@IPFreely1021 You have to understand that Mcgrath is using a philosophy view on the subject and dawkins is using a "scientific" method. So what you call "logic" holds no water.............Dawkins spens an entire chapter in his book devoted to "the probabilty of gods existence" and Alister blows it completely out of the water by simply saying "it doesnt matter if hes probable or improbable, the real question is DOES he exist" and hes right, you cant put a "probablity" on god
@revelation1234 What I am saying is that McGrath uses words which, while they follow a grammatical structure, do not conform to the logical structure which they imply.
@IPFreely1021 you just don't understand. And i think i finally understand this stuff. Your trying to look for "evidence" of god. But Mcgrath is simply saying "why would a being such as god feel the need to leave clues for his existence". If i paint a painting and forget to leave my signature. How do you know that "i" painted it?? since the painting has obvious proof of a specific painter, did the painting create itself? Thats a PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT lol. learn the difference.
@revelation1234 It is not a philosophical argument. It is a metaphysical argument. And, as I am sure you know, the greatest philosophers like A.J.Ayer, David Hume, Bertrand Russell did away with metaphysics in a few pages of their respective books. Your analogy is one similar to Paley's watch. His teleological argument (which is the essence of yours) is discarded by any repected philosopher. Its greatest error(as there are many) is that probabilities don't work backwards.
@revelation1234 The role of philosophy is not to make argumetns or metaphysics. It is not to speculate about the workings of the world or humans. This is the role of the natural sciences. The role of philosophy is purely analysis. (This is the understanding of the greatest philosophers of all time.) e.g. 'Language, truth and logic.'
@revelation1234 Simplistically....you said, with your painter analogy, that there is proof of a painter in the painting. So therefore, there must be a creator for the universe. This assumes that the universe is created. Just because we have a mother, it does not mean that the universe has a mother. Just because we create things, it doesn't mean that the universe was created. My other point was that metaphysics like McGrath and Criag use, is dead.
@IPFreely1021 It's not "metaphysics" bro. Do your resarch , its philosophy,learn your definitions. but its w,e come back with a real argument. Your one dimensional athiest arguments are dead. Saying there's no proof will only get you so far when your dealing with a real philosopher.
@revelation1234 Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy (I should say 'was') concerned with the ontology of things. Before the natural sciences developed, metaphysics concerned itself with these arguments (i.e. what is there? Why is it as it is?) Metaphysics is a form of enquiry which is simply a language game. After A.J. Ayer, Hume, Bertrand Russell etc metaphysics was ultimately reduced to nothing by their sharp analysis. The arguments that McGrath emplys are metaphysical.
@revelation1234 And 'real' philosophers (Ayer, Moore, Russel, Hume etc) would disagree. Any argument without empirical evidence is metaphysical. (e.g.cosmlogical argument). From what you say (e.g.'its not metapysics, it's philosophy' - which is a taoutology) it seems clear that you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.
McGrath is very careful the way that he answers the questions so as to appear respectful to other religions. However by forwarding the resurrection, for example, he implicitly accepts many other inter-related dogmas of conservative Christianity that expect followers of other religions to be damned for eternity.
how can atheism have morals? if you say have a family of four including yourself, say that the other three in your family die before you. What reason do you have to live for?
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
I enjoy the humbleness of both in this conversation, but I must confess I think Dawkins used a very bad argument, when he said he would be more intellectual happy if God evolved :S As if there was any logic to that what so ever.
What a opportunist twit McGrath is!! Dawkins pawned his argument from design to his face , by applying the very same reasoning to his God. McGrath concedes the argument from the aspect of "Human reasoning" but counters that his fantasy god transcends human reasoning!! What the hell is HE, himself, using to understand "God".
I've seen him criticising Dawkins reasoning when being interviewed, unchallenged, on a religious programme later. He didn't then negate logic where it applies to "God"
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
He's intelligent. He's so intelegent that he's able to make a rational argument gratifying his own delusions. Obviously he's clever enough to see right from wrong, so I'm baffled as to why he thinks he must follow the writing of ancient bigots to live his life morally.
the "creation" is trying to disprove the "CREATOR" ?!? ... I'm sure this guy cannot explain the Theory of ElectroMagnetics and he's trying to understand "GOD" ?. ... ahahHAHA !!! ... People already worshipping God long time before he was born and then one day he woke up and decided to disprove God... AHAHaha !!!!
“if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?” -- JEFFREY DAHMER (atheist, cannibal and necrophiliac).
@ikawpipa It's untenable to assume that incredulity of a daddy in the sky is a sufficient cause of immorality. However, sexually repressed priests can believe in God, pray, genuflect and stick their cocks in little boys, and be exculpated by their faith.
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
Dawkins is right, our spontanious coming-into-being, as we are now, is more improbable than a smaller improbability.
But this is where this debate could use a Non-Abrahamic perspective, because life in itself it the ultimate improbability. Since we're not just a collection of inanimate things, then the Universe has a "special quality" that Reason can NEVER explain.
As civilized a debate between a religious person and an athiest as this is, it's still goes nowhere ultimately.
All I'm hearing is: 'science doesn't prove anything 100%' Vs 'God cannot be disproved 100%'.
So unless science unlocks an empirical 'formula for everything', this kind of discourse won't solve anything.
This is the problem with 'Vs religion' debates; religion always tries to turn the impossible notion of 'absolute 100% certainty' back on science and logical thinking. Zero sum game.
@Sablicious Fair points. I find it very interesting. If we look back to how science developed, and what its development was dependent on, we quickly realize that coming to any meaningful conclusion requires that we rely on rationalism AND empiricism. Not simply one or the other. This is because in order for science to work, it needs to presuppose logical and mathematical truths, to name a few. As such, it's an axiomatic system too. [cont
@EnjoiningKnowlege This indicates that there are indeed 'truths' beyond the remit of science. However, I can't conceive of how these' truths' can conflict with logic. This really points to how we need some logical laws to gain any meaningful knowledge about reality. For example, the law of non-contradiction: that some proposition cannot be both true and false in the same context.
@EnjoiningKnowlege It'd also be futile to argue that logic does not correspond to reality, since any such argument would rely on logic to begin with, which is self-defeating. So, in conclusion, it seems that although we need science to determine the specific mechanics of the universe, via logic we can come to some understanding of the 'big picture', or at least aspects of the 'big picture'. As stated, an example is the Law of non-contradiction, which science depends on. Peace!
@MCulpa All science versus religion debates descend into the same tit-for-tat -"science doesn't have all the answers & is being re-written all the time" ... "there is no proof of any god ever existing, ever".
All I can say is, the lack of evidence for something NOT existing is not evidence of its existence. This is erroneous logic & an idiot's mantra to live one's life by.
If all these gods wanted lemming sheep, why did they create free-thinking people?
Religion largely serves those who need it most, those who are of limited intellect and education. Yet it does serve them well by providing, hopefully, a sense of right and wrong and of hope. Now if you are the typical atheist I have just exposed your greatest weakness and the very reason why I prefer the company of simple minded, god fearing folk to elitist athiests: upon reading my first sentence you felt superior and your ego swelled and made it all the more likely you will never open your mi
I agree with Dawkins, you don't need God to explain the natural world of evolution. But, what you do need is laws. The origin of these laws is something that scientists haven't the slightest clue about. Where do laws come from? why do they exist at all? Why is there existence of anything at all including time,space and matter?
@AegeanKing Yes, that is inexplicable at the moment. We could just say, "why shouldn't there be matter?" We do not understand enough to answer that. Science does have a huge advantage over theism, however, in that it will continue to investigate, and also admitds we may never get there. Religion gives up, and just says that everything we don't currently understand must have been done by a god. We have disproved many many of these assumptions over the years, bacteria, meteorology etc.
@sids500 "Why shouldn't there be matter?" is a question that is irrelevant because there is matter. The question of why is there existence of anything at all is a far more important question. Also, If you think that scientists are going to figure out the origin of these laws than I have a some beach front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
@AegeanKing Not everything has, or requires an explanation. some questions may not relevant or answerable. why is there gravity, for example. What makes you think every question should have an answer? we are beings of finite capacity to understand, although this limit is extending through evolution. We cant answer some questions, but we can certainly answer many. E.G there never was a world-wide flood at the time of Noah. Dinosaurs existed. Many of which disprove the stories of the bible.
haha dawkins is trying to say that we evolved from an another species and the god evolved with our brains at the same time. but i think we re just dreaming
@gogolplex74 Most of us our my friend; the television will present a different image of course; but "the squeaky wheel gets the oil" as they say - reasonable, calm talkers don't equate to ratings, and that's what tv producers are interested in, and that goes for all beliefs and creeds. But I'm sure everyone who's interested can agree that we all get so much more out of it when we speak calmly and above all, respectfully, to one another. All this ranting and raving really need stop.
@gogolplex74 The fact that he is respecfull of his interlocutor doesnt make him less of an imbecile, saying imbecilities, not because he's a christian, but because his answers are the paroxism of intellectual and cowardness and bases his whole faith on a "it makes me feel good".
@gogolplex74 Definitely! Even if they weren't as well educated as him, all they need to be is reasonable and accept other's opinions. We are painted in such a bad light because of a few overly-dogmatic believers who refuse to consider the views of others a la Westboro Baptist Church. It's a shame.
@gogolplex74 McGrath is very careful the way that he answers the questions so as to appear respectful to other religions. However by forwarding the resurrection, for example, he implicitly accepts many other inter-related dogmas of conservative Christianity that expect followers of other religions to be damned for eternity.
the idea that the beginning of the world was "simple" as to it's design , being a singularity of design, that this is more easy to accept than a total chaos, is probably not an intelligent assumption. Chaos, if true, would have an eternity past to be as complexity: and thus a simpler beginning of the Universe would be harder, not easier to comprehend. Everything being uniform and lacking chaotic patterns, would be impossible by any scientific concept of numbers. One is a harder concept.
@alkowarizmi but the absence of evidence indicates that existence is very unlikely, like the absence of evidence for unicorns, it doesn't prove there isn't any, it just shows that it is very unlikely they exist
@rememberthename33 Why don't we therefore wait till we can prove God doesn't exist before reaching the conclusion that He doesn't. He that believes that He exists, without proof (even though I have proof) and he that believes He doesn't exist, also without proof are indulging in the same thing.
Then again, peeps like Dawkins don't need to prove God doesn't exist. Just prove another phenomenon that completely contradicts the existence of God. As far as I know, such feat hasn't been achieved.....
@alkowarizmi because you CAN'T prove a negative, you can't prove bigfoot doesn't exist, you can't prove fairies don't exist and you can't prove god doesn't exist. when you make a claim (such as claiming that there is a god) then you ahve to prove that claim by using evidence to support it. you can't just make a claim and then say "well it's true until you prove it isn't" you have to support it. if you have evidence for god, which you claim you do, then that's great, tell us what it is.
I actually really liked this guy's arguments - perhaps the first religious speaker I can say that about - until he said the stuff about God not requiring an explanation.
@rawssremix You raise a good point, at the end his entire platform to defend his believe in God always bottom to the sadly familiar God is because he is.
Mcgrath doesnt seem sincere. He seems to come off as, " I dont really believe all this stuff, but Im very well educated and can probably make more money defending religion."
Being someone who has prayed for many years I cna say that prayer is not futile. If you think that it is I encourage you to do a Google or Youtube search on it. You cannot prove Evolution using the Scientific method. You can say that God is unobservable through the Scientific method but you cannot say that Evolution is observable outside of micro Evolution. In this case you have to rely on faith at some point. There comes a point when you have no choice but to rely on faith.
Dawkins is viewing God as a biologist, and that creates a problem in his understanding. Improbability concerning complex structures like the eye cannot be applied to God because, for one, it assumes that God "suddenly appeared." That is not McGrath's, or any Theist's position. We know for a fact that the eye was created, either by God or by evolution, thus the argument applied to the eye is sound. But God was not created. Thus, this line of reasoning does not apply.
It's not ridiculous. What is ridiculous is to argue for an infinite regress, which is the inevitable result of arguing that God had a beginning. Nevertheless, the absurdity of an infinite regress is not the only reason for arguing that God is self-existence and uncaused, although it is a sufficient reason in and of itself. It also logically follows that since God created time, He must necessarily be outside of time, therefore eternal.
@AgApE010 so you conclude that God is the final answer to everything, and that God has always been there, therefore ending the infinite regress? Why do we have to go that extra step and say that God created the universe, and God is infinite? Why can't we just say that the universe has always been there? and leave it at that? There is no reason to add an extra step in the questioning, especially when an answer of that description does not motivate the quest for the true answer.
Ok so I am suppose to believe God doesn't exist But I am suppose to believe that there was nothing that become everything all on the basis that some guy thought it up and they think they have evidence? They cant even 100% proof their views but then call me irrational because I believe in something I cant 100% prove.
don't forget all the flaws with our eyes, ears, our teeth. does a god make sense to the flaws of the universe, as he supposes god makes sense of the "positives"?
So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?
The difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed.
@fatalisferrum i don't think that is a problem for evolution, because all those parts that have to work together always worked together, since the beggining of their development, and they only came about BECAUSE they were able to work together and produce some kind of trait or hability that was an advantage. it is not like all those parts developed with disregard to the rest of the other organs. they only exist now because they were formed gradually over time and along side each other,
@big5824 ha ha very good but my dad was a bio chemist and athiest and he hated dawkins too but me i believe in god but not a christian so thank you for your kind and generous remarks hope ine day you will think for yourself but goddamn this new religion called secular athiests doesnt allow it ,does it now
@big5824 yes my language in my first remark was to say the least a little bit juvinile but i just smoked this killer weed and put the great dylan on little bit angry ..lol
The sad thing is, Dawkins does not WANT to believe in God and therefore has quite a bit of bias towards anything related to Him. Probably a reaction to the creationist movement that seems to ignore things as opposed to explain them.
@emekonen Who would want to believe in a God(s)? As Douglas Adams once said, Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
@ethionel Its not a question of wether I want to believe in God(s) or not. I too was a fairly hardcore atheist, and actually was not raised to believe in anything. Dawkins, however, seems to have an almost unhealthy disdain towards faith or religion if you will. As I said, I feel he has become so militant because of creationists.
cs lewis fiction, come on dawkins is talking fact, this is what theists do, quote people out of context and use it as evidence, its a losing battle, tick tock
Are they actually debating *with* arguments or just playing warm and fuzzy with each others feelings? I hear nothing substantial here...only shallow critiques of the implications of God and nuances...ehh wheres WLC and Walter Sinott-Armstrong when you need em'?
@yehudaful1 I believe that debates shouldn't mean arguments, though they generally end up as such. Indeed, when two people can get together with truly open (but skeptical) minds, the human race can make strides in its understanding of the cosmos. In summation, we should be applauding what these men are doing, or at least the method in which they are doing it.
@yehudaful1 I suppose this was a simple misunderstanding then. From your original comment it sounded like you "wanted blood", perhaps I was to quick in my assumptions. Though I will agree that some of their points are trite.
Dawkins wants the theory of evolution to explain EVERYTHING and that's where he goes wrong. This theory is about a certain frame of reality, but there are other levels. And that's just a theory, not a fact, Dawins says so himself. How can that theory explain the fact that I have a conscience? I can't, it was not meant to do that in the first place. FAITH needs no explaining. How can I explain by scientific means the faith I have in my father, for example?
@cashernandes1 You can't explain your faith because it's based on tradition, authority and imagination. Dawkins in other documentaries says that evolution is a fact, it is proven by studying the genes, with today's technology the fossils wouldn't be needed at all to prove evolution genes are enough.Your conscience is explained by evolution by the brain structure developed during the years.Your neurons can be mapped and brain activity when you think can be proved by using MRI. Welcome to reality
@xwlr Just because Dawkins alleges it's a fact you won't even question it? Talk about faith. DARWIN himself says its a theory.
I'm not saying Darwinism is false, I'm just saying it does not purport, along with science, to answer all quesitons about humankind. I'm sorry, there is 0 scientific evidence we all have a concience, even though everyone assumes it perfectly well. You still haven't answered my question: how can you measure by scientific means the faith I have in my father, for example?
@cashernandes1 It can't be measured otherwise than measuring brain activity. But since faith is always present in your brain, it would be impossible to separate it form intellectual background noise. I belive evolution because not only Dawkins, but many other scientists say so and it seems logical to me. I believe it because science is trustworthy. Science has an INCREDIBLE trace of success, it changed the way we live in 200 years. None of it can be said about religion.
@xwlr Oh, and before you mention that in our present time we have the technology to study genes and that's why Darwin presented the natural selection as a theory and not a fact, I must question you: have you actually read any of those studies that Dawkins refers to that purport to establish a relation between genes and natural selection? Will you show me them? I'd be genuinely glad to read them.
@cashernandes1 Before you make stupid suggestions, I don't claim Darwin presented evolution based on facts he didn't knew about. That would be as dump as a creationist can get. Darwin presented evolution as a theory because he wasn't 100% sure. Dawkins said evolution is a fact in one of his documentarys, I dunno exactly wich. One thing is a fact anyway: evolution is the best scientific explanation supported with evidence and far more reasonable and believable than any other, including goddie.
@xwlr The trouble with your reasoning is that Dawkins made you believe that the scientific method is applicable to absolutely everything, and it's not. Brain activity? Ok, but what is it the scientific proof that my increased brain activity is connected to my faith in my father? What exactly produces that effect, how and why? How can science proove that Dawkins, for instance, has a conscience and is not a "robot"? We all know, for example, that fire produces heat, but why? ...
@xwlr ...Science does not even purport to explain that, it goes from that empirical observation on.
I completely disagree with your assertion that regilion has not had a positive and necessary effect in our lives. Religion is what glues a society together, it always has. Lack of religion is connected to a decaying society. You can see it yourself: Europe's ever more conspicuous atheism tendencies are certainly giving it a hard time, as Islam rapidly conquers the land. ...
@cashernandes1 Look at the Holy Land. Religion tears it apart. Yes religion tends to make people stick together in ONE religion and tends to provoke war BETWEEN religions. For example terrorism in Islam(9/11) and Christianity (IRA-bloody friday). Religion also provoke hatred towards homosexuals, people form other reaces or religion or even from another denomination.
@xwlr ... Without religion there wouldn't even BE a platform on which the study of science could take place. There shouldn't be a chasm between religion and science, but Dawkins and his friends want you to believe so. I must remind you that many scientific breakthoughs were achieved by religious scientists, which shouldn't make any sense to you, I guess. About evolution: first you said it was a fact, now I'm glad you seem to concede it is the best explanation out there. ...
@cashernandes1 Religion always slowed the progress of science, when burning scientists for example. Yes, many scientists in early ages were christians, because EVERYONE was a christian and they've been indoctrinated from childhood. Of course they were religious, there was no "free will" in 1700 you would have benn casted out of society as an atheist. Ever heard of Pascal's wager? You see for example Pascal started to question his faith but concluded it's safer to keep it.
@cashernandes1 You mock the very name of science by claiming that religion wich tended to burn scientists is the very base of science. It's not, it slowed it's progress. I never said EV is a fact, I said Dawkins said it. I BELIEVE in evolution due to the overwhelimg evidence and track record of success of science, once finally managed to get free of religion (separation of church and state). I agree we might change our mind altough it's not likely. It's like 95% to evolution. Nothing more to it.
@xwlr ... I agree with you, I never said it wasn't. Alister McGrath himself believes it to be the best one we got, even though he believes we could change our minds 100 years from now. So Dawkins, along with the rest of us, could be wrong about evolution after all. (Sorry about the long answer)
@cashernandes1 Ah, damn you, I just had a week long argument with another one of you, I'm tired! Who the hell cares of your faith? Why should I say a scientific method that proves you have faith? We got MRI that measures brain activity and that's all we got now. Religion couldn't have achieved even this so be statisfied. And to be honest, I don't give a shit wheather Dawkins is a robot or not, because the whole argument is so absurd and sperated from reality.
@xwlr One more question: how can the scientific method explain what I find beautiful or ugly? Is there a scientific explanation that shows why I believe A is beautiful and B is not? You may say it's a brain reaction: what causes that reaction exactly?
@cashernandes1 Neurons reacting with each other. Be happy with this, for I won't know anymore and if you want to, get educated! I am not omnitient. But there certainly IS more to know about it. Another fact: conscience can be destroyed by damaging the brain, so soul as product of simple conciusness is excluded. Any other soul I can't disprove and don't want to. Damn, I wish I had one, but I don't know, and for now I don't care.
@cashernandes1 Evolution is, essentially, a fact. There is overwhelming evidence for it. Just go on Google and do some research. There is no denying it.
@MissKatRob But there's no evidence for that; both of these scientists are basing their arguments on rationality, evidence and probability. You are not.
@morphicwraith I get what your saying, but what im saying is you cant rule God out, based on our rational and science, cause that can turn out to be the worst mistake of our lives, as science is always changing and moving forward, and we discover new possibilities. God claims He is eternal when science says that is not possible, so wouldnt that show that whatever the first thing was would have to be something that is eternal and goes outside scientific bounds?
Hitler was raised as a Christian, and said in mein kampf that God created the Aryan race. His true beliefs remain in dispute and fortunately he is dead and we can not interview him
Oh, and Hitler was no believer, saying "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."
watching mcgrath makes my neck hurt
upizdown 4 weeks ago
I hope this argument continues for my lifetime because i just love it. The day we find out the real evidence will be a disapointment.
housty49 1 month ago
christians, take notes. youd gather more respect from people if you were reasonably sound like mcgrath.
yamammiwammi 1 month ago
Im sorry i love Dawkins and have all his books. Butin some of the questions he ask, McGrath shit on him with his beautiful responses.
revelation1234 2 months ago
@revelation1234 Try looking past eloquence and identify the logic used. You will find McGrath makes no logically sound points: Dawkins makes various.
IPFreely1021 1 month ago
@IPFreely1021 You have to understand that Mcgrath is using a philosophy view on the subject and dawkins is using a "scientific" method. So what you call "logic" holds no water.............Dawkins spens an entire chapter in his book devoted to "the probabilty of gods existence" and Alister blows it completely out of the water by simply saying "it doesnt matter if hes probable or improbable, the real question is DOES he exist" and hes right, you cant put a "probablity" on god
revelation1234 1 month ago
@revelation1234 Right.....And I, and most people, agree....but then there is no valid evidence provided by McGrath......
IPFreely1021 1 month ago
@IPFreely1021 Because when it comes down to trying to figure whether or not he exist,probablity doesnt matter
revelation1234 1 month ago
@revelation1234 What I am saying is that McGrath uses words which, while they follow a grammatical structure, do not conform to the logical structure which they imply.
IPFreely1021 1 month ago
@IPFreely1021 you just don't understand. And i think i finally understand this stuff. Your trying to look for "evidence" of god. But Mcgrath is simply saying "why would a being such as god feel the need to leave clues for his existence". If i paint a painting and forget to leave my signature. How do you know that "i" painted it?? since the painting has obvious proof of a specific painter, did the painting create itself? Thats a PHILOSOPHICAL ARGUMENT lol. learn the difference.
revelation1234 1 month ago
@revelation1234 It is not a philosophical argument. It is a metaphysical argument. And, as I am sure you know, the greatest philosophers like A.J.Ayer, David Hume, Bertrand Russell did away with metaphysics in a few pages of their respective books. Your analogy is one similar to Paley's watch. His teleological argument (which is the essence of yours) is discarded by any repected philosopher. Its greatest error(as there are many) is that probabilities don't work backwards.
IPFreely1021 1 month ago
@revelation1234 The role of philosophy is not to make argumetns or metaphysics. It is not to speculate about the workings of the world or humans. This is the role of the natural sciences. The role of philosophy is purely analysis. (This is the understanding of the greatest philosophers of all time.) e.g. 'Language, truth and logic.'
IPFreely1021 1 month ago
@IPFreely1021 Dude how does that change anything i said ?
revelation1234 1 month ago
@revelation1234 Simplistically....you said, with your painter analogy, that there is proof of a painter in the painting. So therefore, there must be a creator for the universe. This assumes that the universe is created. Just because we have a mother, it does not mean that the universe has a mother. Just because we create things, it doesn't mean that the universe was created. My other point was that metaphysics like McGrath and Criag use, is dead.
IPFreely1021 1 month ago
@IPFreely1021 It's not "metaphysics" bro. Do your resarch , its philosophy,learn your definitions. but its w,e come back with a real argument. Your one dimensional athiest arguments are dead. Saying there's no proof will only get you so far when your dealing with a real philosopher.
revelation1234 1 month ago
@revelation1234 Metaphysics is a branch of philosophy (I should say 'was') concerned with the ontology of things. Before the natural sciences developed, metaphysics concerned itself with these arguments (i.e. what is there? Why is it as it is?) Metaphysics is a form of enquiry which is simply a language game. After A.J. Ayer, Hume, Bertrand Russell etc metaphysics was ultimately reduced to nothing by their sharp analysis. The arguments that McGrath emplys are metaphysical.
IPFreely1021 1 month ago
@revelation1234 And 'real' philosophers (Ayer, Moore, Russel, Hume etc) would disagree. Any argument without empirical evidence is metaphysical. (e.g.cosmlogical argument). From what you say (e.g.'its not metapysics, it's philosophy' - which is a taoutology) it seems clear that you haven't the slightest clue what you are talking about.
IPFreely1021 1 month ago
One incredibly intelligent and enlightened human being, and Alister McGrath.
BarryDong 2 months ago
McGrath is very careful the way that he answers the questions so as to appear respectful to other religions. However by forwarding the resurrection, for example, he implicitly accepts many other inter-related dogmas of conservative Christianity that expect followers of other religions to be damned for eternity.
osiris7nz 2 months ago
why does he lean so much
kingBenTheBadger 3 months ago
how can atheism have morals? if you say have a family of four including yourself, say that the other three in your family die before you. What reason do you have to live for?
hello83558 3 months ago
@hello83558 I have morals because I know what is right and wrong, not because I am scared of a god
kingBenTheBadger 3 months ago
@hello83558 LOL! What? Please think more.
steviethesoundguy 2 months ago
How come the clips are so short?
1TheLoneWolf1 3 months ago
can dawkins say the big bang evolved
hanghang71 3 months ago
@hanghang71 Is this an argument for god? The Big Bang?
IPFreely1021 1 month ago
@dawkins says he would be happier if god somehow evolved,well that's ridiculous did the big bang evolve
hanghang71 1 month ago
@hanghang71 I still don't understand your question. Are you implying god is the big bang. Because that is drastically altering the definition of god.
IPFreely1021 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given to the profane masses is another useful idiot for Jesuit machinations-C.O.
Jesuitical: pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system to suit their Evo-Hoax agenda to discredit the Bible. They cant have a Satanic society of 'Do as Thou Wilt' if people still follow the Bible
SpencerBenedict2nd 5 months ago
I enjoy the humbleness of both in this conversation, but I must confess I think Dawkins used a very bad argument, when he said he would be more intellectual happy if God evolved :S As if there was any logic to that what so ever.
Aslak1Simonsen 5 months ago
@Aslak1Simonsen That's exactly what he was implying.
IPFreely1021 1 month ago
What a opportunist twit McGrath is!! Dawkins pawned his argument from design to his face , by applying the very same reasoning to his God. McGrath concedes the argument from the aspect of "Human reasoning" but counters that his fantasy god transcends human reasoning!! What the hell is HE, himself, using to understand "God".
I've seen him criticising Dawkins reasoning when being interviewed, unchallenged, on a religious programme later. He didn't then negate logic where it applies to "God"
Tobytrim 5 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For top philosophy of religion & sceptical analysis of Bible & religion try Robert M Price, John W. Loftus, Dan Barker, Victor J. Stenger. E.A.Wallis Budge translation of, 'The Papyrus of Ani' (1500BCE comp O.T.800-300BCE ish), Donald A. Mackenzie,' Egyptian myth and legend', James G Frazer, 'The Golden Bough', Thomas Paine, Joseph Wheless, Robert Ingersoll, C.Dennis Mckinsey, Bart Ehrman, Gary Greenberg, Richard Carrier, Valerie Tarico, Ken Humphreys, archaeologist Israel Finkelstein
zytigon 6 months ago
He's intelligent. He's so intelegent that he's able to make a rational argument gratifying his own delusions. Obviously he's clever enough to see right from wrong, so I'm baffled as to why he thinks he must follow the writing of ancient bigots to live his life morally.
noahsyc1 6 months ago
and I wish all atheists were like Carl sagan
gogolplex74 6 months ago
@gogolplex74 I wish everyone were like me
RedSandDuster 6 months ago
@gogolplex74 Carl Sagan was agnostic not full blown atheist.
SupernovaAssassin 4 months ago
@SupernovaAssassin yeah I know, but he is definitely my favourite non-religious person
gogolplex74 4 months ago
I love Dawkins's eye flutter.
ashburnhouse 6 months ago
the "creation" is trying to disprove the "CREATOR" ?!? ... I'm sure this guy cannot explain the Theory of ElectroMagnetics and he's trying to understand "GOD" ?. ... ahahHAHA !!! ... People already worshipping God long time before he was born and then one day he woke up and decided to disprove God... AHAHaha !!!!
ikawpipa 6 months ago
“if a person doesn’t think that there is a God to be accountable to, then what’s the point of trying to modify your behavior to keep it within acceptable ranges?” -- JEFFREY DAHMER (atheist, cannibal and necrophiliac).
ikawpipa 6 months ago
@ikawpipa It's untenable to assume that incredulity of a daddy in the sky is a sufficient cause of immorality. However, sexually repressed priests can believe in God, pray, genuflect and stick their cocks in little boys, and be exculpated by their faith.
ashburnhouse 6 months ago
@ashburnhouse - nothing to do with Jesus Christ.
ikawpipa 6 months ago
@ikawpipa: Replace atheist with born again Christian and YEC.
GoldenRatio2 3 months ago
@GoldenRatio2 - if everyone in this world were like me, then finally Peace can be achieved.
ikawpipa 3 months ago
@ikawpipa: Ha! Yeah right.
GoldenRatio2 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: DEADLY ARGUMENTS NOW ADDED For The Creationism-Evolutionism Debate (See Subchapter 10.2.2.), The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com
etc.
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
NEW BOOK FOR DEBATES AND GOVERNANCE
Topics: The Issue On The Criminal Liability Of Foretelling The END OF THE WORLD, Other Debated Issues, Terrorism, War, Law, Politics, Religion, Philosophy, Science, Others.
Websites: balanceddiet1.yolasite.com etc.
See Figure 4, which is THE MEANING OF THE PYRAMID, at figure4etc.yolasite.com
or
figure4etc3.yolasite.com
See Announcements at announcements-balancedway.weebly.com announcements-balancedway.yolasite.com
TheServiceWeb 7 months ago
Comment removed
thejeffstiffy 7 months ago
Dawkins is right, our spontanious coming-into-being, as we are now, is more improbable than a smaller improbability.
But this is where this debate could use a Non-Abrahamic perspective, because life in itself it the ultimate improbability. Since we're not just a collection of inanimate things, then the Universe has a "special quality" that Reason can NEVER explain.
LordShivasServant 7 months ago
@LordShivasServant Didn't we rule out spontaneous generation a long, long time ago? And now it's back? Wow...
RayTech70 7 months ago
@RayTech70 Sorry? I'm not sure how to relate that to what I said... but I am interested.
LordShivasServant 7 months ago
@fidenful, true that. It's about time we had some civilized discussion
MrRingostark 7 months ago
Contrast this interview to the Wendy Wright interview: it's startling.
ZachRose88 8 months ago 6
@ZachRose88 i was just thinking the same! :O
freiheitsalv 7 months ago
As civilized a debate between a religious person and an athiest as this is, it's still goes nowhere ultimately.
All I'm hearing is: 'science doesn't prove anything 100%' Vs 'God cannot be disproved 100%'.
So unless science unlocks an empirical 'formula for everything', this kind of discourse won't solve anything.
This is the problem with 'Vs religion' debates; religion always tries to turn the impossible notion of 'absolute 100% certainty' back on science and logical thinking. Zero sum game.
Sablicious 8 months ago 8
@Sablicious Fair points. I find it very interesting. If we look back to how science developed, and what its development was dependent on, we quickly realize that coming to any meaningful conclusion requires that we rely on rationalism AND empiricism. Not simply one or the other. This is because in order for science to work, it needs to presuppose logical and mathematical truths, to name a few. As such, it's an axiomatic system too. [cont
EnjoiningKnowlege 2 months ago
@EnjoiningKnowlege This indicates that there are indeed 'truths' beyond the remit of science. However, I can't conceive of how these' truths' can conflict with logic. This really points to how we need some logical laws to gain any meaningful knowledge about reality. For example, the law of non-contradiction: that some proposition cannot be both true and false in the same context.
EnjoiningKnowlege 2 months ago
@EnjoiningKnowlege It'd also be futile to argue that logic does not correspond to reality, since any such argument would rely on logic to begin with, which is self-defeating. So, in conclusion, it seems that although we need science to determine the specific mechanics of the universe, via logic we can come to some understanding of the 'big picture', or at least aspects of the 'big picture'. As stated, an example is the Law of non-contradiction, which science depends on. Peace!
EnjoiningKnowlege 2 months ago
@Sablicious
Can you point out where Dr. McGrath argued as such?
MCulpa 1 week ago
@MCulpa All science versus religion debates descend into the same tit-for-tat -"science doesn't have all the answers & is being re-written all the time" ... "there is no proof of any god ever existing, ever".
All I can say is, the lack of evidence for something NOT existing is not evidence of its existence. This is erroneous logic & an idiot's mantra to live one's life by.
If all these gods wanted lemming sheep, why did they create free-thinking people?
(*keeping in mind, 'god' is infallible)
Sablicious 1 week ago
@Sablicious
could you give me a time stamp and video, I'm having a hard time finding where mcgrath says his
MCulpa 6 days ago
I believe in the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Whosoever does not bow to this belief system will have a 'Fettuccine' (Jihad) declared against them.
See my logic?
Sablicious 8 months ago
The intelectual eqivalent of Meldrik Taylor vs Julio Cesar Chavez 1990
Turvein 8 months ago
Wow, what intelligent men. They both make amazing arguments. I remain an Agnostic Atheist however.
miashalala 8 months ago
Religion largely serves those who need it most, those who are of limited intellect and education. Yet it does serve them well by providing, hopefully, a sense of right and wrong and of hope. Now if you are the typical atheist I have just exposed your greatest weakness and the very reason why I prefer the company of simple minded, god fearing folk to elitist athiests: upon reading my first sentence you felt superior and your ego swelled and made it all the more likely you will never open your mi
freddyvoetsch 8 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yep intelligence needs to come from intelligence. So if god is an idiot he would need to have been a moron before evolving to an idiot.
rqm7107 8 months ago
Comment removed
rqm7107 8 months ago
Comment removed
rqm7107 8 months ago
THIS is what you call a debate. Not the"...tide's go in, tide's go out. Never a miscommunication..."-BULLCRAP.
Senni7 9 months ago
I agree with Dawkins, you don't need God to explain the natural world of evolution. But, what you do need is laws. The origin of these laws is something that scientists haven't the slightest clue about. Where do laws come from? why do they exist at all? Why is there existence of anything at all including time,space and matter?
AegeanKing 9 months ago
@AegeanKing Yes, that is inexplicable at the moment. We could just say, "why shouldn't there be matter?" We do not understand enough to answer that. Science does have a huge advantage over theism, however, in that it will continue to investigate, and also admitds we may never get there. Religion gives up, and just says that everything we don't currently understand must have been done by a god. We have disproved many many of these assumptions over the years, bacteria, meteorology etc.
sids500 8 months ago
@sids500 "Why shouldn't there be matter?" is a question that is irrelevant because there is matter. The question of why is there existence of anything at all is a far more important question. Also, If you think that scientists are going to figure out the origin of these laws than I have a some beach front property in Arizona I'd like to sell you.
AegeanKing 8 months ago
@AegeanKing Not everything has, or requires an explanation. some questions may not relevant or answerable. why is there gravity, for example. What makes you think every question should have an answer? we are beings of finite capacity to understand, although this limit is extending through evolution. We cant answer some questions, but we can certainly answer many. E.G there never was a world-wide flood at the time of Noah. Dinosaurs existed. Many of which disprove the stories of the bible.
sids500 8 months ago
ahhh well
panterasux22 9 months ago
haha dawkins is trying to say that we evolved from an another species and the god evolved with our brains at the same time. but i think we re just dreaming
esraretin 9 months ago
I wish all christians were like Mcgrath
gogolplex74 9 months ago 51
@gogolplex74 I wish all atheists were like Dawkins.
03flhtcui 9 months ago
@gogolplex74
I wish all christians were like Dawkins
Oh wait, they wouldnt believe in bronze-age myths anymore.....
Yay!
sonykroket 9 months ago
@sonykroket I wish you'd shut up
gogolplex74 9 months ago
@gogolplex74
Too bad you can't make me eh?
LOL you silly douche
sonykroket 9 months ago
@gogolplex74
You chickenshit maggot, posting on peoples'profiles while not allowing replies on your own one.
You really are an idiot
sonykroket 9 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sonykroket no, idiots like you aren't worth discussing
gogolplex74 9 months ago
@gogolplex74 Most of us our my friend; the television will present a different image of course; but "the squeaky wheel gets the oil" as they say - reasonable, calm talkers don't equate to ratings, and that's what tv producers are interested in, and that goes for all beliefs and creeds. But I'm sure everyone who's interested can agree that we all get so much more out of it when we speak calmly and above all, respectfully, to one another. All this ranting and raving really need stop.
matrix4022 9 months ago
@gogolplex74 I wish all atheist were like dawkins
The727stpete727 9 months ago
@gogolplex74 Yes, he seems like a nice man. Plus hes no creationist.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 6 months ago
@gogolplex74 i know i dont feel like he would hit me with his bible
PimpMyParadigm 6 months ago
@gogolplex74 The fact that he is respecfull of his interlocutor doesnt make him less of an imbecile, saying imbecilities, not because he's a christian, but because his answers are the paroxism of intellectual and cowardness and bases his whole faith on a "it makes me feel good".
sirdelrio 6 months ago
@gogolplex74 intellectual cowardness.
sirdelrio 6 months ago
@gogolplex74 Definitely! Even if they weren't as well educated as him, all they need to be is reasonable and accept other's opinions. We are painted in such a bad light because of a few overly-dogmatic believers who refuse to consider the views of others a la Westboro Baptist Church. It's a shame.
darkphoenix229 5 months ago
@gogolplex74 More are than you know... :b
studentofthegospel 3 months ago
@gogolplex74 I agree, and I wish all Atheists were like Michael Ruse or Quentin Smith.
EnjoiningKnowlege 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@gogolplex74 McGrath is very careful the way that he answers the questions so as to appear respectful to other religions. However by forwarding the resurrection, for example, he implicitly accepts many other inter-related dogmas of conservative Christianity that expect followers of other religions to be damned for eternity.
osiris7nz 2 months ago
the idea that the beginning of the world was "simple" as to it's design , being a singularity of design, that this is more easy to accept than a total chaos, is probably not an intelligent assumption. Chaos, if true, would have an eternity past to be as complexity: and thus a simpler beginning of the Universe would be harder, not easier to comprehend. Everything being uniform and lacking chaotic patterns, would be impossible by any scientific concept of numbers. One is a harder concept.
CarmineFragione 9 months ago
1:45 enemy destroyed----------
esraretin 9 months ago
The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence
alkowarizmi 9 months ago
@alkowarizmi but the absence of evidence indicates that existence is very unlikely, like the absence of evidence for unicorns, it doesn't prove there isn't any, it just shows that it is very unlikely they exist
rememberthename33 9 months ago
@rememberthename33 Why don't we therefore wait till we can prove God doesn't exist before reaching the conclusion that He doesn't. He that believes that He exists, without proof (even though I have proof) and he that believes He doesn't exist, also without proof are indulging in the same thing.
Then again, peeps like Dawkins don't need to prove God doesn't exist. Just prove another phenomenon that completely contradicts the existence of God. As far as I know, such feat hasn't been achieved.....
alkowarizmi 9 months ago
@alkowarizmi because you CAN'T prove a negative, you can't prove bigfoot doesn't exist, you can't prove fairies don't exist and you can't prove god doesn't exist. when you make a claim (such as claiming that there is a god) then you ahve to prove that claim by using evidence to support it. you can't just make a claim and then say "well it's true until you prove it isn't" you have to support it. if you have evidence for god, which you claim you do, then that's great, tell us what it is.
rememberthename33 9 months ago
@rememberthename33 There proof that God exists. Y'all just don't want to accept that proof.
alkowarizmi 9 months ago
@alkowarizmi If "Y'all" had some proof then we'd be more than happy to hear it, but so far there"Y'all" have no proof, or even a shred of evidence
rememberthename33 9 months ago
@rememberthename33 Existence is proof. But never mind. That's probably not enough for you
alkowarizmi 9 months ago
@alkowarizmi when asked to give proof of his existence, your answer is "existence is proof" and you see nothing wrong with that statement.
rememberthename33 9 months ago
@alkowarizmi "existence is proof" Lol. You're not worth debating wi............zzzzzzzzzz
sids500 8 months ago
@alkowarizmi Search for "best caller ever" and listen. Are you that bloke? Lol.
sids500 8 months ago
1:33 - Dawkins totally won
danesbenoit 10 months ago
please get a couple of chairs, cup of coffee and I won't even mind a good cigarrette
fidenful 10 months ago 22
@fidenful I prefer tea and a pipe since it is Richard Dawkins speaking xd
Onbekend1980 6 months ago
So if a lie make you feel better, believe the lie. How rational of you!
MeOverThinker 10 months ago
McGrath sounds like Ted"Crystal-Meth"Haggard gone Monty Python.
LMAO
sonykroket 10 months ago
I actually really liked this guy's arguments - perhaps the first religious speaker I can say that about - until he said the stuff about God not requiring an explanation.
rawssremix 10 months ago
@rawssremix You raise a good point, at the end his entire platform to defend his believe in God always bottom to the sadly familiar God is because he is.
036hugo 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Richard Dawkins has a vagina on the back of his knee. Google image it!
wallymeldrum 11 months ago
Mcgrath doesnt seem sincere. He seems to come off as, " I dont really believe all this stuff, but Im very well educated and can probably make more money defending religion."
shortfuse41 11 months ago 2
Being someone who has prayed for many years I cna say that prayer is not futile. If you think that it is I encourage you to do a Google or Youtube search on it. You cannot prove Evolution using the Scientific method. You can say that God is unobservable through the Scientific method but you cannot say that Evolution is observable outside of micro Evolution. In this case you have to rely on faith at some point. There comes a point when you have no choice but to rely on faith.
JamesRideout123 11 months ago
Dawkins is viewing God as a biologist, and that creates a problem in his understanding. Improbability concerning complex structures like the eye cannot be applied to God because, for one, it assumes that God "suddenly appeared." That is not McGrath's, or any Theist's position. We know for a fact that the eye was created, either by God or by evolution, thus the argument applied to the eye is sound. But God was not created. Thus, this line of reasoning does not apply.
AgApE010 11 months ago
@AgApE010 to say that God was not created, you mean he has just 'always been there'? there is no reasoning with a ridiculous statement like that.
MrJonniNixon 11 months ago
@MrJonniNixon
-
It's not ridiculous. What is ridiculous is to argue for an infinite regress, which is the inevitable result of arguing that God had a beginning. Nevertheless, the absurdity of an infinite regress is not the only reason for arguing that God is self-existence and uncaused, although it is a sufficient reason in and of itself. It also logically follows that since God created time, He must necessarily be outside of time, therefore eternal.
AgApE010 11 months ago
@AgApE010 so you conclude that God is the final answer to everything, and that God has always been there, therefore ending the infinite regress? Why do we have to go that extra step and say that God created the universe, and God is infinite? Why can't we just say that the universe has always been there? and leave it at that? There is no reason to add an extra step in the questioning, especially when an answer of that description does not motivate the quest for the true answer.
MrJonniNixon 10 months ago
@MrJonniNixon
-
We can't say that the universe has always been there because that contradicts modern cosmology.
AgApE010 10 months ago
Ok so I am suppose to believe God doesn't exist But I am suppose to believe that there was nothing that become everything all on the basis that some guy thought it up and they think they have evidence? They cant even 100% proof their views but then call me irrational because I believe in something I cant 100% prove.
TheBbg83 11 months ago
don't forget all the flaws with our eyes, ears, our teeth. does a god make sense to the flaws of the universe, as he supposes god makes sense of the "positives"?
Cynofix 11 months ago
So the question arises: Could the undirected element of chance that is thought to be a driving force of evolution have brought all these parts together at the right time to produce such elaborate mechanisms?
fatalisferrum 11 months ago 2
@fatalisferrum the driving force of evolution is natural selection which is directed by survival of the fittest, it's not undirected chance at all
rememberthename33 9 months ago
The difficulty does not stop with the origin of life. Consider such body organs as the eye, the ear, the brain. All are staggering in their complexity, far more so than the most intricate man-made device. A problem for evolution has been the fact that all parts of such organs have to work together for sight, hearing or thinking to take place. Such organs would have been useless until all the individual parts were completed.
fatalisferrum 11 months ago
@fatalisferrum i don't think that is a problem for evolution, because all those parts that have to work together always worked together, since the beggining of their development, and they only came about BECAUSE they were able to work together and produce some kind of trait or hability that was an advantage. it is not like all those parts developed with disregard to the rest of the other organs. they only exist now because they were formed gradually over time and along side each other,
junioramora 11 months ago
two wankers whom dont believe in christ burn in hell u cunts
stuart7034 11 months ago
@stuart7034 either a troll or low IQ, which is it?
big5824 11 months ago
@big5824 ha ha very good but my dad was a bio chemist and athiest and he hated dawkins too but me i believe in god but not a christian so thank you for your kind and generous remarks hope ine day you will think for yourself but goddamn this new religion called secular athiests doesnt allow it ,does it now
stuart7034 11 months ago
@big5824 yes my language in my first remark was to say the least a little bit juvinile but i just smoked this killer weed and put the great dylan on little bit angry ..lol
stuart7034 11 months ago
I love how McGrath never actually answered Dawkins's question about the improbability of God.
werothegreat 11 months ago
The sad thing is, Dawkins does not WANT to believe in God and therefore has quite a bit of bias towards anything related to Him. Probably a reaction to the creationist movement that seems to ignore things as opposed to explain them.
emekonen 11 months ago
@emekonen Who would want to believe in a God(s)? As Douglas Adams once said, Isn't it enough to see that a garden is beautiful without having to believe that there are fairies at the bottom of it too?
ethionel 11 months ago
@ethionel Its not a question of wether I want to believe in God(s) or not. I too was a fairly hardcore atheist, and actually was not raised to believe in anything. Dawkins, however, seems to have an almost unhealthy disdain towards faith or religion if you will. As I said, I feel he has become so militant because of creationists.
emekonen 11 months ago
cs lewis fiction, come on dawkins is talking fact, this is what theists do, quote people out of context and use it as evidence, its a losing battle, tick tock
greggcaff 1 year ago
Are they actually debating *with* arguments or just playing warm and fuzzy with each others feelings? I hear nothing substantial here...only shallow critiques of the implications of God and nuances...ehh wheres WLC and Walter Sinott-Armstrong when you need em'?
yehudaful1 1 year ago
@yehudaful1 I believe that debates shouldn't mean arguments, though they generally end up as such. Indeed, when two people can get together with truly open (but skeptical) minds, the human race can make strides in its understanding of the cosmos. In summation, we should be applauding what these men are doing, or at least the method in which they are doing it.
bigggyd 1 year ago
@bigggyd Of course their discussion should always be cordial but their arguments, or the cases they both put up here are elementary...
yehudaful1 1 year ago
@yehudaful1 I suppose this was a simple misunderstanding then. From your original comment it sounded like you "wanted blood", perhaps I was to quick in my assumptions. Though I will agree that some of their points are trite.
bigggyd 1 year ago
@bigggyd No hard feelings! Perhaps I came off a little volatile...;)
yehudaful1 1 year ago
religous bullshi*, no proper answers....go dawkins
rycross84 1 year ago
Dawkins wants the theory of evolution to explain EVERYTHING and that's where he goes wrong. This theory is about a certain frame of reality, but there are other levels. And that's just a theory, not a fact, Dawins says so himself. How can that theory explain the fact that I have a conscience? I can't, it was not meant to do that in the first place. FAITH needs no explaining. How can I explain by scientific means the faith I have in my father, for example?
cashernandes1 1 year ago
@cashernandes1 You can't explain your faith because it's based on tradition, authority and imagination. Dawkins in other documentaries says that evolution is a fact, it is proven by studying the genes, with today's technology the fossils wouldn't be needed at all to prove evolution genes are enough.Your conscience is explained by evolution by the brain structure developed during the years.Your neurons can be mapped and brain activity when you think can be proved by using MRI. Welcome to reality
xwlr 1 year ago
@xwlr Just because Dawkins alleges it's a fact you won't even question it? Talk about faith. DARWIN himself says its a theory.
I'm not saying Darwinism is false, I'm just saying it does not purport, along with science, to answer all quesitons about humankind. I'm sorry, there is 0 scientific evidence we all have a concience, even though everyone assumes it perfectly well. You still haven't answered my question: how can you measure by scientific means the faith I have in my father, for example?
cashernandes1 1 year ago
@cashernandes1 It can't be measured otherwise than measuring brain activity. But since faith is always present in your brain, it would be impossible to separate it form intellectual background noise. I belive evolution because not only Dawkins, but many other scientists say so and it seems logical to me. I believe it because science is trustworthy. Science has an INCREDIBLE trace of success, it changed the way we live in 200 years. None of it can be said about religion.
xwlr 1 year ago
@xwlr Oh, and before you mention that in our present time we have the technology to study genes and that's why Darwin presented the natural selection as a theory and not a fact, I must question you: have you actually read any of those studies that Dawkins refers to that purport to establish a relation between genes and natural selection? Will you show me them? I'd be genuinely glad to read them.
cashernandes1 1 year ago
@cashernandes1 Before you make stupid suggestions, I don't claim Darwin presented evolution based on facts he didn't knew about. That would be as dump as a creationist can get. Darwin presented evolution as a theory because he wasn't 100% sure. Dawkins said evolution is a fact in one of his documentarys, I dunno exactly wich. One thing is a fact anyway: evolution is the best scientific explanation supported with evidence and far more reasonable and believable than any other, including goddie.
xwlr 1 year ago
@xwlr The trouble with your reasoning is that Dawkins made you believe that the scientific method is applicable to absolutely everything, and it's not. Brain activity? Ok, but what is it the scientific proof that my increased brain activity is connected to my faith in my father? What exactly produces that effect, how and why? How can science proove that Dawkins, for instance, has a conscience and is not a "robot"? We all know, for example, that fire produces heat, but why? ...
cashernandes1 1 year ago
@xwlr ...Science does not even purport to explain that, it goes from that empirical observation on.
I completely disagree with your assertion that regilion has not had a positive and necessary effect in our lives. Religion is what glues a society together, it always has. Lack of religion is connected to a decaying society. You can see it yourself: Europe's ever more conspicuous atheism tendencies are certainly giving it a hard time, as Islam rapidly conquers the land. ...
cashernandes1 1 year ago
@cashernandes1 Look at the Holy Land. Religion tears it apart. Yes religion tends to make people stick together in ONE religion and tends to provoke war BETWEEN religions. For example terrorism in Islam(9/11) and Christianity (IRA-bloody friday). Religion also provoke hatred towards homosexuals, people form other reaces or religion or even from another denomination.
xwlr 1 year ago
@xwlr ... Without religion there wouldn't even BE a platform on which the study of science could take place. There shouldn't be a chasm between religion and science, but Dawkins and his friends want you to believe so. I must remind you that many scientific breakthoughs were achieved by religious scientists, which shouldn't make any sense to you, I guess. About evolution: first you said it was a fact, now I'm glad you seem to concede it is the best explanation out there. ...
cashernandes1 1 year ago
@cashernandes1 Religion always slowed the progress of science, when burning scientists for example. Yes, many scientists in early ages were christians, because EVERYONE was a christian and they've been indoctrinated from childhood. Of course they were religious, there was no "free will" in 1700 you would have benn casted out of society as an atheist. Ever heard of Pascal's wager? You see for example Pascal started to question his faith but concluded it's safer to keep it.
xwlr 1 year ago
@cashernandes1 You mock the very name of science by claiming that religion wich tended to burn scientists is the very base of science. It's not, it slowed it's progress. I never said EV is a fact, I said Dawkins said it. I BELIEVE in evolution due to the overwhelimg evidence and track record of success of science, once finally managed to get free of religion (separation of church and state). I agree we might change our mind altough it's not likely. It's like 95% to evolution. Nothing more to it.
xwlr 1 year ago
@xwlr ... I agree with you, I never said it wasn't. Alister McGrath himself believes it to be the best one we got, even though he believes we could change our minds 100 years from now. So Dawkins, along with the rest of us, could be wrong about evolution after all. (Sorry about the long answer)
cashernandes1 1 year ago
@cashernandes1 Ah, damn you, I just had a week long argument with another one of you, I'm tired! Who the hell cares of your faith? Why should I say a scientific method that proves you have faith? We got MRI that measures brain activity and that's all we got now. Religion couldn't have achieved even this so be statisfied. And to be honest, I don't give a shit wheather Dawkins is a robot or not, because the whole argument is so absurd and sperated from reality.
xwlr 1 year ago
@xwlr One more question: how can the scientific method explain what I find beautiful or ugly? Is there a scientific explanation that shows why I believe A is beautiful and B is not? You may say it's a brain reaction: what causes that reaction exactly?
cashernandes1 1 year ago
@cashernandes1 Neurons reacting with each other. Be happy with this, for I won't know anymore and if you want to, get educated! I am not omnitient. But there certainly IS more to know about it. Another fact: conscience can be destroyed by damaging the brain, so soul as product of simple conciusness is excluded. Any other soul I can't disprove and don't want to. Damn, I wish I had one, but I don't know, and for now I don't care.
xwlr 1 year ago
@cashernandes1 actually there are answers to this questions in evolutionary biology.
elzepeda 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@cashernandes1 Evolution is, essentially, a fact. There is overwhelming evidence for it. Just go on Google and do some research. There is no denying it.
MassEffectRocks 11 months ago 3
He doesnt need to be created, He is eternal He has always been and has always will be! He is supernatural! NOT natural!
MissKatRob 1 year ago
@MissKatRob But there's no evidence for that; both of these scientists are basing their arguments on rationality, evidence and probability. You are not.
morphicwraith 1 year ago
@morphicwraith I get what your saying, but what im saying is you cant rule God out, based on our rational and science, cause that can turn out to be the worst mistake of our lives, as science is always changing and moving forward, and we discover new possibilities. God claims He is eternal when science says that is not possible, so wouldnt that show that whatever the first thing was would have to be something that is eternal and goes outside scientific bounds?
MissKatRob 1 year ago
Funny how part 3 and 4 dropped by 6000 views. Was it Mr Dawkins saying that we all might be aliens? :)
funnystarchild 1 year ago
Hitler was raised as a Christian, and said in mein kampf that God created the Aryan race. His true beliefs remain in dispute and fortunately he is dead and we can not interview him
robelstable 1 year ago
Oh, and Hitler was no believer, saying "We do not want any other god than Germany itself. It is essential to have fanatical faith and hope and love in and for Germany."
Dair56 1 year ago