(June 22, 2009 at 12:50 pm)Anto Kennedy Wrote: Wow, if there is one thing that kills a debate, it's quote-wars. It turns into unintelligible nitpicking that nobody wants to read.
Ok, fair enough. I'll just respond to your whole post outright then:
God is highly complex and improbable for the reasons Dawkins gives in TGD. My point is that Dawkins doesn't at all need to read up on religion to reject the existence of God, which is what the TGD is about. The reasons Dawkins gives for why God is highly complex and improbable and why 'There almost certainly is no God' doesn't remotely require any reading up on religion...it rejects all Gods as Dawkins defines God(s), that being 'the Creator of the universe'. This would also include deistic Gods, non-personal Gods by this definition, Gods that don't have any holy books or texts. The theistic God is rejected by Dawkins for exactly the same reason as the deistic God is. The theistic God is just extra improbable because of the added complexity of it also being a personal God and being capable of being able to 'intervene', etc.
Dawkins doesn't need to read up on religion to reject the existence of this definition of God (how he defines it), any more than he has to read up on the FSM to reject the FSM.
You say that you're not being sarcastic when you say the FSM exists........eh??? Surely that's sarcasm though?
EvF
