201. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174884 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 5:53 pm

This is a paradox the theists don't seem to realize.

According to you arguing logic with a believer is a futile exercise. Essentially belief in God is emotional and therefore genetically determined. I think that argument has some truth to it actually.

202. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174880 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 5:42 pm

But the dials are something rather than nothing, no?

I see what you mean.

203. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174877 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 5:36 pm

I don't think they are the same

The argument from order is that the universe seems to have the dials set just right for us to appear. This would mean if the dials were not set correctly then there would be either be no us, or no universe, so they regress to the same thing.

204. Truly Bizarre : Indians Throw Babies 50ft From Roof To Thank God.

Comment #174873 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 5:23 pm

The Vatican has joined forces with Shiite Muslims.

No doubt strengthened by their mutual hatred of the Jews.

205. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #174865 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 5:13 pm

Tetaronis

I have no reason to fear what atheism does to, say, people like me. I'm about the same person I was when I believed in Jesus, in terms of obeying the law and so on.

You've answered your own question.

206. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174862 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 5:08 pm

Actually belief in god is the misappropriation of agency. The personification of nature. The conceit of awe. It's a human fallibility.

207. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174857 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 5:01 pm

I think that is because Paley was born long after Newton, Laplace etc. He could no longer point to the stars and argued that was evidence for God.

People do in a round about way. There is as far as I can see only two reasons to be religious. That is the argument from awe and the argument from order, the argument from design is obsolete althought order and design are often confalted.

The argument from awe is perhaps the single greatest conceit a human being can possibly have.

The argument from order, essentially why there is something rather than nothing which relates essentially regresses to the first cause argument, is, personally, not much evidence for god but the religious minded use it so I take it is an argument.

208. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174855 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 4:54 pm

I don't know many people who receive a good education in High School. I think ultimately everyone is a autodidact.

209. Was the new finger a 'natural' miracle?

Comment #174854 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 4:50 pm

The frivolous reproting of science by the media leads to a "what now" responce by average joe.

In Britain the Daily Mail's insidious campaign to discredit science (one suspects to further a Christian agenda) by selecting and quoting unashamedly out of context everything which has a link to causing cancer. And all you get is, next there going to tell us breathing is bad for you. It is an insidious campaign to generate mistrust of science. And it's incredibly effective.

210. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174851 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 4:45 pm

will young

If a student's religious beliefs were in conflict with scientific theory, and the student chose to express those beliefs rather than explain the theory in response to an exam question, the student's incorrect response would be deemed satisfactory."

What is defined as religion; Can I just make my own up? And of course this means teachers will have to know for every single question what particular 'religious' viewpoints there are on the matter. You said this expects to get passed, surely that can't be true?

211. Evolution's Critics Shift Tactics With Schools

Comment #174849 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 4:42 pm

This is America where we look down at propaganda.

My computer will never be the same I just sprayed my tea all over the screen.

212. The Neanderthal Debate

Comment #174846 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 4:33 pm

It takes one stupid journalist to spoil an otherwise excellent article.

The thing is if he had answered differently that would have been the lead. Don't you just hate our sound bite , superficial culture.

213. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #174843 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on May 3, 2008 at 4:28 pm

Maybe it is just me, I don't think the apparent design of creatures is any stronger an argument for God than the order and harmony exhibited by celestial bodies. Indeed the ancients saw God in the stars, not in the chicken or the pig. Newton, Laplace, etc had shown that you don't need God to explain the stars. I think this site sometimes do demonstrate some bias in favour of biology over other sciences.

Yes I agree my atheism came from studying physics (although I never could actually bring myself to believe the nonsense anyway), and understanding basic things such as probability and logical fallacies etc. Comparative religion and the basic questions every child asks, Why are there so many religions? etc

Moreover, the belief in God is ultimately emotional rather than logical.

By that logic it is pointless debating the question.

214. How to reconcile Richard Dawkins?

Comment #173337 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 30, 2008 at 4:29 pm

I have just recieved this debate about the Dennett v Winston debate

Hello,

Thank you all for your interest in the podcast of our final rethink debate on Science, Religion and Reason between Professor Daniel Dennett and Lord Winston. The response has been overwhelming and we were very much looking forward to launching our first podcast and taking Agora into the world of Web 2.0.

However, our efforts have been beset with problems, including illness amongst our staff and equipment failure, and so I regret to inform you that we have been unable to put together a full podcast of the debate.

I'm really sorry about this �" I know how keen many of you were to see how the debate panned out. There is some good news, however, in that the audio recording of Professor Dennett's contributions to the debate was successful. The recording has been incorporated into The Guardian's weekly science podcast, which can be accessed here.

Professor Dennett also appeared on Radio 4's 'Start the Week' on 21 April to discuss the issues raised in the debate with Andrew Marr. You can hear the programme in full here.

Unfortunately a faulty microphone prevented any of Lord Winston's remarks from being recorded, but you can listen to his appearance on 'Start the Week' in November 2005 through the BBC website, here. In this recording, he discusses his views on Science and Religion following the release of his book and TV series 'The Story of God'.

I hope these other recordings will be some compensation. Sincere apologies again, it is a great disappointment to us that this hasn't worked out. Given the string of problems, we have felt at times like victims of divine intervention!

We plan to run another event on this theme later in the year and we are keen to hear your thoughts about what we could organise. If you have any ideas or suggestions, then please email us. Thank you for your interest and support.



Best wishes,



Tom Bower

Here is the link to Dennett's parts
Dennett's parts

215. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #173336 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 30, 2008 at 4:28 pm

I have just recieved this debate about the Dennett v Winston debate

Hello,

Thank you all for your interest in the podcast of our final rethink debate on Science, Religion and Reason between Professor Daniel Dennett and Lord Winston. The response has been overwhelming and we were very much looking forward to launching our first podcast and taking Agora into the world of Web 2.0.

However, our efforts have been beset with problems, including illness amongst our staff and equipment failure, and so I regret to inform you that we have been unable to put together a full podcast of the debate.

I'm really sorry about this �" I know how keen many of you were to see how the debate panned out. There is some good news, however, in that the audio recording of Professor Dennett's contributions to the debate was successful. The recording has been incorporated into The Guardian's weekly science podcast, which can be accessed here.

Professor Dennett also appeared on Radio 4's 'Start the Week' on 21 April to discuss the issues raised in the debate with Andrew Marr. You can hear the programme in full here.

Unfortunately a faulty microphone prevented any of Lord Winston's remarks from being recorded, but you can listen to his appearance on 'Start the Week' in November 2005 through the BBC website, here. In this recording, he discusses his views on Science and Religion following the release of his book and TV series 'The Story of God'.

I hope these other recordings will be some compensation. Sincere apologies again, it is a great disappointment to us that this hasn't worked out. Given the string of problems, we have felt at times like victims of divine intervention!

We plan to run another event on this theme later in the year and we are keen to hear your thoughts about what we could organise. If you have any ideas or suggestions, then please email us. Thank you for your interest and support.



Best wishes,



Tom Bower

Here is the link to Dennett's parts
Dennett's parts

216. Interview with Dan Dennett

Comment #173334 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 30, 2008 at 4:21 pm

I have just recieved this debate about the Dennett v Winston debate

Hello,

Thank you all for your interest in the podcast of our final rethink debate on Science, Religion and Reason between Professor Daniel Dennett and Lord Winston. The response has been overwhelming and we were very much looking forward to launching our first podcast and taking Agora into the world of Web 2.0.

However, our efforts have been beset with problems, including illness amongst our staff and equipment failure, and so I regret to inform you that we have been unable to put together a full podcast of the debate.

I'm really sorry about this �" I know how keen many of you were to see how the debate panned out. There is some good news, however, in that the audio recording of Professor Dennett's contributions to the debate was successful. The recording has been incorporated into The Guardian's weekly science podcast, which can be accessed here.

Professor Dennett also appeared on Radio 4's 'Start the Week' on 21 April to discuss the issues raised in the debate with Andrew Marr. You can hear the programme in full here.

Unfortunately a faulty microphone prevented any of Lord Winston's remarks from being recorded, but you can listen to his appearance on 'Start the Week' in November 2005 through the BBC website, here. In this recording, he discusses his views on Science and Religion following the release of his book and TV series 'The Story of God'.

I hope these other recordings will be some compensation. Sincere apologies again, it is a great disappointment to us that this hasn't worked out. Given the string of problems, we have felt at times like victims of divine intervention!

We plan to run another event on this theme later in the year and we are keen to hear your thoughts about what we could organise. If you have any ideas or suggestions, then please email us. Thank you for your interest and support.



Best wishes,



Tom Bower

Here is the link to Dennett's parts
Dennett's parts

217. Bill Good Interviews Richard Dawkins

Comment #173325 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 30, 2008 at 3:59 pm

I placed an mp3 of this without advertisements on RapidShare at:
http://rapidshare.com/files/111602137/Richard-Dawkins_Bill-Good-Show.mp3

sane1 Thank you that rapidshare link works perfectly, I couldn't get the link to work either.

218. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170451 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 6:37 pm

unacceptable rather than just against faith period. The vast majority of believers in any religion don't use it as an excuse to kill someone.

The first argument is that it is irrational. That the surrender of the mind also brings about dangerous side-effects, actually direct-effects, makes it urgent.

219. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170408 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 6:08 pm

Without believing there is some objective morality there is no reason not to oppress/harm others when it serves your interest both long term and short term.

I don't see how that follows. You do it because it feels right. Notice that FEELS right. That comes from your evolutionary past in that performing those kinds of actions helped your ancestors survive.

220. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170405 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 6:05 pm

I do it because I believe it is the right thing to do. Regardless of my views on God

So how do you abandon morality by discovering how the natural order came to be?

221. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170396 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 6:01 pm

why be altruistic if someone can't/won't ever pay you back?

Why do you? If you do.

222. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170391 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:56 pm

I can see what he's saying. How can you justify doing something against your self-interest, i.e something that would put you at risk of loss, if there is no reason to do so logically or rationally if and this is a big if, your premise is to increase you self-wealth as it were.

Well I can give you my reason. Because I care what happens to others. Others suffering cuts like a knife. Human solidarity, basically that elementary moral principle the golden rule, which is a fairly good rule of thumb.

223. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170387 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:54 pm

riandouglas Socrates gotta love the guy.

224. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170382 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:44 pm

I'm just arguing what is the rational action to take if you eliminate morality.

Could you clarify that statement, again: How do you abandon morality by discovering how the natural order came to be?
For example I assume you believe you get your morality from the bible. That is easily shown to be false but just a favourite quote of mine

"Deaths in the Bible. God - 2,270,365 not including the victims of Noah's flood, Sodom and Gomorrah, or the many plagues, famines, fiery serpents, etc because no specific numbers were given. Satan - 10."

225. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170374 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:39 pm

I don't mean this as a way to justify anything other than to say that to avoid conclusions that slavery, eugenics, involuntary euthanasia, are logical without appealing to some set of morality that is neither rational or logical. A kind of morality that, dare i say it, is faith based.

Morality is what has made it possible for the human species to survive. It seems crude but its a survival strategy. We all share the same morality broadly speaking.

I mean do you really think that before Moses came down from the mountain with the 10 commandments (which by the way don't deal with 'morality' very much) everyone thought murder and theft were ok? No they wouldnt have survived if they were seen as ok.

Can you tell me how you morality is faith based?

226. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170368 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:34 pm

smellhound

but there certainly is a darwinian justification for removing the weak from the herd so each individual in the herd doesnt have to waste its time caring for it.

The Theory of Natural selection is amoral. It doesn't justify anything it simply explains the natural order we see around us.

Now you seem to have a misguided view on the theory of natural selection. It merely says those that survive survive.

How do you abandon morality by discovering how the natural order came to be? I think you should call Darwinism the Theory of Natural Selection. It gets rid of the idea that its somehow a set of prescriptions on how to live.

227. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170363 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:27 pm

In case you missed it I posted a response to you Bonzai in post 156.

228. Open Letter to a victim of Ben Stein's lying propaganda

Comment #170359 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 5:20 pm

eugenics was in vogue after Darwin. People seem to forget but Churchill supported eugenics and was a incredibly cruel and horrible man.

If we remove an objective source of morality

There never has been one.

This would lead to more comfort for individuals who would not be given the burden of caring for people who are weak or unintelligent

That isn't the eugenicists argument. Eugenics goal is to improve human genetic qualities so that people don't have to suffer.

Eugenics is not Darwinian, in that it is artificial selection, but Darwins theorys acceptance allowed for the intellectual atmosphere that made eugenics the vogue. It doesn't in any way explain Hitler however.

229. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170335 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 4:22 pm

Bonzai

You are pretty dishonest in distorting my view.

If I have distorted your view then sorry but the quote you provide is me talking about the argument from awe, not your views.

But how is it an insult to you?

It is an insult to me because it implies I am merely some kind of bankrupt materialist whose experiences cannot be as profound as theirs because, well if they were I'd believe in God.

Some of the greatest work in the arts and science are inspired by some kind of "religious sentiments"

No doubt doesn't do a thing to my argument. It's irrelevant to my argument.

I am tone deaf to certain genres of music, like the stuffs that Roboholic listens to, but would I tell him it is insulting to me because by listening to those stuffs it implies I am not able to appreciate music of any kind?

Not analogous, and if I pretend it is it doesn't even correspond to my point. I don't say they don't experience awe, on the contrary, its that there incredible arrogance to believe their awe is so fantastic it requires divine explanation. So you'd have an analogy if robotoholic said that his response to music (doesn't matter what kind) is so profound, and by implication greater than yours, that he believes in God as a result. Or more accurately God has to be real because mundane explanations just don't cut it as his experience is so profound and wonderful it needs infinity to explain it. It actually requires that the whole universe be created so he could experience awe.

Again you assume these people always subscribe to a coherent belief system. They don't. And why don't you actually ask them what they believe in instead of assuming what they must based on your thinking?

I take their writings and almost all are the argument from awe, or, because the argument from design is obsolete, the argument from order. To subscribe to the argument from awe you must

...ignore the reams and reams of cruelty, God-made ineptitude and wanton disregard for humanity and all other species. The argument from awe is specious and ridiculously selective; As I have said before and will continue to say ultimately dishonest.

I'd also like you to comment on this

Anyone who displays this kind of arrogance

How could I believe that blind chance had led to that moment in time

Makes me sad.

I don't find that arrogant at all. Her "religion" seems to be just a way to capture and express her awe.

No she thinks her awe is so magnificent it warrants divine explanation. The whole universe was created so she could have that "moment". That is what she said!

How is Goodalls statement that "How could I believe that blind chance had led to that moment in time" i.e. The whole universe was created so she could have that "moment" not up for the most arrogant statement possible by a human being.

230. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170318 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 3:43 pm

This seems to be Bonzai's common refrain. Religious belief isn't evidential all this bothering about whether it is actually true is wasted time, its about their feelings. A believer in belief.

My point is the argument from awe, which Bonzai always raises as the main motivation for religious belief, are not only insulting to someone who also experiences profound awe but doesn't have the audacity or unbelievable arrogance to suggest the universe was created so I could experience it, but it must also be ultimately dishonest. You have to ignore the reams and reams of cruelty, God-made ineptitude and wanton disregard for humanity and all other species, and the huge incomprehensible magnitude of the universe. The argument from awe is specious and ridiculously selective; As I have said before and will continue to say ultimately dishonest.

231. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170312 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 3:37 pm

worship ANYTHING

Neither am I.

232. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170310 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 3:35 pm

RainDear

But why would a rational, reasonable person actually believe they DO exist, without any evidence?

I agree how could anyone!

But even an ETI could not have created itself and it's own universe. It may be a very, very smart ETI, but it still must have evolved naturally from very, very simple beginnings.

Yes absolutely my point

Dawkins article was a response to this as He says himself

Intelligent design "theorists" (a misnomer, for they have no theory) often use the alien scenario to distance themselves from old-style creationists: "For all we know, the designer might be an alien from outer space." This attempt to fend off accusations of unconstitutionally importing religion into science classes is lame and disingenuous. All the leading intelligent design spokesmen are devout, and, when talking to the faithful, they drop the science-fiction fig leaf and expose themselves as the fundamentalist creationists they truly are.

But for all we know it could also be a designer from another universe, or scenarios with the similar implication, that the designer or designers might aswell be called God in that they can perform all the necessary functions required, listening to prayers etc. This is Dawkins main thrust that, even though I like his arguments comes over with the self satisfied smugness he is renowned for

But now the question arises: In what sense would the god-like aliens not be gods? Answer: In a very important sense. To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe.

I mean we can bend over backwards an explain this away but in the context of the whole article and the premise he is trying to dismiss I think I have the correct reading.

Maybe there was something I didn't get but what exactly didn't you get? I seem to agree with you completely.

233. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170289 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 3:09 pm

How does Goodall's belief interfere with you TCT?

Anyone who displays this kind of arrogance

How could I believe that blind chance had led to that moment in time

Makes me sad.

But she didn't go on to say God's command is in the Bible and homosexuals should be stoned, did she?

No so why does she imply she's a Christian. Its dishonest and/or arrogant.

I don't find that arrogant at all. Her "religion" seems to be just a way to capture and express her awe.

No she thinks her awe is so magnificent it warrants divine explanation. The whole universe was created so she could have that "moment". That is what she said! How cannot that attack you in your, as the Hitch would say, "deepest integrity".

It's not only insulting to someone who also experiences profound awe but doesn't have the audacity or unbelievable arrogance to suggest the universe was created so I could experience it, but it must also be ultimately dishonest. You have to ignore reams and reams of cruelty, God-made ineptitude and wanton disregard for humanity and all other species. The argument from awe is specious and as I have said before and will continue to say ultimately dishonest.

234. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170276 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 2:39 pm

God is Love, God is the taste of cheese, the morning dew. Essentially my feelings are so wonderful they need to be divine. It's just white noise. I agree with Hitchens its the ultimate solipsism. The most arrogant of all claims. The universe has me in mind, I'm so wonderful mere science can not explain me. ME ME ME! Get out of my way I'm on an errand for God. It grates eventually, they can't honestly believe what they say, otherwise they are the most unbelievable unashamedly arrogant and self-centered humans.

I'm sad to see Goodall on the list of believers.

When I was a child, born into a Christian family, I accepted the reality of an unseen God without question. And now that I have lived almost three quarters of a century I still believe in a great spiritual power. I have described elsewhere the experience I had when I first visited Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris. When, as I gazed at the great rose window, glowing in the morning sun, the air was suddenly filled with the glorious sound of an organ playing Bach's Toccata and Fugue in D Minor. It filled me with joy, brought tears to my eyes. How could I believe that blind chance had led to that moment in time�"the cathedral, the collective faith of those who had prayed and worshiped within, the genius of Bach, the emergence of a conscious mind that could, as mine did then, question the purpose of life on Earth. Was all the wonder and beauty simply the result of purposeless gyrations of bits of cosmic dust at the beginning of time? If not, then there must be some extra-cosmic power, the creator of the big bang. A purpose in the universe. Perhaps, one day, that purpose will be revealed.

If someone can find a more arrogant statement. Its sickly how horrifically arrogant that paragraph is.

235. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170212 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 1:38 pm

Or people balling about the deaths of people they have never met, or even seen before.

Maybe you only read the accounts and don't live them inside your head. Perhaps it is a lack of imagination on your part.

The people who bailed about Princess Diana all need medical help. Bailing and overt displays purely for attention seeking I agree, but if you can't brought to tears by human and animal suffering then, well...

236. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170196 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 1:23 pm

The one I was least impressed with was Ken Miller. He seems to just be dishonest.

237. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170192 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 1:22 pm

Diacanu.

Anarchist? I have those leanings. Power, any authority is always unjustified (as are instruments of power such as violence, censorship etc) unless it can bare the burden of proof.

238. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170184 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 1:16 pm

epeeist
Yes I realise it was rather nosy of me. The reason seems easy to infer but even then I don't think anyone has the right to bash people because of personal grievance.

239. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170178 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 1:10 pm

In fact, natural selection is the very opposite of a chance process, and it is the only ultimate explanation we know for complex, improbable things. Even if our species was created by space alien designers, those designers themselves would have to have arisen from simpler antecedents -- so they can't be an ultimate explanation for anything. No matter how god-like our interstellar aliens may be, and no matter how vast and wonderful their starships, they cannot have designed the universe because, like human engineers and all complex things, they are late arrivals in it.

He seems to completely miss the fact that aliens could have designed our universe.

240. Lying for Jesus?

Comment #170160 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 12:58 pm

Perhaps he has a reason for it, like Irate_Athest... and perhaps they shall pick at their scabs until death finally brings them to peace.

What special reason has irate?

241. Student's 'Be Happy, Not Gay' t-shirt ok

Comment #170156 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 12:53 pm

Yeah, the ability to remember details is quite freaky, like my straight friends told me, whenever they had break ups, the girl friends would go over a litany of old complaints and grievances that the guy couldn't even remember and their jaws just drop, not knowing how to respond at all.

Her grievances. And I think its male affection more than anything else.

242. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170144 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 12:44 pm

But if our universe wasn't the first and only one, the first cause gets pushed back to whichever the first universe was, and we have the regress problem all over again.

Yeah that's why a complex God is incredibly unlikely to be the ultimate first cause. But for our universe Dawkins thinks he had obviated the idea when his argument is just plain wrong.

But now the question arises: In what sense would the god-like aliens not be gods? Answer: In a very important sense. To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe. And therein lies a fundamental contradiction. Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex -- and therefore, statistically improbable.

243. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170134 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 12:29 pm

Indeed, if advanced aliens showed up, and behaved like Yahweh, I would either on my own, or as part of a covert movement, seek to sabotage and destroy their technology, and liberate mankind.

I'm with you!

244. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170131 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 12:26 pm

But now the question arises: In what sense would the god-like aliens not be gods? Answer: In a very important sense. To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship.He would have to have designed the universe.

That's what dawkins said.

245. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170124 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 12:17 pm

Yes as I have said. His argument rules out a complex first cause but not a creator of our universe as ours might not be the first or only one.

246. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170116 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 12:01 pm

Shermer

By pursuing a course of scientific inquiry to its natural extension of examining the nature of God, what we will find, if we find anything, is an alien being capable of engineering cells, complex organisms, planets, stars, galaxies, and perhaps even universes. If today we can engineer genes, clone mammals, and manipulate stem cells with science and technologies developed in only the last half century, think of what an ETI could do with 100,000 years of equivalent powers of progress in science and technology. For an ETI who is a million years more advanced than we are, engineering the creation of planets and stars may be entirely possible. And if universes are created out of collapsing black holes�"which some cosmologists think is probable�"it is not inconceivable that a sufficiently advanced ETI could even create a universe.

Dawkins

But now the question arises: In what sense would the god-like aliens not be gods? Answer: In a very important sense. To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe. And therein lies a fundamental contradiction. Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex -- and therefore, statistically improbable.

Aliens could create Universes. The contradiction doesn't exist. Dawkins is talking about aliens in our universe. Why not aliens in another universe that created ours? That's the extra step that means his argument, which is against a creator 'god' is, well its laughable.

247. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170104 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 11:35 am

I believe in God because I can feel God's presence in my life, because I can see the evidence of God's goodness in the world, because I believe in Love and because I believe that God is Love.

Ok fine that's just semantics. Why are you a methodist? You at no point describe the Christian view merely some bullshit.

The more I read the apologetics the more I think. No you don't believe what you are saying. You at best self-deceptive and more likely just someone who doesn't want the label atheist when that's exactly what you are.

248. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170101 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 11:29 am

Can somebody please tell me what Kenneth Miller is on about.
He basically describes a pantheist view but is a Christian. It baffles me I don't think he really believes what the title of Christian suggests at all. I think he's a coward actually.

249. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170085 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 10:55 am

Steve Zara

I'm not going to worship just anyone.

Brilliant line I loved that.

AmericanGodless

I must confess that I don't understand the "extra step" that Toad sees.

But now the question arises: In what sense would the god-like aliens not be gods? Answer: In a very important sense. To deserve the name of God, a being would have to have designed more than just a jumbo jet or even a starship. He would have to have designed the universe. And therein lies a fundamental contradiction. Entities capable of designing anything, whether they be human engineers or interstellar aliens, must be complex -- and therefore, statistically improbable.

Shermer shows how this contradiction is nonsense, as I would have thought it was easy to see.

250. Does science make belief in God obsolete?

Comment #170058 by ThoughtsonCommonToad on April 27, 2008 at 10:16 am

This is why I hold the perhaps controversial view that the existence of gods is impossible to demonstrate. It could always be a really clever alien lying.

You assuming God is supernatural. What human religions have conceived of God don't have to be supernatural. An incredible alien could answer prayers create universes etc. Why would this not satisfy you as being a god or gods.