Did Dawkins and Tyson say that and what are the implications.

[FallentoReason]

The answer you will get is that God is beyond our comprehension and that all we can ever know about God is what God reveals to us through certain individuals he chooses to use for the purpose. God is the big boss and he gives the information on a need to know basis as God defines it not us.

In another thread, you and I were discussing science and Bible interpretations. I proposed that the more you try and align the Bible to scientific knowledge, the further away you get from this.. errr... "unique" personal god. You told me that Jesus Christ by definition makes you be in a personal relationship with the Creator of the Cosmos.

Do your homework and ask him for an answer instead of shrugging and saying "God works in mysterious ways". Convenient answers like that usually tell me that you purposely avoid finding any sort of answer to e.g. the question asked because it would replace the charm of his "mysteriousness" with the sobering reality that no god is behind the coincidental events you attribute to his "mysterious ways".

[Mark 13:13]

The answer you will get is that God is beyond our comprehension and that all we can ever know about God is what God reveals to us through certain individuals he chooses to use for the purpose. God is the big boss and he gives the information on a need to know basis as God defines it not us.

In another thread, you and I were discussing science and Bible interpretations. I proposed that the more you try and align the Bible to scientific knowledge, the further away you get from this.. errr... "unique" personal god. You told me that Jesus Christ by definition makes you be in a personal relationship with the Creator of the Cosmos.

Do your homework and ask him for an answer instead of shrugging and saying "God works in mysterious ways". Convenient answers like that usually tell me that you purposely avoid finding any sort of answer to e.g. the question asked because it would replace the charm of his "mysteriousness" with the sobering reality that no god is behind the coincidental events you attribute to his "mysterious ways".

I will try to locate the other thread tomorrow and continue it there. But what about the primary question on this?

[FallentoReason]

In another thread, you and I were discussing science and Bible interpretations. I proposed that the more you try and align the Bible to scientific knowledge, the further away you get from this.. errr... "unique" personal god. You told me that Jesus Christ by definition makes you be in a personal relationship with the Creator of the Cosmos.

Do your homework and ask him for an answer instead of shrugging and saying "God works in mysterious ways". Convenient answers like that usually tell me that you purposely avoid finding any sort of answer to e.g. the question asked because it would replace the charm of his "mysteriousness" with the sobering reality that no god is behind the coincidental events you attribute to his "mysterious ways".

I will try to locate the other thread tomorrow and continue it there. But what about the primary question on this?

Oh no, don't worry about it. I wasn't implying that you hadn't answered something in the other thread. I was merely referring to it to point out a fundamental thing about your belief system. According to that fundamental thing, I'm then saying that I think the convenient answer of "God works in mysterious ways" is rather... disappointing while debating.

Just food for thought.

---

p.s. as for the primary question: it doesn't really engage with me, so I don't have an answer for you.

[Cato]

The answer you will get is that God is beyond our comprehension and that all we can ever know about God is what God reveals to us through certain individuals he chooses to use for the purpose. God is the big boss and he gives the information on a need to know basis as God defines it not us.

This characterization of god is at best unflattering considering the idea of an all powerful creator, particularly when one considers his chosen emissaries.

To me, it is much more reasonable to conclude that religion is nothing more than thousands of years of tradition passed down by those with a certain zeal for power. The idea of god and the promise of eternal torment is nothing more than a crowd control mechanism.

Your basic argument is that god is unknowable, but I can know him through others chosen by god. What is the litmus test for a false prophet?

[SkyMutt]

I have transcribed this as best I could from the following video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGenk99YDwY

It occurs at the 34 minute mark for those who want to check on my transcription.

In context Tyson had just outlined how common the ingredients for lie are in the universe and how relatively fast in cosmic time live took to start on earth when...

How convenient for your purpose that you omitted the first thing that Dawkins says in reply to Tyson. Why did you do that? Why couldn't you have made an honest presentation of what is being said?

The answer is obvious: You've clipped out the part of Dawkins' statement that negates your point. This sort of tactic is so common among a certain variety of internet Christians that I don't find it surprising, nor disappointing. In fact I expect it and look for it, and rarely fail to find it.

Beginning at 33:48 in the video--

Tyson: The point is, it happened relatively quickly, with the most common ingredients in the universe. To now say, "Life on Earth is unique in the universe," would be inexcusably egocentric.

Dawkins: Yeah, I agree with that.

Tyson has just been expounding on the fact that the evidence from life here on Earth makes it seem likely that life is not an especially unusual occurrence in the universe. Given the right conditions, it's probable that life is likely to arise. Dawkins agrees with him.

Dawkins says “ I would go further and say that if ever you meet somebody who wishes to claim that he or she believes that life is unique in the universe, then it would follow from that belief, that the origin of life on this planet would have to be a quite stupifyingly rare and improbable event and that would have the rather odd consequence that when chemists try to work out theories and models of the origin of life, what they should be looking for is a stupendeously improbable theory and implausible theory because if there was a plausible theory about the origin of life that wouldn’t be it because life would have to be everywhere."

Dawkin's then I think realises the implication of his statement and immediately tries to say but if we can't find life it doesn't mean its not out there as it is probably to spread out for us to ever find. Surprisingly close to what we as Theists say about God but you won't take from us.

You have used your out of context quote to try to imply that Dawkins is saying something that he is not saying. The point of Dawkins' statement that follows the part you omitted is that the person who asserts that life is unique to Earth will not be satisfied by any plausible model of abiogenesis, because (according to such a person) a plausible working model cannot be the right one, since that person believes that life is unique to the Earth. He's pointing out the dysfunctional logic of such a belief, albeit somewhat clumsily. Such a person will dismiss any plausible model of abiogenesis because of their beliefs. Your interpretation of what he's saying is simply wrong.

The first thing that popped into my mind was would GOD be in the category of a stupendeously improbable theory?

"GOD" is not in the category of scientific theory at all, improbable or not. "GOD" is not even a scientific hypothesis. The first thing that (according to you) popped into your mind was nonsense, apparently spawned from your ignorance of what a scientific theory entails. That is the more charitable interpretation of the OP. I don't happen to believe that interpretation, as hinted above.

[pocaracas]

I'm going to ask you something I end up asking every theist when I see them describing their divinity.
- How do you know all that? How has any person come to possess that knowledge about such a being?

The answer you will get is that God is beyond our comprehension and that all we can ever know about God is what God reveals to us through certain individuals he chooses to use for the purpose. God is the big boss and he gives the information on a need to know basis as God defines it not us.

Still, how do you know that?
How do you know that "God is beyond our comprehension"?
How can you tell if what those individuals tell you about god was actually passed to them by god?
How do you distinguish that from "they made it up"? "acid trip"? dreams?

[Mark 13:13]

I have transcribed this as best I could from the following video

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGenk99YDwY

It occurs at the 34 minute mark for those who want to check on my transcription.

In context Tyson had just outlined how common the ingredients for lie are in the universe and how relatively fast in cosmic time live took to start on earth when...

How convenient for your purpose that you omitted the first thing that Dawkins says in reply to Tyson. Why did you do that? Why couldn't you have made an honest presentation of what is being said?

The answer is obvious: You've clipped out the part of Dawkins' statement that negates your point. This sort of tactic is so common among a certain variety of internet Christians that I don't find it surprising, nor disappointing. In fact I expect it and look for it, and rarely fail to find it.

Beginning at 33:48 in the video--

Tyson: The point is, it happened relatively quickly, with the most common ingredients in the universe. To now say, "Life on Earth is unique in the universe," would be inexcusably egocentric.

Dawkins: Yeah, I agree with that.

Tyson has just been expounding on the fact that the evidence from life here on Earth makes it seem likely that life is not an especially unusual occurrence in the universe. Given the right conditions, it's probable that life is likely to arise. Dawkins agrees with him.

Dawkins says “ I would go further and say that if ever you meet somebody who wishes to claim that he or she believes that life is unique in the universe, then it would follow from that belief, that the origin of life on this planet would have to be a quite stupifyingly rare and improbable event and that would have the rather odd consequence that when chemists try to work out theories and models of the origin of life, what they should be looking for is a stupendeously improbable theory and implausible theory because if there was a plausible theory about the origin of life that wouldn’t be it because life would have to be everywhere."

Dawkin's then I think realises the implication of his statement and immediately tries to say but if we can't find life it doesn't mean its not out there as it is probably to spread out for us to ever find. Surprisingly close to what we as Theists say about God but you won't take from us.

You have used your out of context quote to try to imply that Dawkins is saying something that he is not saying. The point of Dawkins' statement that follows the part you omitted is that the person who asserts that life is unique to Earth will not be satisfied by any plausible model of abiogenesis, because (according to such a person) a plausible working model cannot be the right one, since that person believes that life is unique to the Earth. He's pointing out the dysfunctional logic of such a belief, albeit somewhat clumsily. Such a person will dismiss any plausible model of abiogenesis because of their beliefs. Your interpretation of what he's saying is simply wrong.

The first thing that popped into my mind was would GOD be in the category of a stupendeously improbable theory?

"GOD" is not in the category of scientific theory at all, improbable or not. "GOD" is not even a scientific hypothesis. The first thing that (according to you) popped into your mind was nonsense, apparently spawned from your ignorance of what a scientific theory entails. That is the more charitable interpretation of the OP. I don't happen to believe that interpretation, as hinted above.

Dawkins said that based on the evidence that Tyson presented before about how abundant the ingredients for life were and how fast it develops when given the chance and how silly someone would be to believe that life exists only on earth given the infinity of the universe. So baring something tremendously rare on earth which does not seem to be the case there should be life a plenty in the universe. He said it and Tyson agreed. The fact that when he started the statement he was trying to suggest how stupid people were that believed that life only exists on earth does not mean I can't use the well reasoned out thinking to ask my question.
Btw theists do not believe that Man was the only intelligent creation of God.

So your answer to the question is it doesn't deserve an answer. Well I will answer for you until you do give an answer.. GOD is the stupendously improbable theory that you choose to refuse to allow even a space for in your thinking by not even accepting it as a theory even if you believe it to be a stupid , idiotic , unprovable and dangerous theory.

also I did clip it because it was the bit I needed but I did acknowledge that the followup existed and left it for you guys to listen to it if you wanted but the followup does not answer my question it just dodged it but who knows if Dawkins ever debates with a top Christian Apologist again they may force the issue just as when he was forced to recant his Claim that Jesus never existed. But I think he got a bloody nose before and wont be back at least not alone.

[pocaracas]

The deist god is a potentially valid hypothesis to explain the origin of the Universe.... and little else.
The christian god (or any other religion's) has just a wee bit too much extra... hmmm what's the word?... crap attached that make it much, much, much less likely.

[Mark 13:13]

The deist god is a potentially valid hypothesis to explain the origin of the Universe.... and little else.
The christian god (or any other religion's) has just a wee bit too much extra... hmmm what's the word?... crap attached that make it much, much, much less likely.

Your first statement to me is all I ask of fair minded people and seems to me a totally valid and fair point . Your second statement I can accept is what you believe and even if much less likely must in light of your first statement be also a hypothesis.

[SkyMutt]

Dawkins said that based on the evidence that Tyson presented before about how abundant the ingredients for life were and how fast it develops when given the chance and how silly someone would be to believe that life exists only on earth given the infinity of the universe.

What was "the implication of his statement" then? Why do you seem to suggest that Dawkins was trying to backtrack in some way when he "realised" that implication?

In the video, Dawkins is pointing out that abiogenesis should not be considered improbable, given the facts that Tyson has just laid out.

So baring something tremendously rare on earth which does not seem to be the case there should be life a plenty in the universe. He said it and Tyson agreed. The fact that when he started the statement he was trying to suggest how stupid people were that believed that life only exists on earth does not mean I can't use the well reasoned out thinking to ask my question.
Btw theists do not believe that Man was the only intelligent creation of God.

It seems that you've changed your interpretation of what was being said.

So your answer to the question is it doesn't deserve an answer.

No, my answer was laid out clearly, and you apparently find it unacceptable.

Well I will answer for you until you do give an answer.. GOD is the stupendously improbable theory that you choose to refuse to allow even a space for in your thinking by not even accepting it as a theory even if you believe it to be a stupid , idiotic , unprovable and dangerous theory.

I repeat, "GOD" is not a scientific theory at all.

From "Scientific Hypothesis, Theory, Law Definitions":

A scientific theory summarizes a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing. A theory is valid as long as there is no evidence to dispute it.

[Emphasis mine]

What repeated testing has the idea of "GOD" been subjected to? The fact is, your Bible specifically and clearly says that your god is not to be tested (Deuteronomy 6:16, Matthew 4:7, and Luke 4:12).

also I did clip it because it was the bit I needed but I did acknowledge that the followup existed and left it for you guys to listen to it if you wanted. . .

I was not talking about the followup, and you know it.

. . .but the followup does not answer my question it just dodged it but who knows if Dawkins ever debates with a top Christian Apologist again they may force the issue just as when he was forced to recant his Claim that Jesus never existed. But I think he got a bloody nose before and wont be back at least not alone.

Please cite a source for your assertion that Dawkins "recanted" a claim that Jesus never existed.