Has Anyone Won Anything In July's...
ChatterBank0 min ago
Richard Dawkins V Rowan Williams Round Two
116 Answers
When; Tonight
Where; Cambridge Union;
'To be filmed and made available on line.' In round 1 Prof. Dawkins admitted that there was a (remote) possibility that God existed. Will he acquiesce further against the full power of Williams's intellect, no longer Archbishop? Oh, to be there!
Where; Cambridge Union;
'To be filmed and made available on line.' In round 1 Prof. Dawkins admitted that there was a (remote) possibility that God existed. Will he acquiesce further against the full power of Williams's intellect, no longer Archbishop? Oh, to be there!
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Khandro. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Khandro
Question Author
“No one can draw more out of things, books included, than he already knows. A man has no ears for that to which experience has given him no access.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche.
15:51 Fri 01st Feb 2013
The benefits we gain from food is not in the eating alone but in the digestion and assimilation of the ingredients. Similarly we acquire knowledge not through mindless consumption but through a process of reasoned consideration of the material we have been presented with. To the extent we are able to grasp any existing relationships between it and our previously existing knowledge and integrate it into a non-contradictory whole we thereby achieve a broader context in which to systematically integrate new knowledge. Understanding the process of reason is essential to learning about and grasping a comprehensible reality.
Question Author
“No one can draw more out of things, books included, than he already knows. A man has no ears for that to which experience has given him no access.”
― Friedrich Nietzsche.
15:51 Fri 01st Feb 2013
The benefits we gain from food is not in the eating alone but in the digestion and assimilation of the ingredients. Similarly we acquire knowledge not through mindless consumption but through a process of reasoned consideration of the material we have been presented with. To the extent we are able to grasp any existing relationships between it and our previously existing knowledge and integrate it into a non-contradictory whole we thereby achieve a broader context in which to systematically integrate new knowledge. Understanding the process of reason is essential to learning about and grasping a comprehensible reality.
@Khandro
No. Uncertainty implies a significant chance that more than one outcome may be observed, perhaps as large as an even chance. If evidence and observation suggests a 99.999% likelihood, that is not being uncertain. Thats just acknowledging random chance, chaos theory and the limits of our current knowledge.
And the essential difference between an agnostic and an atheist is that an agnostic suggests that, with our current level of scientific understanding, we can not either prove or disprove the existence of god ( many go further and suggest we can never be able to prove or disprove the existence) - that the absence or presence of a god is essentially a 50:50 proposition.
The observation and evidence shows us that this is not the case; The balance of evidence strongly favours the proposition that there is no god. And even if we can prove definitively right now, I certainly do not believe we will never be able to prove or disprove that existence.
I am an atheist. I have a lack of belief in any god.
No. Uncertainty implies a significant chance that more than one outcome may be observed, perhaps as large as an even chance. If evidence and observation suggests a 99.999% likelihood, that is not being uncertain. Thats just acknowledging random chance, chaos theory and the limits of our current knowledge.
And the essential difference between an agnostic and an atheist is that an agnostic suggests that, with our current level of scientific understanding, we can not either prove or disprove the existence of god ( many go further and suggest we can never be able to prove or disprove the existence) - that the absence or presence of a god is essentially a 50:50 proposition.
The observation and evidence shows us that this is not the case; The balance of evidence strongly favours the proposition that there is no god. And even if we can prove definitively right now, I certainly do not believe we will never be able to prove or disprove that existence.
I am an atheist. I have a lack of belief in any god.
I have 99.999999% scientific reasons to believe God does not exist but I accept , remote as it is, I could be wrong.
A theist has % scientific reasons to believe that God exists but can not accept they may remotely be wrong.
Rowan Williams did partially come into the real world when he said:
Genesis may not be literary true.
A theist has % scientific reasons to believe that God exists but can not accept they may remotely be wrong.
Rowan Williams did partially come into the real world when he said:
Genesis may not be literary true.
Human eyesight can only pick up a tiny fraction of the electromagnetic spectrum and human hearing can only pick up a tiny fraction of sound frequencies . Human beings are not really in a position to state that something does not exist .
Animals whose eyes lack colour sensors can not see a rainbow but we can . We have physics teachers explaining how it occurs , refraction of light etc. The animals would think we were nutters having teachers to explain to us something which for them does not exist .
As for evidence that God does exist , what about life ? (not just human life but animals , plants and microbes ) and the incredibly intricate ecological web that sustains it ? Is it co-incidence ?
Picking up on Keyplus's point - it is remarkable the number of avowed atheists on here who would appear to know the bible inside out - it's as if it dominates their lives .
Animals whose eyes lack colour sensors can not see a rainbow but we can . We have physics teachers explaining how it occurs , refraction of light etc. The animals would think we were nutters having teachers to explain to us something which for them does not exist .
As for evidence that God does exist , what about life ? (not just human life but animals , plants and microbes ) and the incredibly intricate ecological web that sustains it ? Is it co-incidence ?
Picking up on Keyplus's point - it is remarkable the number of avowed atheists on here who would appear to know the bible inside out - it's as if it dominates their lives .
keyplus # Amazing, isn't it? #
What's amazing in it ? Scientists are by definition searchers for the truth.
Blindness to reality, is to a scientist, a disease of the mind .
A disease which defies logic .
By studying victims of such a disease a scientist gains knowledge, and knowledge is the elixir of life. Whereas blindness to reality is a dead end.
Keep up the good work keyplus we need our patients.
What's amazing in it ? Scientists are by definition searchers for the truth.
Blindness to reality, is to a scientist, a disease of the mind .
A disease which defies logic .
By studying victims of such a disease a scientist gains knowledge, and knowledge is the elixir of life. Whereas blindness to reality is a dead end.
Keep up the good work keyplus we need our patients.
argostran. You miss the point don't you. If I want to understand comics
I read them . If I want to understand the mind of Hitler I read Mein Kamph,
if I want to understand Aesops Fables, if I want to understand any book of fantasy I read it. By reading the bible fantasies I learn about its followers as well as its contents.
#As for evidence that God does exist , what about life ? (not just human life but animals , plants and microbes ) and the incredibly intricate ecological web that sustains it ? Is it co-incidence ?#
Tell me how does that PROVE God exists. It is your assumption , nothing more. If there was more, there would be a way of testing that assumption,
it would have been done thousands of years ago. That in itself tells the logical mind that the assumption is incorrect. You surely must agree that you would dearly love to be able to prove it to all the unbelievers. If not to yourself.
If God is all you claim for him, is true , then he would also like all the unbelievers to be enlightened. That's what's amazing . All that so called power and he has failed.
I read them . If I want to understand the mind of Hitler I read Mein Kamph,
if I want to understand Aesops Fables, if I want to understand any book of fantasy I read it. By reading the bible fantasies I learn about its followers as well as its contents.
#As for evidence that God does exist , what about life ? (not just human life but animals , plants and microbes ) and the incredibly intricate ecological web that sustains it ? Is it co-incidence ?#
Tell me how does that PROVE God exists. It is your assumption , nothing more. If there was more, there would be a way of testing that assumption,
it would have been done thousands of years ago. That in itself tells the logical mind that the assumption is incorrect. You surely must agree that you would dearly love to be able to prove it to all the unbelievers. If not to yourself.
If God is all you claim for him, is true , then he would also like all the unbelievers to be enlightened. That's what's amazing . All that so called power and he has failed.
KHANDRO you are not thinking straight. I cannot, by means of logic, prove that if I switch my TV set on now, it will not explode. However we all know that the chances of it exploding are extremely small, but not zero. For practical and sensible reasons we would say that my TV set will NOT explode if I switch it on. If we lived our lives according to your logic, saying that if something is not logically impossible, then we have to be prepared that it might happen however improbable, then it would not be possible to live a normal life.
This is what Dawkins means when he says that the chances that God exists are for all practical purposes zero. Logically it is impossible to prove that God does not exist, just as it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything!
But in practice everybody knows that certain things do not exist or will not happen.
So your remarks are fatuous.
This is what Dawkins means when he says that the chances that God exists are for all practical purposes zero. Logically it is impossible to prove that God does not exist, just as it is impossible to prove the non-existence of anything!
But in practice everybody knows that certain things do not exist or will not happen.
So your remarks are fatuous.
khandro LGs post of 99.999% is based on logic and science and the total inability of you to offer the slightest proof otherwise.
The likelihood of your belief being true is 0.00000000000...................1%
based on the known facts and thousands of years of history. As they say the ball is in you court if you can show/prove your belief is more than assumption and wishful thinking please let us know.
As a scientist I would be very happy to put your proof to repeatable tests and would be happy to be proved wrong. That's how science works we try to disprove our beliefs over and over again. It's a pity you don't have the same criteria and discipline.
The likelihood of your belief being true is 0.00000000000...................1%
based on the known facts and thousands of years of history. As they say the ball is in you court if you can show/prove your belief is more than assumption and wishful thinking please let us know.
As a scientist I would be very happy to put your proof to repeatable tests and would be happy to be proved wrong. That's how science works we try to disprove our beliefs over and over again. It's a pity you don't have the same criteria and discipline.
Argorstran, //As for evidence that God does exist , what about life ?//
You just don’t get it, do you? There is no evidence. Life isn’t evidence, books aren’t evidence – there is no evidence. It’s simply ridiculous to attempt to attribute anything to an imaginary being – because in the absence of the slightest evidence, that’s all god can possibly be considered to be.
Keyplus, //Amazing, isn't it?//
Why is it amazing? Whilst the evil nonsense that is religion continues to blight this planet, right thinking people will continue to voice their opposition.
You just don’t get it, do you? There is no evidence. Life isn’t evidence, books aren’t evidence – there is no evidence. It’s simply ridiculous to attempt to attribute anything to an imaginary being – because in the absence of the slightest evidence, that’s all god can possibly be considered to be.
Keyplus, //Amazing, isn't it?//
Why is it amazing? Whilst the evil nonsense that is religion continues to blight this planet, right thinking people will continue to voice their opposition.
Khandro, There should be no cause for definition. The words are surplus to requirements. For millennia the suggestion of the existence of a supernatural god/gods has been promulgated, with no evidence to support it, by men who know no more about life than the next man, and certainly a lot less than the scientists of today. You may as well talk about a-fairyists. That would make just as little sense.
Latest Posts
News2 mins ago
Crosswords4 mins ago
Will Starmer - If He Wins - Be A Part...
News9 mins ago
Second Reform Contender Defects To...
News12 mins ago
ChatterBank15 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.