Richard Dawkins - new interview
- Thread starter JLMACN
- Start date
You're right, but we can speak on the probabilities of whether a God does or doesn't exist, and if you arent familiar with how that exactly works, you should read Chapter 4 in the God Delusion by Dawkins. Just that one chapter, no big deal.
The probability of one existing isn't too great when all factors are taken into consideration of how the universe works (and how physics do not change.)
The probability of one existing isn't too great when all factors are taken into consideration of how the universe works (and how physics do not change.)
lol, but you atheists are always throwing the word proof around, you think there must be proof to back your beliefs, and thinking about it, with only you in the picture, not debating with anyone, just you, believing that there is no god, what proof do you have for your belief, it seems when it comes to atheists everyone has to prove something besides you, the fact of the matter, we all need proof to support our beliefs when were going to openly debate about them
Uh yeah. Is that irrational thinking? Asking for evidence or proof from somone making a claim?
What proof do i have, for my non belief? What grade level did you finish at?
Thats correct.
What kind of proof do i need to not believe in god/religon? Speaking of needing proof to support our beliefs, maybe you could elighten me and the world on one shred of solid proof that would justify any of the claims you've made....
What proof do i have, for my non belief? What grade level did you finish at?
Thats correct.
What kind of proof do i need to not believe in god/religon? Speaking of needing proof to support our beliefs, maybe you could elighten me and the world on one shred of solid proof that would justify any of the claims you've made....
There is a problem with this line of argument.
Let us say, for example, that I made the claim, "innumerable living organisms exist." One could in turn charge me to prove that this is a fact. And so I respond that nobody can prove that innumerable living organisms do not exist. Now here is the problem: once someone argues that nobody can prove the nonexistence of unicorns, trolls, vampires, leprechauns, etc. we run into something akin to a category mistake. These particular entities (unicorns, trolls, etc.) may or may not fall into the category of the "innumerable living organisms." It is not that they are a category themselves, analogous to "innumerable living organisms." Instead, they are particular entities, with very specific characteristics.
Similarly, "God" is a very general concept of a supreme being. That God may have the form of a unicorn, troll, leprechaun, vampire, terminator, or whatever else is an entirely separate point of contention from the existence question.
Unicorns, trolls, vampires, leprechauns and terminators are not, regarding the question of existence, comparable to God in the same way that they are not comparable to the existence of "innumerable living organisms."
Let us say, for example, that I made the claim, "innumerable living organisms exist." One could in turn charge me to prove that this is a fact. And so I respond that nobody can prove that innumerable living organisms do not exist. Now here is the problem: once someone argues that nobody can prove the nonexistence of unicorns, trolls, vampires, leprechauns, etc. we run into something akin to a category mistake. These particular entities (unicorns, trolls, etc.) may or may not fall into the category of the "innumerable living organisms." It is not that they are a category themselves, analogous to "innumerable living organisms." Instead, they are particular entities, with very specific characteristics.
Similarly, "God" is a very general concept of a supreme being. That God may have the form of a unicorn, troll, leprechaun, vampire, terminator, or whatever else is an entirely separate point of contention from the existence question.
Unicorns, trolls, vampires, leprechauns and terminators are not, regarding the question of existence, comparable to God in the same way that they are not comparable to the existence of "innumerable living organisms."
PROOF IS WHAT, PROOF IS SOLID EVIDENCE OF A CONCEPT? ATHEISTS DERIVE PROOF AS THE ANSWER TO ALL QUESTIONS. WHAT PROOF DO WE HAVE THAT SCIENCE IS PROOF? WE CREATED NUMBERS AND LETTERS AND EVEN SCIENCE, WHO CAN SAY SCIENCE IS COMPLETELY SOLID. I KNOW IT SOUNDS CRAZY AND YES SCIENCE HAS PROVED MANY THEORIES BUT BARE WITH ME AND LOOK AT IT THE WAY IM LOOKING AT IT. SCIENCE HAS ANSWERED THE MOST OBSCURE CONCEPTS THAT BLOOM WITHIN OUR MINDS BUT I POSTED A SITE AWHILE BACK AND IT SAYS THAT "IF A CARPENTERS WERE TO TRAVEL BACK IN TIME 1000 YEARS, WHAT HE COULD DO WOULD BE CONSIDERED MIRACULOUS". I BELIEVE ATHEISTS ARE CLOSE MINDED AND IF THE CREATOR IS REAL NO SCIENCE OR BRANIAC WALKING THIS EARTH WILL EVER BE ABLE TO GET HIS MIND AROUND THE MIDST BEGINNING OF THIS. GODS DISCIPLES WROTE THE BIBLE REMEMBER THAT, THE BIBLE WAS WRITTEN BY THE HOLY MEN OF GOD. IT HAS BEEN REWRITTEN AND EDITED MANY TIME AND DEFINETLY NOT BY GOD. IT COMES DOWN TO FAITH, TAKE IT OR LEAVE IT.