Is God a Delusion?

[DarwinsFriend]

God is the delusion driven by Man's ego. End of Story.

[jonesgerard]

What evolution doesn't explain is WHY we evolve in the direction we do.

It shows how but not why. MAtter cannot create information, but information does arise in the universe.

Godel's theorum and Turings halting problem eliminates information from ever arising out of any algorythm. Sentience cannot come from innate matter.

There is plenty of room for science and God in a tolerant mind.

[mooregreenplease]

Pascal's wager fails due to the fact there are dozens of religions that claim "Believe in our mythology or burn in hell!"

[muckquomp]

Come on folks. The narrator in this video (sorry I don't recognize him) is open about the elephant in the room. Richard D. saw the elephant too (that God is simply being substituted for Natural selection). He also substituted 7 days for 13 billion years or so.Remember when that huge Concordance came out? What's the name, Strong's Exhaustive Concordance of the Bible. Many feared it was trying to replace the literal words of the Bible. It was accepted, given enough time/youth! (cough - cough)..

[hambolio]

@muckquomp - So what do you think will happen when you die? Rot in a box? Sleep forever? If so, you've limited your choices. If you're right, you get the box. If you're wrong, maybe Hell! If a believer and follower is right, we get Heaven! If we're wrong, we get a box. I like my choices a lot better! And since I don't want ANYONE to choose Hell, please remember the name of Jesus! He promises to save ALL who call on his name!  Google "Howard Storm" He died and came back. No more "Box" belief!

[ZackSaleh]

never is it hard to take someone as a joke with a backdrop like that

[maxbird2003]

I like to have 1 of his books, just to Se how dumb he really is, accept i don't like to pay for it because i don't like to pay for his lies so he can make money with them,

he is so weird,

[MrAlstair123]

Sounds like Richard Dawkins puts Mother Nature as his God, in which case i find nothing wrong with that. If you're going to believe in a God, why not one that is always around you, once again Mother Nature. Faith can be combined with the laws of the Universe, not like Deism, but the thought that the Universe has its own mystic laws, and God, however a not God that is tangible, a God of energy, a God of nature, in which case God is always around us, once again Mother Nature.

[1971SuperLead]

@MrAlstair123 The problem with making Mother Nature your God is that Mother Nature is a bitch. As Jesus said "It is the spirit that gives life, the flesh is of no avail." God created us as spirit and Mother Nature creates us as flesh. Spirit is eternal and invulnerable. The flesh is tortured until finally it succumbs to death. To live merely a fleshly life and ignore your spiritual life is....hell.

[theUSER101]

LOL this guy is to far gone. Now he's going to brainwash his kids and we will have more morons in the world. LOL the world looks pretty.....god created it...who created god? He gets a pass. LOL THERE IS NO REASON TO BELIEVE IN A GOD, especially a religious one.

[greeny202a]

YES

[AJBuwalda]

Your misuse of words like "random", "design" or "by chance" make me cry. If you had really read the book and digested it, you would have not been able to put them in Dawkins mouth.

[ignaci0bosch]

hahaha you are a delusioned person :D hahaha

...and by the way: being an atheist its not only "cool" but it is nescesary.

critizise and reject religion its a duty every citizen should do.

as steven hawkings said "in the end science will win because its true" ;) (im not saying hes an atheist, just something he said....think he is agnostic, not shure)

i apoligize for my english, i speak only a little.

peace!

[yamborghini3]

Can someone tell me of the facts he distorted in this video? I'm not too sure about the the other side of the story.

[xmcxmcxmc]

haha I just love people like you. You are the tipical american idiot. You just prove the point that creationists distort facts to suit their ignorant superstitions. Keep up the good work!!

[699backstab]

you are a failed human being. A coward. A worthless subhuman. Choose to be human. Choose to meet up with your classification, Dump religion. It is dangerous and it hurts people. If you think there is a god you kill people by that belief. You help support a falsehood that helps rape kids and start wars.

[MomSaysImCool]

I like this video, very tactful. I would nevertheless redirect his attention to Dawkins' comments on "Einsteinian religion"

[ghengiscrayon]

You have misrepresented the facts. Way to play to type.

[clearly]

Is the lighning in the background meant to frighten us atheists? Is it the wrath of god. It doesnt work at all but nice try!

[ccarrera40]

Is this guy is some kind of comedian ?

[Udany147]

Is this satire?

[lennartik]

m8 u just didnt get it..

[damthetorpeedos]

this guy didnt read the book at all. and thankfully there are some other readers here who noticed that. you cant get past the first chapter or two without him addressing this very issue of the religious trying to throw their own word around and give it different meanings. Dawkins makes very clear the difference between capital N nature and the idea of a supernatural being or creator.

[3lilcutties]

God is real and he is proving it so just because he is telling you out and proving you wrong, dose now mean you have to go and say shit! I have lots of proof He is real!

[Krumbz2003]

Please say you're kidding and being sarcastic...

otherwise... prove "god" is real... right now.

[MiikeLeee]

This guy so clearly skimmed through the book and took from it what he wanted. Natural Selection is the opposite of chance.

[ImNotTheJudge]

@MiikeLeee No obiously you dont understand Darwins theory of natural selection. Have you ever read the Origin of Species?

[corvus6corax]

I don't think God exist ,except in you're mind which makes you delusional

[ImNotTheJudge]

@corvus6corax I think that God exists, except for in YOUR mind which makes you delusional. You honestly believe that the universe happened by chance? You HONESTLY believe that we were the development of something without a conscious and yet we have a conscious? And I am the delusional one? Give me a break!

Go ahead, rob God of his legitimate glory.

Yours truly,

Pride

[corvus6corax]

I don't think god exist but I'm quite sure you're delusional

[Explitiv3]

You have an ontological commitment to God. See, that only took 1 second to say not 3:16 you took.

[DeverHB]

He does not have faith that Nature did it. He has a strong belief that is backed up by evidence. Did you really read the book though? He quite clearly states that everything did not come about by random chance, but natural selection.

You can appreciate the beauty of a garden without thinking that there are fairies at the bottom of it.

[BiogodEntity]

Why do people speaking against atheism always use salesman techniques and fake emotions?

And this argument is not even an argument to begin with. It takes the book completely out of context and doesn't stray any further from the "couldn't happen by chance" argument.

[FrankOBo1]

Because they ARE only Salesmen.

[Matthudson2]

Ultimately, it is capital L-Love that will bring us together.

Romans 13:10

[Matthudson2]

It is ultimately capital L-Love, that will bring us all closer.

Romans 13:10

[TiaEphesians429]

Ok random question, since there is a comparison to Nature and to God, I'll ask a question that a lot of people ask me from my standpoint on my beleifs, and they beleive it is a perfectly fair question so why not question back... so uhhh... where did Nature originate?

[ImNotTheJudge]

@TiaEphesians429 From God.

[NoeLPZC]

Dawkins thinks "nature" did it.

You think "God" did it.

The difference is that everyone can see that nature clearly does exist. We have nothing to suggest anything beyond that, just like we have nothing to suggest any actual fairies beyond the natural cause of fairy rings.

When people gaze in awe at the Grand Canyon, do they think "wow, how great is the guy who dug this hole!" or "wow, that's a fuckin' big hole!"?

Things can be amazing WITHOUT a creator.

[ImNotTheJudge]

@NoeLPZC

Okay Noel,

So where did Nature come from again? I must have missed that part.

[Oceanus57]

There is no god. This is a simple and easily understood fact. All god figures are projections of the human imagination.

All religion is inept puppetry, and the puppeteers are ALWAYS people.

The puppets they create always reflect the concerns and prejudices of the people that create them.

[GeneralGrin]

is this a serious video or a parody?

[Ming64]

Interesting, but I think the mistake you make in your appraisal is the assumption that Dawkins recognises any kind of will behind the process that he refers to as 'Nature'.

[yinstube]

I don't think you really read that book. And now that I am listening to what you are babbling, I am sure you don't have the intelligence to grasp what Richard Dawkins' writing. He never said atheists should stop at just wondering about the beauty of nature. Science has a job of unraveling the complexities of nature. Science keeps improving. It's wholly illogical to say that because science cannot yet fully explain nature then religion therefore can.

[garethb1961]

Yes! I worked that out about 25-30 seconds in. He has made a guess of what the book is about - wrong as it turns out.

Doesn't matter - would it make any difference if he read it?

[modernrocks]

@yinstube its constanly improving coz its normally wrong, all science gets out dated

[Faithbound213]

Remember two things the bible warns against people such as this man:

1. They worship the creature versus the creator. Not okay.

2. Those that claim they are wise will be made fools.

Keep spreading the word.

[T2Darlantan]

It's people of faith who claim they are wise, not people of science. A scientist will admit when he doesn't know something and keep looking for the answer with an open mind, while a religious person stops looking for answers when they get to something they don't understand and assume an invisible all powerful being in the sky they've never seen did it. They claim to be wise, but anyone can see how foolish that is.

[ImNotTheJudge]

@Faithbound213 NICE...Thank you for the encouragement!

[rcksccr]

Dawkins doesn't have "faith" in his assertions, he has evidence that supports his assertions. And your inability to acknowledge that is an all-to-common trait among christians. Did you actually read the book? Or maybe you didn't understand the concepts...

[elvismilk]

His Blind Watch Maker and Selfish Gene are better books from a knowledge standpoint, he is a very good biologist.

[cjrivera35]

i have something to think about all right...thanks...but, I'm really surprised if Richard Dawkins says he has faith in Nature. did he actually say that?

[unquenchablefire]

No. Not at all.

[sincitypreacher]

I love all of your "something to think about" points. Thanks

[YesConfused]

Anything belief structure can become a relig, but N and G has a distinct difference. N can be disproven through experimentation and your G which is in your head can't be proven or disproven.

[YesConfused]

science can become a religion.  Though you are missing the point between N and G. One is through physical senses and the other emotional sense. Both require some type of assumption. You are not entirely wrong unfortunately, but you arent exactly right either. I would always go with something that can be proved wrong instead of your idea which cant be proven either way.

[ImNotTheJudge]

It takes experience man, thats why you say it cant be proven either way. I promise you that it can

[Zendrig]

errm... Ok, let's assume for a moment that everything was created by a god.

How would I know, which God it was? I mean, there are like a thousand possible answers to that question and they all sound equally ridiculous to me. Please help me out.

[ImNotTheJudge]

Jesus rose from the dead just like the prophecies said...thats an easy choice. Buddha...dead, Muhammad...dead, Krishna...never exsisted, on and on and on...Jesus well He is alive and kickin baby!!!!Whoo praise God! If that dont fire you up your woods wet!!!

[theodorichen]

@ImNotTheJudge Lol, because you can prove jesus existed? Name the actual author of any gospel or anything written about him in his lifetime. Your argument for the 1 in a bizillion chance is more accurate for describing god. Describing life in the natural world in these gambling terms will only get you laughed at for being bias and willfully ignorant.

[Hellcat040369]

Some of us like to go with capital E Evidence and not capital M Magic.

[ImNotTheJudge]

Some of us like to go with P Power.

[WRFife]

unfortunatly, u missed the hole point. flicking pages isnt reading, or even understanding what u are reading.

Mr Dawkings has No faith in anything. if you could prove the oposite he would change his argument, because his is no revelation but the quest of knowledge.

Your argument isnt even clever. less fireworks and more scholarship would help you understand some essentials of reasoning better. but keep trying, it may dawn on you

[addmoreice]

Mr Dawkings is an atheist. he has no faith in a god (thats what the whole of atheist MEANS i do not beleive.) that says nothing in his faith in anything else. dawkins points out he has no ABSOLUTE faith in anything. if evidence comes along that is relavent strong and supportive of the claim of a god he would accept there is a god.

no one provides any such evidence. it's allways red herrings, non sequitors, failed logic, and lack of scientific knowledge.

[kristin7858]

Maybe there is some being that created the universe, but are you really that arrogant to think it is a personal god who cares about you and the billions of others on this one planet in just one of the hundreds of billions of galaxies in the visible universe? Please, grow up and look around you, this life is all we have, we're are just finite creatures in a finite universe that so happens to contain the elements to support life on a small portion of it.Enjoy THIS life, don't worry about another!

[clearly]

I have no problem with the weak minded seeking solice in a "sky fairy" rhcpdude. Its a difficult world we live in and these brainwashed people seem to find some crumb of comfort from there delusion.Its sad but true.

[lilchrizz123]

not really why dont you watch the videos by frank turek

[GarethandSarah]

Did this guy actually read the book for how it is, or how he wanted to read it?

[olafsirpab]

Are talking about The God Delusion or the Bible?

[8vian]

And we end with the typical fallacy that atheists need faith as well as theists, which they clearly do not. Are there Christian schools that train people with these stock arguments?

[8vian]

If this guy had actually read the book, he'd find that his whole point about "recasting God as Nature" is dealt with in the very first chapter, under the topic of pantheism. Dawkins then rightly disregards pantheism as nothing more than "sexed up atheism". Dawkins also makes great pains to point out to Christians, again and again, that scientific ideas have nothing to do with chance. Nature, such as biological evolution, does not operate based on chance.

[MASDESTRUCTION93]

By the way, there is no proof of God, and that natural force around you is not God showing his love or whatever.

...it is called gravity, space, and time all working together in a flux.

[ImNotTheJudge]

Um so where did all of that come from again? Oh thats right...it was a chance an 1 in 150,000,000,000,000,000,000,00­0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 chance. Yes that is the actual number.

[arielattacks]

This guy is a jabroni. Prove God jackass. where is he, it or whatever? Does not the bible say do not lean on to your own understanding. How lame. easy button. Proof your God is unknowable. I believe Solomon was an honest man when he wrote Ecclesiastes. His critique on Nihilism is proof that he had a hard time believing in God. Eventually he had to say their was one, because he did not know better. Science was not what is now. Destroying your concept of God.

[bassjeff2005]

What if there is a God? Do you love anyone? Believing in someone. The bible says there is no grater love than to give up your life for someone. Ex. your Family. We don't have that kind of love in us. If the bible is true, God wants us in His family. The bible is full of truth. And the God of the bible is the only God who cares about the whole world and not just a group of people. He blesses us so we can bless others. If there is a God. What are you gonna say to him. It's a personal thing.

[8vian]

"And the God of the bible is the only God who cares about the whole world and not just a group of people"

Except that the God of the Bible in fact only cared about the tiny Jewish tribes, and not the rest of humanity or indeed the Universe. Even your other god Jesus refuses to heal a non-Jewish woman in the New Testament.

[ImNotTheJudge]

You dont understand...message me if you want to get ya butt kicked in a debate. Not proper to kick ya butt over this deal.

[clearly]

There are more stars in the universe than grains of sand on this planet. It would be highly improbable if one planet of one of these stars did not produce life "intelligent or otherwise" This year MILLIONS will die of starvation in africa .Millions will die from preventable diseases world wide . Cancer and heart disease will decimate the western world and war will continue to rage througout the world .God , Oh what wonders you perform for us unworthy creatures ! Get real Reflect7 You are deluded

[reflect7]

Starvation, preventable diseases, war...? It sounds like I can't believe in people, not God.

[MASDESTRUCTION93]

Then why would God let people starve, and get diseases, and fight over things?

IF there is a God, he has a sense of humor and he needs to stop this immaturity right now.

Also, don't pray to God and count on him for things, do it yourself! Take action!

Peace and Love

[whole27]

@reflect7 well u can't have it both ways...u theists, believers in a personal god give credit to your "god" everytime something good happens...well if god does all that you have to account for all the unpreventable diseases, all the cancers and so on, birth defects, senseless natural disasters, possible asteroids....it all reflects random chaos...not a personal god looking out for us because if a personal god exists he is responsible for all those things.

god can exist outside of religion;)

[goaliedude32]

@clearly i dont understand what you're trying to say. are you trying to say that god most definitely exists? And what do you have to say that supports this because your post isn't very informative.

[GodoftheGeeks]

Answer: Yes God is a delusion.

[rhcpdude]

Atheists would rather have a good answer than a bad answer. Even if that means that we may never find it in our lifetime.

Theists would rather have a shitty answer than no answer at all. Which is pretty damn stupid. You theists are just settling for something is unprovable.

We atheists seek to find the truth. If there is a god that created all of this. It certainly isn't the god that created the earth in 7 days and made Eve out of a rib.

It is "something" else. We have yet to find it.

[Entropy56]

As a former Christian I am actually glad other people can find happiness in religion even though for me it was poison. I have nothing to do with the vocal Atheists who feel threatened by the religion of others and feel that being a non-believer in God means they have to hate those that do.

I walked away from Christianity for completely personal reasons and no book by any Atheist had anything to do with it. I may or may not even agree with Dawkins points but I don't care.

[seerway]

Thank you refect7, that gave me a good chuckle.

[jaseisrad]

Richard Dawkins is lame.

[estefez]

This guy just can't get it- he and most believers just aren't capable of conceiving of a lack of a God.

This guy is even willing to say that God is nothing more than a bunch of physical laws. I don't see anybody worshiping that though.

[peteq1972]

"title" Yep.

[Soggycorndogs]

The missing link... is still missing.

[estefez]

"The missing link... is still missing."

Nevermind the thousands of hominid transitional fossils that have been unearthed...

"but those are either apes or humans! i don't believe they're missing links!"

Every creationist says this and yet no two can agree on which transitional fossils are an ape, and which are human.

[Tastentier]

Dawkins clearly stated how he defines "nature", and you even quoted it - our universe with quantities like time and factors like chance. An ongoing natural process. Neither time, nor chance, nor the vast space we call universe are deities. Neither can nature as the entirety of these things be a deity. This entirety is awesome enough though to deserve being capitalized.

[prer0gative]

You often finish your videos with a very self-satisfied "Supp'm to think about", when you clearly haven't thought about the subject yourself with any clarity or depth.

You can't call it faith vs faith. Faith has nothing to do with science. Science is a rigorous self-correcting mechanism for advancing knowledge.

You can't wield religious faith as a badge of virtue one moment, then try to dismiss all science as requiring equal 'faith' the next. You can't have it both ways.

[majorvoltage]

Yes god is a delusion. 'Captital N Nature' is observable and testable. 'Capital G God' is not.

[feargusc]

No self respecting Atheist or Agnostic, including Dawkins claims truth about something without extensive bodies of evidence or experimentation to support the claim. Faith by definition requires none of this, and in practice positively discourages (in the minds of most strongly religious people) inquiry into other explanations.

[skullzy1560]

chance of the gaps...not a chance.

[macomoto]

God is indeed a dilusion. He doesn't exist. People should take thorazine for their dilusion

[dreamy2]

I am afraid you're wrong:

"Nature" is unconscious.

"God" is conscious.

[charlesfloyb]

I believe in Santa Claus. I'm sick and tired of naysayers telling me he doesn't exist. Santa bring presents to everyone that's good so why are people opposed to him?

[TehFlush]

Just because I feel like saying it: The Big Bang sounds like a load of bull poo... It tries to be "scientific" and "logical" but it isn't. Like most other "creation stories", it states that "First, there was darkness". I'm not a religious guy but I do believe in God. Just look at the world, about 60% of the world's population believes in the same God.

[Philos2006]

Tehflush: Than 40% of the worlds` population doesn`t. What does that prove ?

[Slabbers]

I know this is speculation at the moment, but I find it a lot more plausible than the god hypothesis, and it is potentially testable which the god hypothesis isn't...

[JonathanMcLatchie]

Slabbers - perhaps you could be a little more specific on how your evolutionary (molecules-to-man sense) hypotheses might be tested by experimental means? Thanks.

[artyfarty2]

Jon, there are thousands scientific books and white papers on the subject of evolution. You really ought to do some reading. If you want an example try googling the following 'lizard evolution experiment' or even 'evolution experiment' for many others. What exactly would you expect to see find evolution theory convincing?

[Slabbers]

This sonnet analogy is inappropriate, because all we need is a self-replicating molecule, not a whole creature. Admittedly, science is still hazy on the details of this, but it reasonable to suggest that we do not require a complete RNA molecule (or something similar) to come together in one go, the building blocks needed to make one may have been put together cumulatively, which would make the odds massively more favourable, even if still very long odds indeed.

[reflect7]

With respect to the chance spark (see below)that got the selective process going (so-called Monkey Theorem -- monkeys slamming away on keyboards for millions of years), check this out from Gerald Schroeder, Israeli scientist and author of The Science of God:

[reflect7]

"All sonnets are the same length. They're by definition fourteen lines long. I picked the one I knew the opening line for, "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" I counted the number of letters; there are 488 letters in that sonnet."

[reflect7]

"What's the likelihood of hammering away and getting 488 letters in the exact sequence as in "Shall I compare thee to a summer's day?" What you end up with is 26 multiplied by itself 488 times -- or 26 to the 488th power. Or, in other words, in base 10, 10 to the 690th."

[reflect7]

"Now the number of particles in the universe—not grains of sand, I'm talking about protons, electrons, and neutrons—is 10 to the 80th. Ten to the 80th is 1 with 80 zeros after it. Ten to the 690th is 1 with 690 zeros after it. There are not enough particles in the universe to write down the trials; you'd be off by a factor of 10 to the 600th."

[CRUSH3Rdlux]

EVERYONE believes in SOME god, its just 2 what extent r u willing 2 admit 2 believing that theres some enormous ethereal creature is following u paying attention 2 every little detail of ur existence. sounds completely insane when described, but its quite comforting 2 believe in a moment of extreme terror an unstoppable force will swoop in 2 save us...so we all DO believe in sumthin, but is it "real" ... not really

[heavenlyheathen]

We all believe in some god? How can you say that unless you know everyone? I don't believe in a god, it's not that i just deny it's existence.

[KewDrew]

If it's not real then why are you believing in it? Because according to your logic, I'm nobody since everybody apparently thinks this.

[thErusteDbunnY]

It doesn't sound like you got past reading the dust cover.

"some of us think Nature did it, and some of us think God did it." In effect, you are saying that believing is god is the same as having a favorite color. Some like blue while others like red. That isn't it at all.

All evidence suggests that evolution is reality. No evidence exists in support of a god.

[Slabbers]

Guided does not necessarily equal design - that's one of the most profound implications of evolution. A car looks designed; so does an eye, a wing, and us even more so, but evolution through natural selection explains beautifully why you don't need a designer to explain life. Occam's razor anyone?

[Psychogerbil]

Randall, you're twisting facts to your own agenda. Evolution is not chance. The only chance involved is the randomness of the genes passed through to the next generation. Evolution is bigger than that, and uses a natural selection to get rid of the hurtful genes and to keep the successful genes.

[reflect7]

OK, evolution isn't chance... It's a selective process that produces advantage through adaptation, mutation, and reproduction. And it all started with a "chance" spark (see below) that produced a fully-functioning set of reproducing creatures. Just like you, the agenda is purely thinking this stuff through --

[reflect7]

So, if it's not chance process, what is it? If the process is embedded in the Universe, where did that process come from? Inevitable = Chance. Guided = design. What is the foundation of this selective process? Nature? Obviously, we can't use the scientific method to explore the origins of cosmos, organic life, consciousness, rationality, human mind... We can only use the scientific method to observe the results.

[Slabbers]

We can't answer these questions yet through science, but 150 years ago, we didn't understand how such apparently obviously and exquisitely designed things like eyes, wings and us could come about without a creator. Looking at the track record of progress science and religion have each made in explaining the universe, I'm confident science will get us there eventually. Anyway, how is "God did it" even an explanation at all when we don't know what he/she/it is or where he/she/it came from...

[Slabbers]

The initial spark of life only had to happen once to get evolution going - once in all the millions upon millions of years available, on one of the billions of possible planets in the universe (and if it happened anywhere, it had to be here at least, 'cos we see it all around us). Even if the chances of life "just starting somehow" are almost infinitesimally small, statistically it was still bound to happen.

[neillus182]

your twisting the fatcs of that bbook, what dawkins says is that you should appreciate the wonder of nature in making the world the way it is, you use words like 'chance' when pretending to quote him, which he never used in his book, but then again, you have to bend the truth to support a stupid claim right? :p

[museumoftechno]

Except capital N Nature doesn't give you a soul. You die at the end of your life and your consciousness is permanently extinguished. And what created life, was... other life, or before that, networks of organic chemical reactions. In Dawkins' take, there's nothing to prey to. And you have no soul.

[ScottishAtheist]

Um... no?

God is an extra layer of complexity that you need to explain. It solves nothing and answers nothing in the end. What is god, how did it do what it did?

Oh no.. I just saw that you another one who denies Evolution. Well you lose by default.

Dawkins didn't mean we got here by chance. Evolution is chance mutation followed by non random selection. You purposely misunderstanding him.

[wagnerfrederic]

Dawkins agrees with this guy, he calls it the 'Einsteinian' god. This is not the personal god that cares about us as people, the things we say, the things we eat, and even the things (people, let's hope) we have sex with (a/o), but, as this guy rightly says, the awesomeness of Nature. Good to see him agree with Dawkins.

[thkaal]

Strange. I thought bearing false witness was against those pesky ten rules that Christians have. And don't tell me about the state of grace, because even Jesus in your book said that lying was bad.

So please, do try to read the book. Don't just assert that you did. Unless of course you did read the book and just ignored what you were reading, or didn't understand it.

[DickJohnson3434]

This sounds like a nice guy.

[arangillespie]

Reflect7, I note you are prepared to accept adaptation.

Three problems with this for a creationist.

1- it happens over many generations so knocks a creationist "young earth"

2- accepting adaption is accepting the mechanism of natural selection

3- it implies that God's creation could have been better.

It is difficult for a theist to satisfy both their intellect (science) and their given beliefs (religion). I don't mean this by way of mockery or tease, for this was my struggle.

[krazzylad]

What you said is not true, He didnt say that it couldnt have been random. He said it was random and by chance. Why believe god did it when theres no evidence thet he did???

[friendlydiplomat]

What are you talking about??? Richard Dawkins will DIE staking his claim on the understanding that 'Darwinian Evolution' by 'Natural Selection' must be anything BUT random. This guy makes a good point; it takes more faith to believe N-Nature built the universe than G-God...I love it...way to hit the nail on the head!!:) There's no evidence that nature built the universe either; nature's just here. You can't use nature to prove nature did it. It's ALLLLL FAITH people!!!

[olavka]

"You can't use nature to prove nature did it. It's ALLLLL FAITH people!!!"

This is such a stupid statement. If we expand on this there is NO reason to believe in the christian God, because the flying spaghetti monster, the invisible pink creator unicorns are just as likely.

Also, if the universe is self contained and in fact is all of reality it may well be possible to explain all of reality from within.

Faith is accepting something in the absence of evidence. Science never does this.

[TavishHill]

You very obviously have no understanding whatsoever regarding what the definition of faith is. Faith means accepting an idea without evidence. Biologists dont' accept evolution in the absence of evidence, they accept it because there is an overwhelming amount of evidence supporting it.

[lordbyrne]

lol, yah cant use bible to prove bible

[zspec1]

Just by looking at all the different religions it's a lot more complicated than your "something did it" statement. No matter what people "believe" evolution by natural selection is the only proven theory that we know right now and there is zero reason/evidence at the moment to believe otherwise.

If your stating that your view of God is not of the religious kind, then using the word God is a misrepresentation of the word as it's known today, thus making your words meaningless.

[reflect7]

The Theory of Evolution is proven? I agree that we've established adaptation within kinds, but when did we prove the macro-evolutionary process from one kind to another?

[bjredwood]

(Here follows my long tedious rant about evolution, for that I apologise. But I simply had to.)

We cannot prove anything about the natural world. Proofs belong in mathematics and sciences based on axioms rather than observations. But I'm sure that zspec1 meant that there's a huge amount of empirical evidence that supports the evolution theory, and that if the theory would for some reason be false, that evidence would cause a lot of contradictions.

[bjredwood]

Adaptation within kinds is surely well documented. And you raise a good point about the the macro-evolutionary process. It's hard to physically observe when it happens, because it's so slow. But if it never did happen, a lot of the observations we've done so far (in fossils etc.) would be weird and contradicting.

[bjredwood]

"Kinds" as you say it (I'm guessing you mean species, or different kinds of life), is merely a human construct to bring some order to nature and the life around us, and it has no base in the theory of evolution. How do you define a different "kind"? Chimps are 97-99% (depending on source) genetically equal to humanbeings, and mice are strikingly 85% equal to us.

[bjredwood]

IMO the macro-evolutionary process is nothing but "adaptation within kinds" extrapolated over long periods of time. Differences in the environment around, for example, two separate populations of the same species will cause them to "adapt within kinds" in two different directions until the day we no longer consider them to belong to the same kind.

[degaussingthegodhead]

You need to understand that it is the same mechanism/process. MACRO and MICRO are labels that some people choose to use but in the end just end up being semantics.

[TavishHill]

reflect7,

Umm...your strategically elastic definition of "macroevolution" doesn't make it possible to provide an example you would be willing to accept. You would discount anything that showed even the most obvious and textbook examples of macroevolution, like the case of the peppered moth for example. That is a clear cut case of macroevolution. Yet for some reason I bet you won't accept it.

[arangillespie]

I think he missed the point of the book somewhat. I'm sure that "random" didn't get top billing, but natural selection did.

[reflect7]

So, the process of mutation/adaptation/selection is "guided" in some way?

[degaussingthegodhead]

Nothing guides natural selection per se. Species change due to factors such as climate pressure over time. Animals won't just up and change for no reason. Look at Alligators, they have essentially remained the same for thousands if not millions of years. The reason for this is because there has been no pressure to change.

[reflect7]

Call it "theory" or call it "faith," but ultimately there are only two basic worldviews -- Something did it, or it did itself. Just trying to spark a little thought...

[bjredwood]

but why believe in the capital G? And why believe that it is intelligent and omniscient?

[reflect7]

OK, call Him/It whatever you like if the "G-D" label doesn't work. The intelligence is related to the Mind obvious in us and all we see. I don't think omniscience is argued here -- Thanks for the post.

[bjredwood]

oops sorry, I first thought you were discussing from a christian point of view...

but basically you mean the universe = god? in a sort of pantheistic way?

[reflect7]

At this point, I'm just arguing that "something did it" rather than "it did itself." Who is G-D is another question...

[robisnum1]

that i can accept, maybe something or somethings did do it, there is definently a lot we don't know. But to go from that completely reasonable deist perspective to I know who god is and what he wants i think you have to give me more than an old book and a gut feeling. Just my opinion.

[reflect7]

Try to comprehend the massive library of complex information code that instructs a fertilized egg to become a human being. Study principles of quantum physics and investigate the world of extra-dimensionality. Review the nature of your conscience, subconscious, standards of morality, and thoughts of self. Then, try to reconcile all of these realities with a basic theory of "randomness."

[olavka]

'... Then, try to reconcile all of these realities with a basic theory of "randomness."'

I have an idea, try to actually read the book. Dawkins says again and again that natural selection is the very opposite of randomness.

Look up "genetic algorithm", again you'll see that selection is not only non-random, but an incredibly potent incremental problem solver. It's more than capable of explaining everything we see around us.

[reflect7]

Indeed, the smart scientists are revealing awesome complexity like never before. Indeed, scientists aren't philosophers, so their observations are limited to the natural world. But examine images from the Hubble Telescope as it peers to the edge of our massive cosmos. View the monitor of an electron-scanning microscope and delve into the intricate world of the microscopic cell.

[reflect7]

Boy, you guys are so pissed off. I give you a 3 minute thought on Dawkins and it's like I attacked your mom or guru or savior... This piece wasn't intended as a defense of theism or a comprehensive argument against atheism...

[ProgressiveMind]

worhless argument... im sorry but i think migth begin to embrase atheism.

[bjredwood]

"pascal's theorem" lol. "*mathematical* constants"? ouch... someone is making a fool out of himself...

[Fromzon]

stupidity has got no borders...

[spacula]

lame. you didn't read anything. that or your ability to summarize a point is either extremely poor, or influenced by intellectual dishonesty.

[floydoid]

For the billionth time - you can either believe the smartest scientists on the planet who admit they are not 100% sure on how the universe came into existance or you can believe the millions of sheep who say there was a spirit floating around in the nothingness that waved his magical arm and poofed everything into existance...please people - start actually THINKING.

[acorscadden]

wow....that's just sad

[Salladsdressing]

Something to REALLY think about is who has the probability on it's side? ;)

If the bible is the word of god, then god is contridicting him self, he says kill the rebellious children and kill people who works on sundays! I have a hard time understanding how reasonable person actually could BELIVE that god is true!

[Norbeone]

And your point is...? Sorry, but you didn't have an actual arguement for god's existence, nor did uou have one against atheism. You need to start explaining why you choose to believe that the 'capital G' created the world and why it's not just part of the 'capital N'.