Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?

Sure it is.
Regards

Which part? Please be specific.

 

[paarsurrey]

Tag question
Tag question - Wikipedia

In case you didn't realize what you are doing, Paarsurrey, since English does not seem to be your first language. But when you add "right?" to the end of your statements you change the intent of that statement.

One aspect is to seek clarification.
Regards

 

[paarsurrey]

Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?

Can one give me the strongest arguments given by Dawkins in the book "The God delusion"? Please
Regards

 

[Jeremiahcp]

Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?

Can one give me the strongest arguments given by Dawkins in the book "The God delusion"? Please
Regards

Are you saying you don't know what they are?

 

[Jeremiahcp]

One aspect is to seek clarification.
Regards

Sure it can, but sometimes what we intent to write is not what people read. When using something like a tag question you should be aware of all the ways it can be read to help make sure people read what you want them to read.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?

I think it is the delusion of the author.
If he did provide any good argument, please mention it here.
Anybody, please
Regards

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Is it delusion of “The God delusion”?

I think it is the delusion of the author.
If he did provide any good argument, please mention it here.
Anybody, please
Regards

You started this thread calling the book deluded. Why don't you tell us why you think this? I asked you for this a long time ago and you ignored my post.

Can't you back up your claim?

 

[Kirran]

Just read the book man.

 

[paarsurrey]

Just read the book man.

Did one read it? Please
Regards

 

[Kirran]

Did one read it? Please
Regards

Nah, haven't read that one. Read a couple of his science books though.

 

[1robin]

"I noticed you made no attempt to justify his claim."

I don't care either way about Dawkins, or his claims, as I have a life and better things to do. It just makes me laugh the way believers get all steamed over him. Believers talk about Dawkins far more than non-believers do, and it is a bit silly. If his arguments are so non-consequential then why do they keep yammering on about him?

What on Earth are you talking about? Even if I was "steamed" you could not possibly know it. Dawkins' steps into arenas he is unqualified in, makes utter non-sense, and I simply show it is non-sense. No fuming, no frustration, no steaming. Take a nap or something. People listen to him for 3 main reasons. He says things they like, they do not have the education level to evaluate the philosophy of science, and because of a fallacy (I can't remember the name) where credibility in one field is unjustly granted in another field.

 

[1robin]

No; that was me.

I did not mention nor did I ask anything that could be answered with "empirical evidence".

Care to give some examples to back up this claim?

Multiple universes.

The god you referred to.

My God self identifies as a male.

They were pointing out problems with your line of thinking. The fact that you don't see these problems as important just emphasizes this.

Stop arguing by proxy.

So you agree that there is no evidence for God within the scope of science?

There is no proof of God in science, actually there is no proof of anything in science. I make more arguments about God using science that anything else. I can not prove that God exists using science, and you cannot prove that reality didn't just pop into being 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. However I can show that given certain scientific evidence the conclusion God exists is far more probable than it's negation.

This makes no sense. The bar for how much evidence you need to rationally justify a belief doesn't magically lower simply because you don't expect to get more evidence for God.

"I'd like to buy this Ferarri."
"Great - it's $300,000."
"I only have $10,000."
"That's too bad. The price is $300,000."
"Well, I'm not able to get any more than $10,000, so $10,000 is enough to buy it. Here's a cheque; can I have the keys, please?"

Do you think this is how the world works? That insufficient evidence somehow becomes sufficient if you can't get more?

I thank God that nothing in the world works anything like what you have posted. That bizarre car thing above has nothing to do with anything. What I said is a principle of philosophy. Read this slowly. You can only claim an insufficiency exists if we should have X amount of evidence for Y (if it exists) yet we have less than X amount of evidence. Every atom in the universe is evidence for God's existence. Natural laws have never brought anything into being from non-being. Has 2 + 2 ever put $4 in your checking account?

Sorry but I am running low on time these days and debates like this just aren't a justifiable use of what little time I have.

 

[paarsurrey]

I did not mention nor did I ask anything that could be answered with "empirical evidence".


Multiple universes.


My God self identifies as a male.


Stop arguing by proxy.


There is no proof of God in science, actually there is no proof of anything in science. I make more arguments about God using science that anything else. I can not prove that God exists using science, and you cannot prove that reality didn't just pop into being 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. However I can show that given certain scientific evidence the conclusion God exists is far more probable than it's negation.


I thank God that nothing in the world works anything like what you have posted. That bizarre car thing above has nothing to do with anything. What I said is a principle of philosophy. Read this slowly. You can only claim an insufficiency exists if we should have X amount of evidence for Y (if it exists) yet we have less than X amount of evidence. Every atom in the universe is evidence for God's existence. Natural laws have never brought anything into being from non-being. Has 2 + 2 ever put $4 in your checking account?

Sorry but I am running low on time these days and debates like this just aren't a justifiable use of what little time I have.

"actually there is no proof of anything in science. I make more arguments about God using science that anything else. I can not prove that God exists using science, and you cannot prove that reality didn't just pop into being 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. However I can show that given certain scientific evidence the conclusion God exists is far more probable than it's negation."

I like the post. The above point colored in magenta is a winner point

.
It is very informative.
Please
Regards

 

[1robin]

"actually there is no proof of anything in science. I make more arguments about God using science that anything else. I can not prove that God exists using science, and you cannot prove that reality didn't just pop into being 5 minutes ago with the appearance of age. However I can show that given certain scientific evidence the conclusion God exists is far more probable than it's negation."

I like the post. The above point colored in magenta is a winner point View attachment 15876.
It is very informative.
Please
Regards

Thank you for the sentiments.

 

[paarsurrey]

Nah, haven't read that one. Read a couple of his science books though.

Science books are different. It is OK for those books. Please
Anybody who has read his book "The God Delusion", please give the strongest reason/argument given by the author of the book. Please
Regards

 

[icehorse]

"science itself doesn't say anything about the question of whether a god exists."

Sure, "existence of G-d" is not a subject of science. The book has a misleading affect on the common people, but contains no positive justification of "no-god" position/non-position.

Regards

Scientists are busily collecting evidence on all fronts. From sub-atomic particles to superclusters containing millions of galaxies. If some "god" is sending us a message, scientists are open to receiving it.

 

[paarsurrey]

Scientists are busily collecting evidence on all fronts. From sub-atomic particles to superclusters containing millions of galaxies. If some "god" is sending us a message, scientists are open to receiving it.

Science does not deal in Revelation Messages .
Regards

 

[icehorse]

Science does not deal in Revelation Messages .
Regards

Science deals in messages and data of all sorts. if god is sending a message, scientists will spot it.

 

[paarsurrey]

Science deals in messages and data of all sorts. if god is sending a message, scientists will spot it.

It is beyond science. Science has its limitation it cannot exceed. Please
Regards

________________
The thread was conceptualized from the following posts:
#98 icehorse
#99 paarsurrey ,
one may like to read them.

 

[icehorse]

It is beyond science. Science has its limitation it cannot exceed. Please
Regards

________________
The thread was conceptualized from the following posts:
#98 icehorse
#99 paarsurrey ,
one may like to read them.

How do you know? What if there is - by some faintly remote chance - a god, who chooses to communicate with us through the medium of gravity waves? Perhaps this god's test is that he won't speak to his creations until they've learned enough about the universe to detect gravity waves?

Why is my speculation any less valid than yours?