God Vs. Science

[Flack_attack 0]

There's an interesting article in the Time magazine I recieved today about the debate between religion and science. It includes a discussion with Richard Dawkins and Christian genticist Francis Collins. I imagine most who frequent this particular board would find it interesting, or at least worth reading.Thoughts?

[Loismustdie 0]

I was just going to start a thread on this. I have one thought. After all was said and done, towards the end of the article, Mr.Dawkins admitted that ther could be a God- a God could possibly be the explanation for what he cannot explain. It's possible. Of course, he said that it was definitely improbable that it's the Christian God. I don't know how he gets there- he's willing to accept the thought that there is a 1 in 300 billion chance that we were formed over a period of 3 million years. Why would the christian God be so far fetched at that point I have no idea. I say Richard Dawkins was owned. Here's the link for you fellas. http://atheism.justgotowned.com/

[crowTrobot 2]

he's willing to accept the thought that there is a 1 in 300 billion chance that we were formed over a period of 3 million years

that makes no sense, since he doesn't think we were formed in 3 million years. have all the opinions you want but don't misquote the article please.

[WrongWay 0]

God could possibly be the explanation for what he cannot explain. It's possible. Of course, he said that it was definitely improbable that it's the Christian God. I don't know how he gets there

Well, there are actually 3 Christian Gods....Father/son/holy spirit.Well, actually, there are dozens of variations of each of these proported by various flavors of Christianity.Look, the first page of the Bible describes the earth as a flat disk in a giant sea covered with a sky dome, with the sun being a light attached to the inside of the dome. There is water above the sky that falls to the earth as rain when the windows of they sky dome are opened.What are the odds that a book that got the Earth THAT wrong just happened to get God right?Or, put another way. There are thousands of Gods that man has already defined. There are a near infinate more possible. What are the odds that of these bazillions of possible Gods, that one of the Christian Gods just happens to be "the" God?As for the article, main stream mags have to play to the audience. With 90% of the audience being "believers", I'm not shocked the atheist came out looking less than "clear winner" of the debate. Time has no desire to anger 90% of their market.

[Loismustdie 0]

Well, there are actually 3 Christian Gods....Father/son/holy spirit.Well, actually, there are dozens of variations of each of these proported by various flavors of Christianity.Look, the first page of the Bible describes the earth as a flat disk in a giant sea covered with a sky dome, with the sun being a light attached to the inside of the dome. There is water above the sky that falls to the earth as rain when the windows of they sky dome are opened.What are the odds that a book that got the Earth THAT wrong just happened to get God right?Or, put another way. There are thousands of Gods that man has already defined. There are a near infinate more possible. What are the odds that of these bazillions of possible Gods, that one of the Christian Gods just happens to be "the" God?As for the article, main stream mags have to play to the audience. With 90% of the audience being "believers", I'm not shocked the atheist came out looking less than "clear winner" of the debate. Time has no desire to anger 90% of their market.

Are the eyes really the actual window to the mind? Can you look in my eyes and see my thoughts? No. It's not meant to be taken as a literal statement. Please- I beg you- when you are reading anything- you must take what is being said and think about it and look at the context and who was doing the talking or writing and then you will have a clear concept of the picture. You obviously are nowhere near mastering this as of yet. Just don't stop trying- reading is fundamental.

[Canada 0]

Please- I beg you- when you are reading anything- you must take what is being said and think about it and look at the context and who was doing the talking or writing and then you will have a clear concept of the picture.

ROFLMAOPriceless

[Loismustdie 0]

ROFLMAOPriceless

Logical thinking assface.

[TenaciousMe 0]

I thought Dawkins finally encountered a formidible foe.Interesting though.

[mrdannyg 274]

I think people read too much into Dawkins' admissal of the possibility of a God. It would be impossible to completely disprove an all-powerful God, since the argument could always be made that said God simply hides himself or his existence.Dawkins does show that the existence of any God is very unlikely, and more importantly, that fully believing in the Christian God is almost laughable in how illogical it is. Frankly, I barely understand how people can so strongly believe in a Christian God as to base much of their life on His existence, when the existence is somewhat illogical, and so clearly based on the need for it, rather than it presenting itself.Oops, I didn't really add any decent argument. Sorry.

[Loismustdie 0]

I think people read too much into Dawkins' admissal of the possibility of a God. It would be impossible to completely disprove an all-powerful God, since the argument could always be made that said God simply hides himself or his existence.Dawkins does show that the existence of any God is very unlikely, and more importantly, that fully believing in the Christian God is almost laughable in how illogical it is. Frankly, I barely understand how people can so strongly believe in a Christian God as to base much of their life on His existence, when the existence is somewhat illogical, and so clearly based on the need for it, rather than it presenting itself.Oops, I didn't really add any decent argument. Sorry.

He didn't show anything, he just stated it, and in doing so also admitted that God being involved in/resposible for creation was just as likely as not. The part where he said "It most definitely isn't the christian God" had no backing, just a statement. What was his rational you ask? I will tell you. He basically said that it was a statistical improbability- which is fine. Sometimes, the numbers do lie. By the way, and nothing against you Danny but I will just say this- it is obvious that without faith this idea never gets off the ground. Some have it, some don't- I say live and let live.

[crowTrobot 2]

He didn't show anything, he just stated it, and in doing so also admitted that God being involved in/resposible for creation was just as likely as not.

lol i'm sure he did not.

[copernicus 0]

He didn't show anything, he just stated it, and in doing so also admitted that God being involved in/resposible for creation was just as likely as not. The part where he said "It most definitely isn't the christian God" had no

I cant find a copy of the magazine, but if that is what he actually says I will eat the article. If it isnt, you have to.

[Loismustdie 0]

I cant find a copy of the magazine, but if that is what he actually says I will eat the article. If it isnt, you have to.

Not in those words, and not neccesarily the God that I believe in, but in a roundabout way, yeah. Put it this way- he basically said that the odds of actually proving creation by evolution were not good, and the odds of proving creation by God were equally not good. So, what is another way to put that?

[crowTrobot 2]

Not in those words, and not neccesarily the God that I believe in, but in a roundabout way, yeah. Put it this way- he basically said that the odds of actually proving creation by evolution were not good, and the odds of proving creation by God were equally not good. So, what is another way to put that?

certainly not the way you put it.

[David_Nicoson 1]

I'll take God and the over.

[Loismustdie 0]

certainly not the way you put it.

That's actually exactly what I said, just worded differently.

[crowTrobot 2]

That's actually exactly what I said, just worded differently.

just because 2 different postulates can't be proved with certainty doesn't make them equally likely to be true.

[Loismustdie 0]

just because 2 different postulates can't be proved with certainty doesn't make them equally likely to be true.

Why?

[Canada 0]

Why?

You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist any more than you can show an intelligent designer does. ie they are both unproveable positionsWhich is more likely?

[copernicus 0]

Not in those words, and not neccesarily the God that I believe in, but in a roundabout way, yeah. Put it this way- he basically said that the odds of actually proving creation by evolution were not good, and the odds of proving creation by God were equally not good. So, what is another way to put that?

Your interpretation of what he "basically said" in a magazine article that is the interviewers interpretation/selection of what he said is likely to be quite far from what he actually said. He goes into great detail on why they are not equally likely in his book, which you are afraid to read and debate.

[Loismustdie 0]

Your interpretation of what he "basically said" in a magazine article that is the interviewers interpretation/selection of what he said is likely to be quite far from what he actually said. He goes into great detail on why they are not equally likely in his book, which you are afraid to read and debate.

Afraid? What are you, 7? I read the article, I deal with you guys, I recognize a bully with nothing but personal belief to back him up when I see one. That article told me that the book is a waste of time.

[BWToth 0]

I will tell you. He basically said that it (Christian God) was a statistical improbability- which is fine. Sometimes, the numbers do lie.

So what proof do you have that would lead you to believe in something that the numbers were lying. Only irrational or illogical arguments.If a lot of people believed in crow's spaghetti monster but it has been shown that the odds of it actually existing are 1:ginormous number, i'm going to have to believe it doesn't exist.

[crowTrobot 2]

You can't prove the flying spaghetti monster doesn't exist any more than you can show an intelligent designer does. ie they are both unproveable positionsWhich is more likely?

i was referring to what LMD said about evolution. neither evolution nor creation by the christian god can be proved or disproved with 100% certainty. however evolution IS proved for PRACTICAL PURPOSES by the evidence, while the christian god certainly is not. saying 2 things can't be proved with 100% certainty does not make them equal.

[solderz 0]

i was referring to what LMD said about evolution. neither evolution nor creation by the christian god can be proved or disproved with 100% certainty. however evolution IS proved for PRACTICAL PURPOSES by the evidence, while the christian god certainly is not. saying 2 things can't be proved with 100% certainty does not make them equal.

Well said. This is the area where most US citizens fall short. Fossils, ice cores from antartica, and tree ring data aren't enough for Christ's followers in this country. Makes me crazy.

[Loismustdie 0]

i was referring to what LMD said about evolution. neither evolution nor creation by the christian god can be proved or disproved with 100% certainty. however evolution IS proved for PRACTICAL PURPOSES by the evidence, while the christian god certainly is not. saying 2 things can't be proved with 100% certainty does not make them equal.

You know as well as I do that evolution as the source of creation is not proven. Not even for practical purposes. We evolve. Nobody in there right mind would challenge that. So, as I said before- and I guess I have to say it again- evolution as the source of creation is just as likely to be proven as the christian God being the source. Would you agree with that statement?