Dawkins - 'The God Delusion'

Why bring this up? What difference does it make what God's name is?

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.

I'm beginning to wish I hadn't replied to the request for an opinion about Dawkin's book!It was meant as a whimsical reply to iano's semi-reference to Pascal's Wager. In answer to your question however, I think you'll agree that the various Gods described in the thousands of ancient myths differ in more than just their names!(Oops! just noticed that I didn't spell "Zeus" correctly in my original post - D'Oh!)

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

Thanks for the gracious reply, iano. I'll try to be a bit more precise in my wording in future.Have a nice weekend!Steve

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

7 maybe a non-sencical score on pure logic, but all it takes is belief to take the step and earn that 7. Just as 1 is equally non-sencical based on the avaialble evidence. You have to believe to earn that 1.If 7 is lunacy then so is 1.

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%

how do you know it was god, and not say, oh, the devil? Because he said he was God? being a 1 is just as non-sensical as being a 7. There's no proof in either one, just hardcore belief. And if you're going to be honest with yourself, you have to realize that there is just the slightest chance that you're wrong.

---

Want to help give back to the world community? Did you know that your computer can help? Join the newest TeamEvC Climate Modelling to help improve climate predictions for a better tomorrow.

You said yourself in a recent thread that the possibility remains that you are deluded.. if you can accept this as a possibility you can only ever be a 2 (or maybe at a stretch, a 1.0000...1)Edited by Creavolution, : inserted quote

iano, There's as much logically valid support for both 1 & 7, ie. zero. So regardless of how you want to dress it up, you are just as guilty as all those 7's.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't

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.

Iano,Yes, I read that, but the fact remains that both 1 & 7 have zero logical & evidential veracity. If you are name calling on 7 whilst subscribing to 1, then you would be guilty of hypocricy.Mark

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world; those that understand binary, & those that don't