I have understood what you said.
I tried to argue that if someone does that then he would have to abandon the term "animal" altogether because the "sociality" of animals itself is not a homogen thing.
For example the social bevaviour and or "intellect" of lets say whales differs much from that...
Math doesn't say that there is "a thing" that is unknowable.
We can't even tell the quantity of things we can't know. What you do is to summarize all that is unknowable (without even being able to define what that is in sum) and call it "Great". Great is a value judgment that You personally can...
I think there is evidence to support my case (on which i do not however insist in case of better information).
As you said we had predators. Basically what i meant with "weaker" species was exactly that. We did have predators and our physical abilities are not suited to avoid them. Homosapiens...
Off course you can give anything a name. So when we have something unknown it is perfectly legitimate to give it a name. But when you give it a name that already means something else, then you link two things together that actually do not belong to one another.
And that is exactly what is done...
We didn't evolve "large" brains, we only evolved larger brains.
Why ?
I think the most obvious answer would be (as usual) the benefit for selection.
Larger brains means more storage capacity in order to remember and learn.
Since (in my view) we are rather imperfect animals (compared to other...
What makes you believe that ?
It is actually a statement that is in my view uterly false. It rests on the premise that any "deity" is just any "abstract something that someone calls god".
But when you look at the "concrete implementation" of supposed deities (meaning their attributes, traits...
You made a mistake in your argument.
You originally said:
If that is so, how would you logically derive that the "something" that is beyond the reach of science is at the same time a "great" unknowable that "makes the universe work". ?
Just knowing that something is not known or knowable...
If THAT is YOUR definition of animals, then by MERE definition humans can't be animals.
There is no sense in that statement!
Its just as if one were to say Grass is blue and not green because grass is by definition what is not green but blue.
The term animal is defined however not by you but...
I am not sure if my comment fits the question.
I do not have much to say about criticizing dawkins ideas (as far as i know them), but i certainly have some problems with his "style" of conveying them.
For example in his book God delusion i find him all to often jump to conclusions and make...
This is the point of the complete post. But actualy it states nothing really extraordinary.
By the same statement i could say:
Something like a stone exists and if i call it God then i have proven the existence of God even empirically.
What use should i make of such a thing ? None.
Thats also...
Well i think they SHOULD at least know how the scientific method works. Knowing this however would prevent all serious teachers from claiming that ID or creationism could be considered scientific.
I think you made a common mistake. You see you can't say it is true unless you verify all claims it makes. If it makes the claim to be divinely inspired you must check that FIRST before you can (after checking the other claims) conclude it is true.
Your ordering of the sentence suggests a...
I doubt that you are even willing to listen but at least I tried. He was a very popular muslim once as long as he spent his time writing that pseudo-science-ideological rubbish about evolution, creation and miracles. And obviously with a lot of folks like you he still is... I ripped him apart...