Richard Dawkins: I can't be sure God does not exist

Originally posted by thegoatboy
god bothers piss me off!

ooo look!

your aethist king is wrong!

so he is 6.9 out of 7 convinced there is no god.

sounds like a scientists rational to me.

as a scientist myself, you can never be fully sure.

on the other hand, you god types have 100% FAITH and ZERO facts.

nothing else.

Zealot much?

100% faith is different than 100% knowledge. Dawkins is not answering this question as a scientist, he's answering as an atheist.

Open mindedness is a good thing. This one comes with a simple solution to boot.

Perhaps, if he is wondering about that whole 'God' thing... he simply resorts to asking God if He exists. If there is a trick to this, it is to ask the one true, highest God... the God of the universe. No other substitute will do.

Simple enough, yes?

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by addygrace

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by addygrace
don't understand this. Are you claiming Dawkins is using the scientific method to come to a 98.5% certainty of there being no God? Wow.

you arriving at 98.5% is playing on his scale of 1-7 .. it's a sad attempt and is just a play of mathematics..

Dawkins has also said he's 99.9% sure.. 6.9 just happens to be as close to 7 as he can get without extending his decimal places.. give it up .. and like I said earlier, you're arguing over miniscule fractions, which is petty.

Im not even arguing the percentage. I know the numbers he used meant nothing. He was just trying to say there is no God, although he can't be certain about that. I told you in my last post, I was being facetious about the 98.5%. What about 98.5% creates any controversy in you eyes?

I say the controversy is people believing scientists can use the scintific method to evaluate the validioty of God. Do you agree?

I do agree .. in the sense that science can also not be used to evaluate the validity of the tooth fairy .. it can't prove or disprove, what I deem.. as fantasy .. In comparison, I just invented a deity named Grawl that is the God of all things purple .. science can't disprove it .. so it is also a 99.9% situation..

Actually this example can be proven wrong, because you just admitted, you made it up. You don't even have to be a scientist to get that truth.

The scientist can't investigate that which is outside our universe(space and time).

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by Foxy1
47.2% statistics are made up on the spot *smirks* Why did he use 7 as his maximum measure? isnt it a number used in the bible alot? or is he being self important like many athiest by making his own system of measure? Why didnt he just say he was 99.99999% from 100% interesting.

He's used 99.9% in interviews.. your guess is as good as mine as to why he arose to 1-7 .. why do people chose 1-5, 1-4, 1-100.. I've seen many odd scales.. it doesn't mean there's a hidden meaning

The 7 point scale was made up by him.

Dawkins 7 point scale

I feel sorry for you...I really do. You must live a thoroughly miserable life if it all comes down to survival and then dying. How utterly depressing.

It is you who people should feel sorry for. To not be capable of seeing "worth" in life without the knowledge of existence of some omnipitent super being and an eternity of afterlife. In fact one can easily make the argument that an athiest sees more "worth" in life then the religious do precisely because they believe there is an end to all of this. We don't go on forever.This time is all the time we have, all the time there is and must be cherished more than anything else. One can further argue that a belief in an afterlife in fact devalues life. After all what are 70 or 80 or 90 years compared to an eternity? After a few hundred or thousand years you will have forgotten about your time here on earth so why would any of your life on earth even matter in the greater scheme (no pun intended) that you feel exists? Sad.

Originally posted by addygrace
100% faith is different than 100% knowledge. Dawkins is not answering this question as a scientist, he's answering as an atheist.

You're making an assumption.. basically you're hearing/reading him as an atheist and rejecting him as a scientist .. that's foolish.. care to prove it?

reply to post by miniatus



Why do you bring up spaghetti monster and tooth fairy? when people speak of god they are talking about the universe and life? or is that off limits for it is intellectual property of scientists? also do not get religion mixed up with the original supreme mad scientist..... scientists who dont believe in god love god more then the average christian.

Originally posted by addygrace
Actually this example can be proven wrong, because you just admitted, you made it up. You don't even have to be a scientist to get that truth.

The scientist can't investigate that which is outside our universe(space and time).

So simply that I admitted it makes it false.. fair..

I then declare that in my fridge lies a plate of mashed potatoes that is actually the god of all creation, because it told me so in a vision..

Now it's as valid.. I admit nothing..

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by miniatus

 

Why do you bring up spaghetti monster and tooth fairy? when people speak of god they are talking about the universe and life? or is that off limits for it is intellectual property of scientists? also do not get religion mixed up with the original supreme mad scientist..... scientists who dont believe in god love god more then the average christian.

Because God is just as scientifically viable as those things.. but primarily because they are comparisons that Dawkins himself makes.. let us not forget the topic of this thread.. the thread tried to suggest that Dawkins has swayed in his atheistic beliefs by conceding that he can't say with absolute certainty that God does not exist.. most of the subsequent posts have been off topic.. Dawkins has never swayed from his belief, he personally does not believe in a God but as a scientist he's ALWAYS said he can't be certain. no scientist would.. he's never swayed.. that is the root point .. to be on topic.. But as I said, Dawkins likes to compare, especially, the flying spaghetti monster with God because both are equally improveable

when he equates god to those things he fails to understand what "god" could truly be or is.... he is denying the christian, old man with a beard personal god?



also when I say that i believe in god, I dont say it for me, in hopes of anything,,eternal life, direction, glory etc. its hardly a choice of mine,,, I say it as an animal making an observation.... i did not create the universe,,,, you say as a scientist ( a slightly heightened animal ) ahh its cool guys, we can replicate this stuff in labs, nothing really,just a big accident, this stuff happens all the time, ...

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Hes doing a copout. I am 100% sure god exists. Why can't he be sure of his beliefs. He is a hypocrite. Anyone can say you can't be 100% sure and when proof is discovered say well I didn't say 100%. He is only a biologist and does not know anything about physics, quantum theory, general relativity, cosmology, etc..

Only now, when dwelling in the Presence, there is no "off switch", there is no place to hide. There is no bridge to cross back to where I came from. That's a good thing. No longer is this faith, hope, and want. It is the Presence.

Originally posted by ImaFungi

edit on 24-2-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

when he equates god to those things he fails to understand what "god" could truly be or is.... he is denying the christian, old man with a beard personal god?

edit on 24-2-2012 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)

He's denying all deities .. let us not forget how many there are.. in history there have been MANY Gods.. even the bible itself is ambiguous ( I don't want to make this a debate on biblical texts ) but the bible does say "Let us create man in our own image" ... that is absolutely a plural connotation is it not? . it doesn't even matter .. Dawkins is refuting any deity .. he's saying he's 99.9% sure no God exists .. there's still that 0.1% chance he's wrong, and he's willing to admit it .. as any sane, rational person would.

Whuddya know, God has a 1.4285% chance of existing.

Naturally, this number was pulled from from no where, but it's enlightening.

In my view, the chaos in this world is proof there's no god. All of the life on this planet is struggling to stay alive. If its actions are too outside reality then it dies. This is all there is. Everything is imperfect.

It's all hit and miss. If there were a god, this place wouldn't exist. God wouldn't allow it to if God had any sense of decency or respect or humility. Emotions like love have not yet consumed the cosmos.

All one has to do is step outside and watch the bees make their nests. Every day is live or die. Every day is hard work. Every day they go in and they go out. They build and they tunnel and they work together.

Ever seen a bee fight to live and, despite his/her best efforts, die anyway? Ever seen a dog get hit by a car and cut in two? Ever seen a child die from a disease? Ever seen a murderer live to 100?

Life is conflict. It's war. It's famine. It's death. It's unfair. It's all of those things. It's a quest for knowledge that pains the mind in its worst moments but tastes sweet like wine when enjoyed.

One has to focus his/her mind on the victories to keep the mind from being nihilist. What choice is there? One can die, but death is not our goal. We entered this life with the mission to stay alive.

We don't have the answers anymore than the bees. We're all confused and looking for more knowledge. Day by day we learn, trying to fill in the pieces of this puzzle. There's no god to make it easier. I won't disallow people from believing in god if that's what they desire. I respect their choice.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
Hes doing a copout. I am 100% sure god exists. Why can't he be sure of his beliefs. He is a hypocrite. Anyone can say you can't be 100% sure and when proof is discovered say well I didn't say 100%. He is only a biologist and does not know anything about physics, quantum theory, general relativity, cosmology, etc..

100% sure means you obviously must have evidence of it ... so please share I'd love that.

Otherwise it just means you just take it on faith it's probably true..

Nevertheless.. science doesn't allow him to say he's 100% sure God doesn't exist.. why? he has no evidence that God doesn't exist.. you saying you're 100% sure he does is silly because you don't have evidence either. .. in fact there's more evidence against a God than there is for one..

reply to post by miniatus


I'd love to see that "evidence" you're referring to. Please post it.

Not much more I feel the need to add to this thread.. the point of the post was to suggest Dawkins somehow swayed in his beliefs.. that is absolutely false.. Dawkins relies on scientific principles which would be against absolute certainty on abstracts such as the existence of a God .. his stance on this matter has been unwavering, he's even said similar things in his now old book "The God Delusion" .. this is not news.. it's not a change in opinion, it's absolutely nothing but Dawkins being Dawkins.

The thread has jumped off topic ofcourse... so I'm exiting =) .. I must go pray to the easter bunny

Originally posted by schadenfreude
reply to post by miniatus

 

I'd love to see that "evidence" you're referring to. Please post it.

Visit a museum, open a book on biology .. it's all around you .. it's not my job to educate you, it's your own .. the information is out there in abundance.. try looking for it =)

Good evening

reply to post by miniatus


how do you expect man to know what god actually is? this is what science is attempting to do,,

the religions of ancient times personified and anthropomorphizes the spirit of creation and life... just because ancient tribal cults representation of god can be dismissed by richard dawkins as a man made creation does not debunk the existence of the essence and creation these representations are attempting to describe, express, and explain.

If you are familiar with Dawkins (I consider myself somewhat familiar; I have a book autographed by him on my bookshelf) you would know that this statement is nothing new.

He usually follows his "99.9% sure", or in this case "6.9 out 7 sure" phrase with: "Only a bad scientist would say they are 100% sure of anything....Which, I am also 99% sure that the flying spaghetti monster does not exist." -or something similar



Dawkins did not find God or Jesus. He has been saying this phrase for years.


Nothing to see here, move along.

Originally posted by miniatus

Originally posted by schadenfreude
reply to post by miniatus

 

I'd love to see that "evidence" you're referring to. Please post it.

Visit a museum, open a book on biology .. it's all around you .. it's not my job to educate you, it's your own .. the information is out there in abundance.. try looking for it =)

Good evening

I posted two proofs earlier, one involving galaxies 150 millions years apart, and one involving the first trillionth of a second after the big bang.

YOU are the one making the claim that there is "more proof" there isn't than there is. I call you on it & you give me this museum, biology bull#$%@?

You guys ask for scientific evidence, you get some, and no one addresses it. Someone asks you for the same and you duck the question.

Changing the rules for debate whenever you feel like it is hardly fair.

Good evening to you as well.