostic?” Prof Dawkins answered that he did.

An incredulous Sir Anthony replied: “You are described as the world’s most famous atheist.”
Prof Dawkins said that he was “6.9 out of seven” sure of his beliefs.

“I think the probability of a supernatural creator existing is very very low,” he added.
He also said that he believed it was highly likely that there was life on other planets.

At one point he discussion strayed onto the theoretical question of whether a traditional cut throat razor could be described as a more complicated thing than an electric shaver.
There was laughter as the Archbishop said he would attempt an answer before adding: “Not that I know much about razors.”

During a wide-ranging discussion the Archbishop also said that he believed that human beings had evolved from non-human ancestors but were nevertheless “in the image of God”.
He also said that the explanation for the creation of the world in the Book of Genesis could not be taken literally.
“The writers of the Bible, inspired as I believe they were, they were nonetheless not inspired to do 21st Century physics,” he said.

When Prof Dawkins suggested that he believed the Pope took a rather more literal interpretation of the origins of humans, the Archbishop joked: “I will ask him some time.”

Billyblobber

Uh, that backs up what cofty said, with the 6.9 out of 7 sure about his beliefs that you forgot to highlight in red.

cofty

The list of things about which we strictly have to be agnostic doesn't stop at tooth fairies and celestial teapots. It is infinite. If you want to believe in a particular one of them -- teapots, unicorns, or tooth fairies, Thor or Yahweh -- the onus is on you to say why you believe in it. The onus is not on the rest of us to say why we do not. We who are atheists are also a-fairyists, a-teapotists, and a-unicornists, but we don't have to bother saying so.
-- Richard Dawkins, Free Inquiry,Summer, 2002

Pick your quote, it doesn't matter. Dawkins is an agnostic &/or an atheist depending on the context of the question. Like many of us he really doesn't care about the labels.

Why are you struggling to grasp this simple point?

OUTLAW

Uh, that backs up what cofty said, with the 6.9 out of 7 sure about his beliefs that you forgot to highlight in red.

6.9 out of 7 would make you agnostic..Dawkins Admits to Being Agnostic..

I think Dawkins should have the Last Word,as to whether he`s an Agnostic or Not..LOL!!..

freemindfade

Can we not all admit we are Godless!?!?!

The Case for Theism

Share this