That exciting book, the God Delusion

Now, I've read Richard Dawkins, "The God Delusion" as I can't see why I shouldn't have a little interesting read for once that makes me think a bit.

However, that is not to say I completely disagree with him, as he raises some fantastic points, and I feel like sending him a letter or email saying "good point". But he does make a few slip ups, as when discussing multiverse theories, he says that you can get multiple universes, and each time the physical laws are different. However he then says that as this universe is unlikely to collapse inwardly on itself, this makes the theory wrong. A couple of sentences previously he stated that the laws of physics probably chang each time, so that proves nothing.

And if a multiverse is the case, a black hole could create another universe, if we were to make a small black hole in a lab, which creates another universe, then evaporates (due to Hawking Radiation), would the inhabitants of that universe call us God?

And then the thing that annoys me most, He says early on that he is against all religion, superstition etc then goes on to say he will concentrate on Christianity, apparently feeling that if you disprove Christianity, all religion is disproven, QED.

well, you can kind of excuse his points on multiverse theories because he actually says he's no expert and knows very little about what he's talking about in the book.

and then he doesn't just disprove christianity, he also disproves the general theory that there is a supernatural being whose existence must be an issue of faith.

and then he doesn't just disprove christianity, he also disproves the general theory that there is a supernatural being whose existence must be an issue of faith.

Please foregive as I have not read the book. But how do you disprove that somthing does not exist?

Originally posted by etshrtslr
Please foregive as I have not read the book. But how do you disprove that somthing does not exist?

do you mean how do you disprove that something exists?

well, you dissect it like any other hypothesis.

he also disproves the general theory that there is a supernatural being whose existence must be an issue of faith.

I must admit Im confused (which happens often with me):shk:

Please help me to understand, in your above quote when you say disproves are you saying "does not prove"? as in (he does not prove the general theory that there is a supernatural being whose existence must be an issue of faith.)

And if so then I completely understand.

Originally posted by etshrtslr
I must admit Im confused (which happens often with me):shk:

Please help me to understand, in your above quote when you say disproves are you saying "does not prove"? as in (he does not prove the general theory that there is a supernatural being whose existence must be an issue of faith.)

And if so then I completely understand.

disprove

to prove (an assertion, claim, etc.) to be false or wrong; refute; invalidate: I disproved his claim.

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
and then he doesn't just disprove christianity, he also disproves the general theory that there is a supernatural being whose existence must be an issue of faith.

Well he seems to just do that, but that seems a common theme that I see. And perhaps I feel his argument wasn't convincing enough, but he does make some great points that I must say I agree with. The problem is that he in disproving the main view of God, seems to make it as if he has disproven them all.

LOl now thats funny. If you cant prove that God exist what make you think you can prove he does'nt exist. Sounds to mean Crap

Originally posted by slymattb
LOl now thats funny. If you cant prove that God exist what make you think you can prove he does'nt exist. Sounds to mean Crap

ok, why can't you prove that god exists? it supposedly interferes in human affairs on a regular basis, there should be evidence for that interference.

if you incude the "power of prayer" and miracles in your belief system you open it up to scientific scrutiny because that's god getting involved in the natural

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
if you incude the "power of prayer" and miracles in your belief system you open it up to scientific scrutiny because that's god getting involved in the natural

Interestingly in Dawkins book he said the result was that those who knew they were being prayed for did less well in hospital. I assume they felt they would go to heaven so they gave less of a fight against whatever was hapening to them

Lol calm down. Man life is in front of you. I might not be able to prove that God exist, but thats only because God didnt want that.

As you well know the fact is this Satan a 3rd of the angels chance there mind about God. Before earth began Satan was one of the most beatiful angels more so than Jesus. Then in one thought process he creat evil by thinking I want to be God. So the point here is that people who knew God power saw his presents knew what he could do and they still went to hell and damnation. So God thought I need people who want to be with me who never knew me and give them a choice to do it.

FREE WILL...... Its a sucker for share. Athesis could not even be athesis without free will. What would be the point in showing everybody( if he show you and has to show all) God now. They still would only betray him, at least for his power. Come on man are we thike in the head. Jesus came down show power left and right ressurected people. Took demons out of people. Jesus did great things on earth, and still BELIEVERS kill Jesus. People who believe in God and the ten commandments thought lets kill this man.

So what would be the point in showing you proof. You would still be blind. And if you were not blind, you might want his power. Remember people already knew God was alive and look what happen

Here what I say. Nor would I prove without a dout that God exist, And we both no I cant.

BUT THE FACT REMAIN YOU STILL CANNOT PROVE HE DOESNT EXIST. yOU CAN TRY. BUT YOU CANT. have fun peace

Originally posted by slymattb
FREE WILL...... Its a sucker for share. Athesis could not even be athesis without free will. What would be the point in showing everybody( if he show you and has to show all) God now.

And an atheist will argue that theists would not be theists without free will.

Took demons out of people. Jesus did great things on earth, and still BELIEVERS kill Jesus. People who believe in God and the ten commandments thought lets kill this man.

Depends on if you believe that or not, and I don't think that many people take written text as proof of it. And people still kill in the name of God, although thats a pretty moot point as people will kill for pretty much anything.

If you're interested in the flip side to Dawkins' argument -

The Dawkins Delusion?: Atheist Fundamentalism and the Denial of the Divine By: Alister E. McGrath and Joanna Collicutt Mcgrath


McGrath has written a couple books in response to Dawkins' books ('selfish gene' and 'blind watchmaker') Although I have them both (the new ones) on my list I haven't got around to reading either, just fyi.


Regards,
-Rren


(edit) Oh yeah, I posted a comical Dawkins satire YouTube clip in the joke forum. Doesn't look like anybody thought it was as funny as I did... 0replies

www.belowtopsecret.com...'

Of course I'm easily amused.

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Rren]

[edit on 5-4-2007 by Rren]

actually, there are at least 5 books that have been written in response to the god delusion

if he was really that wrong, wouldn't they have needed just one?

(i hope i'm not the only one that gets this reference)

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
actually, there are at least 5 books that have been written in response to the god delusion

if he was really that wrong, wouldn't they have needed just one?

Who's they? If there only ends up five I'd be suprised.

He went big here too... he made the strong atheism argument (ie, God does not exist.) You've certainly left science by that point. He's not debating creationism or ID here but belief in a God. I've read some reviews and the typical Dawkins said/did/wrote something hoopla. Like I said I haven't read it yet, so maybe he didn't reach as far as "they" say he did or with argument[s] such as he did. Strawmen run rampant in this stuff, on both sides. He supposedly butchered some classic arguments tho... in the bad way not the 'mighty Thor" sense. Or so I hear, we'll see.

(i hope i'm not the only one that gets this reference)

I'm out... but slow too.


Get back to work man!

Rren

On the real. When was the last time in one subject did you only see one book. You wont find one.

Originally posted by apex
Interestingly in Dawkins book he said the result was that those who knew they were being prayed for did less well in hospital.

Interesting. Maybe God doesn't participate in surveys.

On the subject of hospitals, aren't the majority of hospitals tied to a religious organization? If so then you could suggest that God helps by assisting in the creation of hospitals and in the training of doctors. I guess the old phrase "God helps those who help themselves" could be more true than we know.

Originally posted by Rren

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul
actually, there are at least 5 books that have been written in response to the god delusion

if he was really that wrong, wouldn't they have needed just one?

Who's they? If there only ends up five I'd be suprised.

He went big here too... he made the strong atheism argument (ie, God does not exist.)

W R O N G!
dawkins does not actually state that god doesn't exist, he says god ALMOST certainly does not exist.

(i hope i'm not the only one that gets this reference)

I'm out... but slow too.


it's a reference to the "100 responses to einstein"

Get back to work man!

Rren

yeah, i should really get back to that stuff

Originally posted by madnessinmysoul


W R O N G!
dawkins does not actually state that god doesn't exist, he says god ALMOST certainly does not exist.

Well you've read it and I have not, so I'll stand -temporarily- corrected. Dawkins makes the limp-wristed argument for atheism. Check.

it's a reference to the "100 responses to einstein"

Yeah I've seen that on the atheist blogs/boards too... thought you were going for a joke (or original madness insight) and I wasn't seeing the punchline. Um, good one.

yeah, i should really get back to that stuff

It'd be nice. We could finally get you to start ref'n some of your hit-n-run comments 'round here.

What you studying?... I thought you were still in highschool (not sure why I thought so...) But good luck with your papers (be they highschool or college)


Have a good one man,
-Rob

(edit) Clarification: Upon re-reading my post; I wasn't trying to take a dig at ya with the 'I thought you were in highschool' comment. I always assumed you were a college student or graduate, but thought I remebered you saying (somewhere around here) that you were still in your teens... so it was a limp-wristed compliment and not a dig at ya. Not being in my head figured I'd best clarify what I meant for you and anybody else reading... I was just curious about his studies. Damn these words!

I only have a highschool edumacation so I couldn't make that argument/dig anyway.... (edit/clarifiction/how Rren's muddled thought process works #2: That'd be like playing The Dozens with your sibling)

respect


[edit on 11-4-2007 by Rren]

[edit on 11-4-2007 by Rren]