Stupid apologetics. Richard Dawkins vs McGrath- The probability of God.

Richard Dawkins debated Alister McGrath. One of the questions that was raised was: How do you make that leap of faith towards something which is arguably very unlikely to exist at all.

Part II of Stupid Apologetics.

Category:

Education

Tags:

• Richard
• Dawkins
• Allister
• McGrath
• debate
• christianity
• creationism
• bible
• existentialism
• dennett
• hitchens
• god
• horsemen

[daemonowner]

He seems to say that probabilistic arguments are not the way we should investigate the existence of God, since they are limited in where they can take us, which I more or less agree with. You don't?

[namnack]

@daemonowner Of course not. It's an asinine statement. Everything is limited. The correct statement would be that NO argument should be used to investigate the existence of god. Things don't suddenly come into existence because some people happen to agree on some untestable hypothesis. People will always disagree on supernatural notions because there is nothing tangible to confirm anything about it. It's a waste of time unless the discussion itself is the goal.

[Kclaybond]

McGrath still seems like a nice guy...confused (at least on this issue) but nice.

[namnack]

@laxr5rs What? Work on your English a bit, your comments are like a maths test.

[laxr5rs]

Apologists is very used by Christians as well.

[namnack]

@laxr5rs I blocked this person for trolling.

[laxr5rs]

@vidfreak56

It's find not to agree, but it's not fine to hold an entrenched position and be unwilling to defend it in a normal manner.

Perhaps you've taken a test at School. It is assumed that you know the material prior to taking the test. In a group of evidential thinkers it is assumed that you will defend your position, reasonably and logically.

A wise man once said, "do not wade into a frog pond at night and expect to hear no croaking."

[namnack]

@vidfreak56 I regret to report that I've lost the will to respond. Troll or no troll, you are all the same to me. Boring and predictable as you tread forward in these discussions, assuming to have been done by exactly as you do 'them' by as you pen down the accusation. And reversed psychology attempts that make brave men cry out for their mommy´s. You may judge your success by the number of replies.

I always hope for a different outcome, your agenda remains the same. Until another nick, sir.

[vidfreak56]

@namnack Then dispute it.  Can you? I am wrong about what? LOL you went all this way to refute my first post? Then why didnt you respond to it? Why the indirect response? I refuse to deal with your BS just because you arent willing to give others consideration.

[namnack]

@vidfreak56 I can only say that as long as you keep shut the possibility that you could be wrong while engaging people who do just the exact opposite (contrary to what you believe is the case), you'll be treated as a troll in the eventuality of things. You need to alter the way you present the arguments if your wish is to have discourse. Just look at your first comment in this thread for crying out loud. Do you honestly believe that was something smart there u wrote? I mean Jesus sir..