Alright let's back up.
I agree that all of us should not have this mentality. I am just trying to provoke thought in the forum (not saying there isn't any thought here).
I did not mean to imply that Dawkins is inconsistent with all of his views. I was just saying that on a philosophical standpoint, some of Dawkins' assertions are lacking. Philosophical, not scientific. I am not claiming that all of Dawkins views are inconsistent scientifically at all.
Furthermore, Dawkins said that God was more improbable than "as a hurricane ripping through a junkyard" not that evolution is more improbable.
On a separate note, my whole argument was based not on whether it is an either or statement (either there is the existence of God or there is unguided evolution). Rather, the whole argument was whether Dawkins could ascertain one over the other based on their low probabilities. Not scientifically, philosophically.
Pretty much. But can one truly know that one dwells over the other with complete certainty? Even though the unguided evolution appears to more probable even though it is just as unlikely as the God scenario does not necessarily mean that it is full proof.
Quote:With him it seems to be very much "us and them", and I think it's a mistake for anyone - and Christians foremost - to have that attitude towards other people.
I agree that all of us should not have this mentality. I am just trying to provoke thought in the forum (not saying there isn't any thought here).
I did not mean to imply that Dawkins is inconsistent with all of his views. I was just saying that on a philosophical standpoint, some of Dawkins' assertions are lacking. Philosophical, not scientific. I am not claiming that all of Dawkins views are inconsistent scientifically at all.
Quote:Mr. Philosophy majoris a little belittling and feels like an ad hominem argument.
Furthermore, Dawkins said that God was more improbable than "as a hurricane ripping through a junkyard" not that evolution is more improbable.
On a separate note, my whole argument was based not on whether it is an either or statement (either there is the existence of God or there is unguided evolution). Rather, the whole argument was whether Dawkins could ascertain one over the other based on their low probabilities. Not scientifically, philosophically.
Quote:You're really wideling it down to the point where you are portraying Dawkins as providing a hypothesis with no rational theory or evidence and making a simple choice between that or god.
Pretty much. But can one truly know that one dwells over the other with complete certainty? Even though the unguided evolution appears to more probable even though it is just as unlikely as the God scenario does not necessarily mean that it is full proof.
Yes, I am a Christian on these forums. I am not here to judge or condemn, rather, I am here to debate, learn, and incite discussion. Yes, I think that my avatar is hilarious.
