Dawkins' Preachings

This is a curious statement. Shraff. Are you saying you require evidence to know when you're hungry, or that somehow "knowing" you're hungry is evidence? Must be one or the other I'm afraid.Even though you are rationalists, you force out unobservables, according to your convenience. For example, possible supernatural agencies.Did Homo Erectus have knowledge that he hungered? Can we know things through our senses and feeling, and therefore without evidence? Did he know he was hungry without evidence? Indeed, I suppose he never survived, and we don't exist - because he didn't have any science tools to evidence the fact that he was hungry.(Sarcasm).Are you correspondence theorists then? You can't have it both ways. You rule out God and agree with the above, yet you don't rule out the following; You see, you obey the fact that you yourself cannot locate God externally - or through observing facts, and rule him out - yet with these wild theories, like abiogenesis, comes instant belief. likewise - abiogenesis is simply a belief system. You cannot hold rational or the other, you cannot observe it - or locate it, the same as God. Yet people claim to sense God. I say that you are correspondence theorists when it suits you. A quantum mechanical abiogenesis-admirer yet a ruler-outer of God. Look here free-thinker;" Even force in Newton's mechanics becomes suspect in this philosophy, because we can neither see nor touch it; we only conclude that it exists by observing the movements of material bodies."Even God in the bible becomes suspect in this philosophy, because we can neither see nor touch him; we only conclude he exists by observing the movements in the lives of human bodies. (Man I'm good, )This message has been edited by mike the wiz, 12-05-2004 12:05 PM

Yellow = Knowledge.
Red = Evidence.The knowledge is already there Shraff, it precedes the evidence. It's correct that you can verify whether I'm hungry etc, That's a good point - and Jar made the same. But the knowledge that you are hungry - is still known and correct before the science (red).So Homo Erectus didn't need science to know he was hungry - as he couldn't do any experiment and didn't need to. My argument is that knowledge necessarily can precede evidence/science. I think you win this point - we can all test whether we're hungry etc with science but we can't test if we felt God. However, knowledge of hunger preceded the science - Thus science would give an optical illusion that hunger has more credence than feeling God, yet we know both before the science. Think hard about what I mean.