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

Originally posted by schadenfreude


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.

Actually no one has that 'evidence'. We don't have it today, and no one had that evidence 500; 1,000; 2,000; 50,000 years ago. The evidence we do have suggests that religions are a regional phenomena that are created for multiple economic, political and social reasons.

Originally posted by thepainweaver
If you are familiar with Dawkins... 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.

I want people to see this because it was lost on the bottom of the last page. Dawkins says that phrase all the time. It is nothing new. He has not become religious at all.

reply to post by thepainweaver


Interesting tactic. Responding to the evidence by NOT actually responding to the evidence.

does not know anything about physics, quantum theory, general relativity, cosmology, etc..

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


Those that do don't "100% believe God exists" though.

Curious that.

Originally posted by schadenfreude
reply to post by thepainweaver

 

Interesting tactic. Responding to the evidence by NOT actually responding to the evidence.

Your "evidence" is nothing more than speculation; Writings that were created by goat herders in the desert thousands of years ago.

waving hands.... Sorry to bother you and interrupt... but I posted on the previous page how you can know if God exists... simply by asking Him. It's not necessarily complicated, or comprised of a full two-three slates of blackboard full of mathematical formulas that's necessary... It's not a pure intellectual pursuit.... It's actually a full-life pursuit. The intellect is only one part of you. You are much more multi-faceted than just that.

Just ask Him. Be certain that if a 'God of the Universe', or a 'God of the Multiverses'... exists.... He is well-capable of responding to your query.... if you ask in sincerity of course.

I have never seen definitive proof in my life that a "God" exists, and I have looked harder and deeper than most I know.But I can't rule it out.

Others claim they KNOW God exists. They're lucky I guess. As I also take it to mean that others have a special super power that I and Millions of others don't have. It's funny how "God" shows himself to certain people or that certain people have certain lenses on their mind's eye that can 'see' God or know he/she/it is there.

I was reading the Bible at a scholarly level at 19 years old. Wanted to become a Theologian. I've experienced roughly 8 "UFO" encounters and lived with what you would call a 'ghost' for 4 years..yet I have never seen, heard, felt "God".

The only logical deductions I can come up with is:

1) I do not possess the secret power others do to see "God".

2) "God" is not self evident, and some just 'believe' so strongly it's become their truth. I.E.....there is no God.

3) There is a "God" but he just doesn't like me.

Since I don't possess the power to see God I might as well wait until I either do or don't. Logically all I can do is wait until "God" presents itself and I can go from there. Till then though I have not seen one shred of empirical evidence that can be attributed to such an entity. I really wish I could, but I tend not to attribute unexplainable things to an invisible thing which has never spoken to me or shown itself.

Originally posted by thepainweaver

Originally posted by schadenfreude
reply to post by thepainweaver

 

Interesting tactic. Responding to the evidence by NOT actually responding to the evidence.

Your "evidence" is nothing more than speculation; Writings that were created by goat herders in the desert thousands of years ago.

My "evidence comes from Gerald Schroeder who happens to have a double doctorate from MIT & Chuck Missler who has a masters degree in engineering, graduate work in applied mathematics, advanced statistics and information sciences you pompous airbag.

This isn't a change in his stance at all and essentially his words have been twisted by the religous apologists if you will. His life philosophy operates in a rational/logical framework. He cannot prove 100% that the Big Bang theory (or whatnot) is true and he cannot prove that a diety does not exist (as there is no possible scientific method to test this). Therefore he describes himself as an agnostic. On a scale of 1 to 7, 1 being religous, 7 being athiest, he labels himself a 6.9. Note, this is not a change in his stance towards religion in any way.

Many Athiests themselves say that we (athiests) are all agnostics to a certain degree. Some even believe that the word athiest shouldn't exist, when describing their religous/scientific preferences.

Originally posted by Starchild23
This man, should he retain his atheist beliefs, is basically calling all of the mathematicians who created the "Law of Probability" fools, and the Law of Probability itself (which puts the chances of the Earth forming at less than 0.000000001 of a chance) a lie.

If you can't rely on math (and apparently, Dawkins doesn't) then all you have left is religion.

Sweet, sweet irony...

edit on CFridaypm141432f32America/Chicago24 by Starchild23 because: (no reason given)

Take that percentage (0.00000001 or whatever), apply it to the entire universe and what do you get? You get Earth and more than a couple planets JUST like it.

Originally posted by silent thunder
Well this is an interesting development and significant in several ways.

Dawkins has long been what some might consider an "aggressive athiest," using his public position to argue heatedly and pointedly against religion. So when he qualifies what was previously a very staunch and hardline view in this way, it is significant, given his self-embraced "king of the athiests" role.

edit on 2/24/12 by silent thunder because: (no reason given)

Arguing or opposing religion does not in any way equate to not believing in a god on any level.
I really do not see the big whoop here.

reply to post by thepainweaver


Paradoxically, all you need to do to accept the existence of God is to follow the cutting edge of modern science and revelations of what we understand about the universe. Science is slowly catching on and Dawkins and his ilk will eventually have to concede.

Spiritualists will have you believe that a creator designed our existence and that we all reside within this creation.

Scientists will have you believe that given a few billion years, a few chemicals and the right petri dish conditions life will eventually spring up out of nowhere. Science cannot explain what matter is or even what consciousness is and yet they expect us to believe this fairy tale.

Get a grip people please.

Originally posted by schadenfreude

My "evidence comes from Gerald Schroeder who happens to have a double doctorate from MIT & Chuck Missler who has a masters degree in engineering, graduate work in applied mathematics, advanced statistics and information sciences you pompous airbag.

Gerald's data are wrong on so many levels (see: goat herders from 1,000 years ago). How to Lie With Statistics, by Darrell Huff - I suggest you read it.

Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by thepainweaver

 

Paradoxically, all you need to do to accept the existence of God is to follow the cutting edge of modern science and revelations of what we understand about the universe. Science is slowly catching on and Dawkings and his ilk will eventually have to concede.

Puhulease...

The man is a scientist therefore he does not dismiss anything for 100% that he cannot disproof for 100%
Rational.

A religious person believes in god for 100% and 100% only and no less. It is black or white, on or off, there is no reasoning in between.
Irrational.


Dont forget , you are all getting a hard-on over 000.0001% ,just because the man says that he is 99.9 sure as is his usual stance.


P.S stop downplaying and spinning it ,it is useless.The politics and 9/11 forums are over there,,

Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by thepainweaver

 

Paradoxically, all you need to do to accept the existence of God is to follow the cutting edge of modern science

There is nothing paradoxical about it. The cutting edge of modern science has nothing to do with persuading people to "accept the existence of a god". Science gives no more factual evidence for the idea than the spiritualists, i.e., absolutely none. Contrarily, modern cutting edge science doesn't provide factual evidence to disprove the idea of a god either.

reply to post by Rafe_


Spin, SPIN, you may be onto something there, keep up the good work. You may even get funding for your research from those that would benefit from having us believe we are all basically a bunch of chemicals and nothing else.
Good man. Whatever that is!

One final "proof" and then I'm out of this thread. Before my proof though I wish to address the apparent hypocrisy here in this thread by some of it's members.

Some of you claim to seek "proof" for what christians believe, then whenever we post that proof (which usually involves bible verses & the like) you squash us like bugs with the club of "science" and then snicker & laugh & act like you actually know something.

Occasionally however, you come across a christian who has some experience in academia. And when these ppl post THEIR proofs, you CONTINUE to ramble on & on & on about sky fairies, flying spaghetti monsters, and completely ignore the scientific evidence you asked for.

That's intellectually dishonest, and also very douchy.

So I'll leave this thread with one final proof, which believe it or not I usually use against christians.

Old Earth Theory vs. Young Earth Theory.

Most ppl that don't believe like to laugh at christians that believe the earth was created in six literal days, and they usually chuck fossils at us while they do it. The problem however, is that the answer to whether the earth is 4 billions years old, or 6 days really depends on your pov. (Point of view)

IF you were at the center of the big bang, and remained there when the universe was created, 6 days DID pass when it comes to the creation of this planet, however, if you "followed the wave" of the big bang, then the universe is in fact 16-20 billion years old & the earth is 4 billion.

6 days vs. 4 billion is NOT a contradiction. In Genesis 1:2 it says "And the earth was without form & void..." Now God doesn't make anything imperfect, yet here we have a verse saying it was void, what does that mean? There's something called the gap theory, which basically says the life on earth was actually created in 6 days yet the earth was here before it for an indetermined amount of time. That's not a copout, in fact most christians will argue with me over this very idea but I believe science and god can "get along".

What about the light from distant stars you ask? They are millions of light years away, how can we see them if what you say is true? No, the answer to THAT question is how do we know light speed has always remained constant? There are threads on ats now talking about neutrinos going faster than light. (Which would make them tachyons) We have no idea if the speed of light has been constant. (And this is not a copout either, the two atmoic clocks, one in London, and the other in Colarado are NOT identical, they are microseconds apart every year or few years iirc.) The point being we have no real idea just how much gravity and elevation takes part when it comes to space OR time, and how much it affects light.

To the posers: Don't be upset that I can argue my position more succinctly and accurately than you can, just man up and move along, or actually "deny ignorance" and pick up a fricking book.
To everyone else, I hope I've given you something to think about. I am opting out of this thread so if anyone wants to TRULY discuss it, u2u me, but don't bother if you just wanna pee me off or have a @#$% waving contest.

Peace.

Originally posted by kennyb72
reply to post by Rafe_

 

Spin, SPIN, you may be onto something there, keep up the good work. You may even get funding for your research from those that would benefit from having us believe we are all basically a bunch of chemicals and nothing else.
Good man. Whatever that is!

......


o
.
.
.
.
kaay

reply to post by thepainweaver


And you can't see the paradox within your statement ???

This thread shows me that people are quick to attack reasonable, thought-provoking people. As many have already said Mr Dawkins has already said this many a time.

He brings up rationality in all his speeches and discussions. If you wish to pick and choose from what he says and attack them then basically you are ignorant. How about his explanation of why he cannot be 100% sure if there is a god?

Most theists would refuse to listen to it because it attacks their 'faith'. Always quick to jump to something when they 'think' they have a reasonable contribution.

Look at ALL the facts, that is also what Richard Dawkins is telling us to do. Not assume he is completely wrong because he cannot prove there is or isn't a god.

Wake up people!!!!!!