Dawkins - 'The God Delusion'

He has (I think) accurately been described as "the British medias atheist-in-waiting, never slow to let fly with both barrels whenever he gets a believer in his sights"He is very bright and wickedly witty. I can't help but be amused whenever he's on. Reminds me very much of Saul of Tarsus.

It was just rip in the Matrix.

A Freudian slip?

Not surprisingly he is happy with such a 50/50 view. The capability of a planet to support life says nothng at all. Even the discovery of a copycat planet earth somewhere says nothing at all about the probablility of life arising out of non-life. It is the only view. No one can know that God doesn't exist so 7 is non-sensical score to include. He is as atheistic as a person can rationally be. A 7 scorer isn't an atheist he is a lunatic.

My point was that such discoveries move the answer in no direction at all. Naturally for there to be life on other planets life has to be supportable. Such discoveries indeed slide the answer to the question "are there life supporting planets out there" towards the yes.But with no indication that life can arise from non-life (except the belief that it can) the second, equally necessary question "Can life arise from non-life on planets which are capable of supporting life" remains completely unaffected.You need both elements to form the question: life supporting planets and life arising from non-life. Silence an one or other means the slider towards 'yes' stays right in the middle. Fair enough. He is as fundemental as one can be without being declared insane. A bit like me but in the opposite direction I love his humor but his logic is shoddy. Knowing God does not exist in not logically possible. Knowing he is is. The killer is: even if God doesn't exist you cannot find this out. When you die you won't know you were right Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm afraid it is. A 7 score is an athiest who says he knows God doesn't exist. This is not a question of whether he is able to prove it or not. He cannot actually know God doesn't exist either. To know that he would have to know everything there is to be known (for if he didn't know everything then God could be in the place he doesn't know about. If he does know everything there is to know then he himself is God (meaning he couldn't know God doesn't exist anymore)On the other hand a person can know God exists. All that has to happen is a) for God to exist (possible) b) for God to reveal himself to a person (also possible)1 and 7 are not symmetrical positions thus.

Fair enough. I took position 1 and 7 to comment on reasonableness from your first quote above. Your second quote seems to have Dawkins imply that both 7 and 1 are unreasonable. Hopefully we can agree that 7 is unreasonable and 1 is reasonable, ie: a 1 can reasonably have no room for doubt.But I take your point about symmetry of views if reasonableness is not the criteria involved in its setting up.

You mean there isn't a god called Zues. How do you know that?

I think you conveyed Dawkins intent perfectly myself.Enjoy the rest of the read.

You agree a 1 is 'sensical' then - logicallyBelieving something for which there is no evidence is non-sensical. And there is no evidence for God not existing. Interpreting evidence that leads one to believe in ToE (atheistically) doesn't say anything about the existance of God. You can only close off the gaps the evidence allows you too. ToE means no need for a special creaton God. There is much more to go however. The best a person can do is as Dawkins has done and be a 6.Interpreting any piece of evidence as indicating Gods existance allows one to approach 1. God himself turning up allow one a 1. He did for me so I can be a 1 - ie: believe 100%

Fair enough, now cast aside the bushel of assertion and lets see the light you got hiding behind itThis came earlier. A logical look at 1 and 7 which are based (from earlier) on what a person knows (7 being a person who knows the God doesn't exist)http://EvC Forum: Dawkins - 'The God Delusion' -->EvC Forum: Dawkins - 'The God Delusion'{AbE} sorry wrong link - correctedEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Deluded? That possibility exists off course. As does the possibility that I am not. And if not the 1 is attainable.

I only said I know that God exists - I didn't say that he did. If knowing something to be the case actually means it IS the case then certain other conditions must be a given. These spring to mind there may be others- the objective reality I perceive is objectively real
- I am not deludedEdited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

This is bushel not light.There is a thread just opened on the subject in order to escape Admin wrath. By all means shine light there.

see msg 46. And when you get to the new thread read the link firstEdited by iano, : No reason given.