Is Richard Dawkins a good scientist?

[1robin]

No it isn't! Faith and guesses don't really have a place in any serious discussion of the mind.

Well as Descartes showed if you reduce everything to only what is absolutely known we are left with almost nothing. That is why guesses, theories, and even possibilities are discussed every single day in every science class room on earth.

Mental experiences can be correlated with brain activity, and the understanding of how the brain creates its sense of mind and unified, permanent personal identity, is becoming more clearly understood as the years go on.

There are definitely many correlations between the brains physiology and thought and action, but it seems the soul (mind) is greater than the sum of its parts.

For the record, natural law theology was borrowed from Aristotle by Christian theologians...it did not originate from Christianity or Judaism, and it is not dependent on the existence of God. In Aristotle's presentation, natural law is understood in the context of what he called cultivating the virtues.

Hold the phone. Just because two people are thinking about the same issue does not mean that one borrowed from the other.

And for what it's worth, Aristotle's method of improving one's behavior and conduct by thinking before taking action on impulse, and focusing on the virtues until they become ingrained, looks remarkably similar to the approach a cognitive therapist might take when trying to teach an addict how to shift patterns leading to addiction towards other healthier alternatives.

Actually the Greeks are anything but ethical role models. The concept of compassion is not on any Athenian's or Spartan's list of virtues. In fact it is closer to a vice. They left any baby that showed any signs of weakness out in the weather to die. You can still find the bones of thousands at the bottom a cliffs. If you had ever read Thucydides’ history of the Peloponnesian war you would lose any respect for their morality real quick. The Spartans not only allowed adultery it was the norm. The entire state was designed to kill other as effeciently as possible. They both practiced extremely harsh slavery (unlike the Bible) the Spartans actually lived off them completely.

Point being that even a Christian therapist who's honest, has to admit that someone professing a born again experience does not demonstrate permanent change;

That is just completely wrong I have known many. My best friend in High school was about as rebellious as possible. He killed his cousin in a drunk driving accident and would not go near a church and failed at everything. He much later went to church and got saved. Now years later he is married with 3 kids, owns three companies, and goes on mission trips around the world. I at one time literally hated God but actually was sure he didn't exist, not a single day since I was saved have I ever drawn that that same conclusion. Library’s can't hole the accounts of people who were going one direction as fast as they could away from God and then did an about face and have never wavered. Look at Paul for goodness sake. That claim is just false.

I chose to speak from my own recollections about George Foreman and Johnny Cash, because as I later discovered, Foreman's story that's accessible with a search engine, is cluttered with evangelical and NDE propaganda now. I couldn't find one in-depth account dealing specifically with his life after death claims that was not from an NDE sight or an obvious fundamentalist site with an agenda!

What? I have heard him recount it in person many times. I have heard one in which a trainer was there that confirmed it. Johnny Cash's story is attested to by all that knew him. You literally would never reach the end of accounts like this that exist in print. I think bias is the only reason that it could possibly be doubted. Heck, every apostle there was denied Christ until the upper room and then never wavered even unto death.

The only serious accounts taken on his Wikipedia page or boxing sources just mention his claim and go no further. At the time, there was no one in Foreman's corner who corroborated the story. The ringside doctor said he was running a fever and dehydrated, but no one even corroborated the story that he blacked out afterwards in the dressing room, and they didn't hear about his NDE until later, when they discovered that he decided to quit boxing and they were all out of a job. But, George Foreman must have been a pretty young street thug! He started boxing amateur at age 16, after he dropped out of high school. There was a story years ago, that he beat up his grade school principle when he was 11 in grade 6, but that may also be an urban legend.

Have you ever seen the films of him in Zaire? He was a complete thug and hated every one. Now he is a teddy bear loved by all and loving all. Only emotion colored glasses could find issue with that.
Just out of curiosity, what do you think of Billy Graham? Even the most devoted God haters I have ever debated have all respected him. (Not that you are one)

What Does the Bible Really Say?
Dedicated believers often say that the word "circle" could actually mean "sphere," since both are round, but they ignore Isaiah’s use of a different word in another verse where he speaks of a "ball:
He will surely violently turn and toss thee like a BALL (duwr) into a large country: there shalt thou die, and there the chariots of thy glory shall be the shame of thy lord’s house. (Isaiah 22:18)
The Hebrew word used in scripture for "circle" in Isaiah 40:22 is chuwg. If the author meant to imply that "circle of the earth" indicated that the earth was a sphere, it would have made more sense to use the Hebrew word for "ball," which is duwr. The word "chuwg" more likely refers to a flat, circular earth.

Scientific Accuracy and "Circular" ReasoningSkeptical Monkey | Skeptical Monkey

I tell you what. It will be a little frustrating to me to debate claims that you say what I have experienced and seen with my own eyes many times does not exist. If you want we can switch to scientific Biblical claims like the ones above. You find the issue far more complex than what you posted above.

 

[R34L1TY]

Is Richard Dawkins a scientist..LOL. He is one of the worlds top Zoologists. I have read much of his work and he is definitely a Scientist. Just because he is a strong activist against Creationism doesn't mean anybody should shoot the man's work and education down. What a silly, immature way of looking at things. Was this thread made as a joke? I find this humiliating for some reason.

I don't necessarily agree with his aggressiveness in terms of teaching religious followers the way of Evolution. But I do understand the frustration of when somebody does not look at the evidence and has become more ignorant than one could bare.

 

[1robin]

Is Richard Dawkins a scientist..LOL. He is one of the worlds top Zoologists. I have read much of his work and he is definitely a Scientist. Just because he is a strong activist against Creationism doesn't mean anybody should shoot the man's work and education down. What a silly, immature way of looking at things. Was this thread made as a joke? I find this humiliating for some reason.

I don't necessarily agree with his aggressiveness in terms of teaching religious followers the way of Evolution. But I do understand the frustration of when somebody does not look at the evidence and has become more ignorant than one could bare.

I think if you will review this thread, you would see that most people (even Christians) like me said he was a very competant scientist. However he should be locked in the lab because he is a terrible philosopher and a train wreck as a theologian. I also think a very large portion of evolution is based on more faith than is required for the Bible. That would not be a problem except that we admit faith is needed and the grant hungry camera hog, new crop of scientists won't. The least discussed issue here has been his competance. By the way, HI.

 

[PolyHedral]

I think if you will review this thread, you would see that most people (even Christians) like me said he was a very competant scientist. However he should be locked in the lab because he is a terrible philosopher and a train wreck as a theologian. I also think a very large portion of evolution is based on more faith than is required for the Bible. That would not be a problem except that we admit faith is needed and the grant hungry camera hog, new crop of scientists won't. The least discussed issue here has been his competance. By the way, HI.

What does it mean to be a good philosopher? What sort of criteria does one use to judge a work and say, "This is good philosophy?"

 

[1robin]

What does it mean to be a good philosopher? What sort of criteria does one use to judge a work and say, "This is good philosophy?"

That a person’s philosophical statements are consistent with known philosophical logic. I.E. If your philosophy says that a mouse produced a sonnet that is inconsistent with the known rules of cause and effect. If you say that A = A'. If your philosophy does not closely match reality then you have little credibility as a philosopher. That or use a philosophical barometer.
The problems I have with his philosophy lie more along theological philosophy lines. I wouldn't attempt to judge his expertise in biology or genetics for the most part but I do understand more than enough of theologically related philosophy to know he is out of his realm of competence. For example God is referred to as the uncaused first cause of the universe for many many reasons. Even Sunday school children know that the Bible claims he is eternal. It does not matter if that is true or not to know that when Dawkin's asks who made God he is reveling he does not understand even the basics of the issue. I had seen every Dawkin's theological debate I could find up until a year ago or so. I do not think he won or even came off as competent in a single one. Even allowing that I have some bias on the issue he still is not very good outside of scientific oriented discussion. I will say that he is somewhat more honest than many at times IMO.

 

[Noaidi]

I think if you will review this thread, you would see that most people (even Christians) like me said he was a very competant scientist. However he should be locked in the lab because he is a terrible philosopher and a train wreck as a theologian.

Given that theology is the study of deity, and that the subject matter can include such 'likely' topics as parthenogenesis in humans, walking on water and revival from death, Dawkins is just as qualified to discuss these topics as anyone else.
Just because someone has a PhD in theology doesn't mean that they are any more knowledgeable or credible about such postulations as one who doesn't.

 

[PolyHedral]

That a person’s philosophical statements are consistent with known philosophical logic. I.E. If your philosophy says that a mouse produced a sonnet that is inconsistent with the known rules of cause and effect. If you say that A = A'. If your philosophy does not closely match reality then you have little credibility as a philosopher. That or use a philosophical barometer.
The problems I have with his philosophy lie more along theological philosophy lines. I wouldn't attempt to judge his expertise in biology or genetics for the most part but I do understand more than enough of theologically related philosophy to know he is out of his realm of competence. For example God is referred to as the uncaused first cause of the universe for many many reasons. Even Sunday school children know that the Bible claims he is eternal. It does not matter if that is true or not to know that when Dawkin's asks who made God he is reveling he does not understand even the basics of the issue. I had seen every Dawkin's theological debate I could find up until a year ago or so. I do not think he won or even came off as competent in a single one. Even allowing that I have some bias on the issue he still is not very good outside of scientific oriented discussion. I will say that he is somewhat more honest than many at times IMO.

One can hardly call Dawkins a bad philosopher for taking the premise of such a garbage argument and running with it.

 

[Noaidi]

One can hardly call Dawkins a bad philosopher for taking the premise of such a garbage argument and running with it.

Indeed. Good for him for emphasising the nonsensical nature of that particular piece of philosophy. An 'uncaused first cause' capable of such feats as creating the Universe would have to be complex in the extreme and thus have to have been the product of a designer of even greater complexity.

 

[1robin]

Given that theology is the study of deity, and that the subject matter can include such 'likely' topics as parthenogenesis in humans, walking on water and revival from death, Dawkins is just as qualified to discuss these topics as anyone else.
Just because someone has a PhD in theology doesn't mean that they are any more knowledgeable or credible about such postulations as one who doesn't.

What? Dawkin's field of expertise concerns how natural law operates. It does not concern nor have access to the super natural. G.K. Chesterton once said that until scientists know exactly why pumpkins remain pumpkins they can no comment on how a pumpkin may because a coach. Natural sciences have absolutely no access to the spiritual. That is the domain of historians, philosophers, and theologians. They are 95% non over lapping magisterium. In fact biology and theology are not even in the same category of truth.

"Professor Ambrose Fleming, emeritus professor of Electrical Engineering in the University of London, honorary fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, receiver of the Faraday medal ...one of England's outstanding scientists..." says of the New Testament documents: Ambrose Fleming asserts that there is nothing in the Gospels that would cause a man of science to have problems with the miracles contained therein, and concludes with a challenge to intellectual honesty, asserting that if such a "...study is pursued with what eminent lawyers have called a willing mind, it will engender a deep assurance that the Christian Church is not founded on fictions, or nourished on delusions, or, as St. Peter calls them, 'cunningly devised fables,' but on historical and actual events, which, however strange they may be, are indeed the greatest events which have ever happened in the history of the world."
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html

 

[1robin]

One can hardly call Dawkins a bad philosopher for taking the premise of such a garbage argument and running with it.

Regardless of whether it is a good or bad philosophy I did not say he adopted the premise and "ran" with it. I said he did not seem to understand the premise behind the philosophy of cause and effect in general. The implications of cause and effect are absolute. There must be an uncaused first cause, God or unknown. He is a terrible philosopher and an abysmal theologian but a competent scientist. There is no reason he would be or should be good in the other fields unless he was falsely made a hero by people who feel that he champions their point of view. By the way cause and effect and its implications concerning God are not weak in any way, they are absolute, in escapable, and there for inconvenient to the unbelieving and therefore as in all cases incorrectly maligned. The same way the characteristics of the universe imply God so clearly that pure fantasies like oscillating universes and multiverses are adopted even though they require an infinitely larger amount of faith than the Bible does, and referred to science even though it violates their own scientific method.

 

[1robin]

Indeed. Good for him for emphasizing the nonsensical nature of that particular piece of philosophy. An 'uncaused first cause' capable of such feats as creating the Universe would have to be complex in the extreme and thus have to have been the product of a designer of even greater complexity.

Are you actually suggesting a cause for the uncaused first cause? That makes no sense. The characteristics claimed concerning God perfectly match what philosophy suggests the uncaused first cause of the universe must be. They were written down thousands of years before these parameters were identified, so they could not have been faked. You are either introducing a cause for the first cause for some bizarre reason or positing an infinite regress of causation which is no better. It is truly a wonder, to watch the mental gymnastics that ensue when something suggests God's existence.

 

[Noaidi]

What? Dawkin's field of expertise concerns how natural law operates. It does not concern nor have access to the super natural. G.K. Chesterton once said that until scientists know exactly why pumpkins remain pumpkins they can no comment on how a pumpkin may because a coach. Natural sciences have absolutely no access to the spiritual. That is the domain of historians, philosophers, and theologians. They are 95% non over lapping magisterium. In fact biology and theology are not even in the same category of truth.

So, a biologist can't comment on human parthenogenesis as outlined in the bible - despite this being a topic biology can potentially address through investigation?

"Professor Ambrose Fleming, emeritus professor of Electrical Engineering in the University of London, honorary fellow of St. John's College, Cambridge, receiver of the Faraday medal ...one of England's outstanding scientists..." says of the New Testament documents: Ambrose Fleming asserts that there is nothing in the Gospels that would cause a man of science to have problems with the miracles contained therein, and concludes with a challenge to intellectual honesty, asserting that if such a "...study is pursued with what eminent lawyers have called a willing mind, it will engender a deep assurance that the Christian Church is not founded on fictions, or nourished on delusions, or, as St. Peter calls them, 'cunningly devised fables,' but on historical and actual events, which, however strange they may be, are indeed the greatest events which have ever happened in the history of the world."
http://www.angelfire.com/sc3/myredeemer/Evidencep29.html

Again, the virgin birth in a human is a useful example here.

 

[Noaidi]

Are you actually suggesting a cause for the uncaused first cause? That makes no sense. The characteristics claimed concerning God perfectly match what philosophy suggests the uncaused first cause of the universe must be. They were written down thousands of years before these parameters were identified, so they could not have been faked. You are either introducing a cause for the first cause for some bizarre reason or positing an infinite regress of causation which is no better. It is truly a wonder, to watch the mental gymnastics that ensue when something suggests God's existence.

Well, give us the evidence for god being this 'uncaused first cause' instead of treating it as a given.

 

[1robin]

So, a biologist can't comment on human parthenogenesis as outlined in the bible - despite this being topic biology can potentially address through investigation?

I tell you what, you find that word in the Bible and I will concede the issue. What relevance does asexual reproduction have to do with the Bible? If you try and link that with Mary I give up.

Again, the virgin birth in a human is a useful example here.

Please tell me you are not attempting to say that Mary's having becoming pregnant miraculously was a rare biological process found in a few species of reptiles, bugs, and plants. If you are I will give you the distinction of making the worst and most desperate attempt to avoid the implications of reliable texts found in the Bible that I have ever heard and has probably ever been made in the history of man. Just out of curiosity can you find a single respected biologist that will actually agree with what I sincerely hope you are too smart to actually be implying here? I swear just when you think you have heard them all.

 

[1robin]

Well, give us the evidence for god being this 'uncaused first cause' instead of treating it as a given.

After that last post I am unsure how deep I want to get into an issue with you. I will just simply say that philosophers have concluded by the well-known and never violated principles of cause and effect what characteristics the cause of the universe must have.
1. Independent of time.
2. Independent of space.
3. Independent of matter.
4. Must exist prior to the universe.
5. Must be infinitely all powerful.
6. Must be infinitely all knowing.
7. Must be uncaused.
8. It is also almost sure that it would have to be personal, volitional, rational, and lawful.

Over 4000 years ago people who had no idea what cause and effect or even a universe was gave these exact descriptions to God.

The implications of a fine tuned, caused, rational, ordered, and seemingly purposeful universe that is balanced on a knife edge to support life at all implies God so clearly that it scared the secular scientists so bad they invented any fantasy they could conjure to avoid the predicament. They and many others that have made a God out of a field of study that can barely access a small percentage of natural law that is only one of many ways to access reality have adopted multiverses or oscillating universe models as worthy of more consideration than theological claims and call it science even though they have less evidence (in fact none) than the theological claims. They ridicule a religion that has more than enough evidence to justify faith and then adopt a fantasy that not only does not have any evidence but can't ever have any. That is hypocrisy on steroids. If God did not exist then we should not have anything (no universe, no time, no us) Nothing produces nothing. Almost no one believes the universe is eternal. It is a logical impossibility. An infinate amount of seconds or past events can't be traversed to arrive at this one. Professional debaters have now almost all rejected the eternal universe for one in which nothing existed and then time, matter, and space began to exist a finite time ago. 4000 years ago people who had never seen a school of any kind said that very thing in Genesis 1:1
New International Version (©1984)
In the beginning (time) God (who) created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).
In summary we have a good idea what the uncaused first cause would resemble. God is the only candidate that fits the description. His existence is evident but not proven by what is claimed in the Bible and other data. There isn't anything else known to even consider. God is the most likely candidate but this side of the dirt it will never be proven. No more so than life arrived from non-life even though it violates their own law of abiogenesis. Never the less they claim it as fact even though it violates their own scientific method and I defend only that my claim is very likely but unproven. It is clear who is honestly putting forth their claims.

 

[Noaidi]

I tell you what, you find that word in the Bible and I will concede the issue. What relevance does asexual reproduction have to do with the Bible? If you try and link that with Mary I give up.

Was Mary a virgin when Jesus was born or not? If she was, where did the Y chromosome to produce a male come from?

Please tell me you are not attempting to say that Mary's having becoming pregnant miraculously was a rare biological process found in a few species of reptiles, bugs, and plants. If you are I will give you the distinction of making the worst and most desperate attempt to avoid the implications of reliable texts found in the Bible that I have ever heard and has probably ever been made in the history of man.

If it was through a different process, then please outline it.

 

[1robin]

Was Mary a virgin when Jesus was born or not? If she was, where did the Y chromosome to produce a male come from?

Your line of reasoning is very bizarre. To consider anything we must evaluate that thing as it is claimed to be. To evaluate a car, I do not assume up front that cars do not exist or that cars are identical to space shuttles. The same is true with God. You can't evaluate God by first arbitrarily deciding that the supernatural does not exist. The amounts of things we believe in that have no empirical proof are virtually infinite. You must take the description of God as he appears in the Bible and discuss the implications of that. If God exists and created the universe, I do not think that a chromosome would be much of a challenge. As you can see from my description whatever created the universe is very likely to be volitional, personal, omnipotent, and omniscient. Even if it wasn't the Biblical God then whatever it was would not have trouble with a chromosome either. I think you have decided to reject God for whatever reason and have developed an emotional commitment to that view that has caused you to reject the supernatural as possible and then evaluate the Bible. That is hardly a meaningful method. I think rather than Mary that God's existence is the issue. If he exists then the supernatural exists. If the supernatural exists then chromosomes are not an issue. So we are back to where we started. You have put god in a box defined by natural law which has no justification outside of preference. We do not fully understand how natural law works we certainly aren’t qualified to evaluate the exceptions.

Give me an example (other than from the bible) of a human female reproducing in this manner. There's no point in listing other species - I'm well aware of them. We are talking about the human animal here (as I'm sure you are well aware of). If it was through a different process, then please outline it.

I need not outline what the Bible did long before me and better than I ever could. The definition of miracle is that it is a very rare and exclusive suspension of natural law. Now you are telling me to search through natural law to find a similar example. That is obviously flawed logic. It is flawed as well to assume so many of the things in our lives are real while not demanding the same proof required for them as you do for the Bible. It is a double standard. Many Bible critics may believe that life arose by chance. That has no proof, violates the scientific method, and defies scientists operating in controlled labs. It even violates a law of science (abiogenesis). Yet it is accepted and the Bible with 25,000 historical corroborations plus thousands of accurate detailed prophecies and testimony that meets the most rigorous demands of modern law is rejected. I have little respect for inconsistency. I am sure you believe that to kill all the children on Earth is actually wrong. Can you prove that it is without God? Without God can you justify our belief that humans have worth, are created equal, and have rights of any kind? Can you show that we are more valuable than the many bugs that you killed on the way to the store every day? You seem to like biology: Can you tell me what system produced the very first system that could convert energy into complexity? If you can't then by your standard none of that stuff is true. You said to supply accounts of virgin births. You didn't say I had to believe them:
There are at least a few dozen instances of virgin births in history that I'm aware of, mostly of religious figures.
Eighteen hundred years before Christ, we find carved on one of the walls of the great temple of Luxor a picture of the annunciation, conception and birth of King Amunothph III, an almost exact copy of the annunciation, conception and birth of the Christian God.
Roman/Greek: Demeter and Persephone, Rhea and Zeus, Apollo
In Egypt, virgin mother Isis begat Horus
In Phrygia, Attis was born of the virgin Nama.
A nymph bathing in a river in China is touched by a lotus plant, and the divine Fohi is born.
In Siam, a wandering sunbeam caresses a girl in her teens, and the great and wonderful deliverer, Codom, is born.
In the life of Buddha we read that he descended on his mother Maya, "in likeness as the heavenly queen, and entered her womb," and was born from her right side, to save the world."
In Greece, the young god Apollo visits a fair maid of Athens, and a Plato is ushered into the world.
From Greece comes the virgin birth of Adonis, who was resurrected after being killed by a wild boar. Adonis was revered by the Phoenicians as a dying-and-rising god, and Athenians held Adonia, a yearly festival representing his death and resurrection, in midsummer.
From the Americas comes a remarkable story of the god-man Quetzalcoatl told by the Aztecs and Mayans. Not only did he have a virgin birth, but he was associated with the planet Venus, the morning star, as was Jesus. In addition, the religion built around him used the cross as a symbolic representation. Like the myths around Jesus, Quetzalcoatl said he would return to claim his earthly kingdom.
Mithra was a Persian god who was also a virgin birth, but was more than just a tribal god. Mithra was born in a cave and had twelve companions. Mithra's birthday was also on December 25th. Both religions celebrate the resurrection at Easter. Much of what we know about Mithracism today came from the Christians. The prophet Zoroaster was also born of a virgin.
Perseus and Hercules all experienced virgin births after being fathered by yet other gods. Horus, Mithra, Dionysus and Krishna were all born on December 25th., their births were announced by "stars", attended by 'wise men', involved humble birth locations, entailed the massacre of innocents and fleeing for safety from enemies, and so on and on.
A Roman savior Quirrnus was born of a virgin.
In Tibet, Indra was born of a virgin. He ascended into heaven after death.
In India, the god Krishna was born of the virgin Devaki.
Virgin births were claimed for many Egyptian pharaohs, Greek emperors and for Alexander the Great of Greece.
For a discussion of several aspects of the Christian virgin-birth story, including speculation on origins.
http://www.religioustolerance.org/virgin…
Not only the idea of a virgin mother, but all the other miraculous events, such as the stable cradle, the guiding star, the massacre of the children, the flight to Egypt, and the resurrection and bodily ascension toward the clouds, have not only been borrowed, but are even scarcely altered in the New Testament story of Jesus.
http://www.sonn.com/~perly/glk/files/Mai…
Comparisons of the story of Jesus Christ to stories of other religious figures
http://www.church-of-chaos.de/literature…
http://www.sonn.com/~perly/glk/files/Uns…
http://www.uc.summit.nj.uua.org/Sermons/…
http://www.crosscircle.com/CH_2m.htm
AOL Lifestream : Login
A discussion of the virgin-birth story from a modern perspective
Truth be told, how many "virgin" births are there in history? - Yahoo! Answers


I never thought I would use an argument against the Bible in a debate for the Bible.

 

[Noaidi]

Your line of reasoning is very bizarre. To consider anything we must evaluate that thing as it is claimed to be. To evaluate a car, I do not assume up front that cars do not exist or that cars are identical to space shuttles. The same is true with God. You can't evaluate God by first arbitrarily deciding that the supernatural does not exist. The amounts of things we believe in that have no empirical proof are virtually infinite. You must take the description of God as he appears in the Bible and discuss the implications of that.

This is where you and I differ: you assume the god you believe in exists and I don't. Because we have no evidence of your god (or any others), then why should I take what is written in an ancient text as some sort of 'proof'? I could just as well get a review of a different god from another religion which would argue its case equally well.
My point is there are numerous deities that have 'existed' throughout history - many of which have performed miracles regarding one thing or another. There is no objective evidence for ANY miracles (as far as I know) outwith the teachings and writings of the those religions.

If God exists and created the universe, I do not think that a chromosome would be much of a challenge. As you can see from my description whatever created the universe is very likely to be volitional, personal, omnipotent, and omniscient. Even if it wasn't the Biblical God then whatever it was would not have trouble with a chromosome either.

But it's too convenient just to claim that a god did it. It may have impressed and inspired people 2000 years ago when genetic and molecular knowledge of conception didn't exist but, today, more people are questioning the validity of such a claim.

I think you have decided to reject God for whatever reason and have developed an emotional commitment to that view that has caused you to reject the supernatural as possible and then evaluate the Bible. That is hardly a meaningful method.

Well, it works just fine for the increasing numbers that are rejecting religion. And I'm not rejecting the possibility of the supernatural - I'm fully open to the possibility. It's the lack of evidence that prevents me from embracing such a concept.

I think rather than Mary that God's existence is the issue. If he exists then the supernatural exists. If the supernatural exists then chromosomes are not an issue. So we are back to where we started. You have put god in a box defined by natural law which has no justification outside of preference. We do not fully understand how natural law works we certainly aren’t qualified to evaluate the exceptions.

When the exceptions have no evidence, I think we are fully justified in evaluating and rejecting such claims.
Regarding me putting your god in a box defined by natural law, I could equally say that you have put god in a box defined by the writings of your particular religious tradition. You later list various miracles from other religions - none of which, I take it, you personally believe in. That's because you've limited your god to the teachings you subscribe to and no others.

I need not outline what the Bible did long before me and better than I ever could. The definition of miracle is that it is a very rare and exclusive suspension of natural law. Now you are telling me to search through natural law to find a similar example. That is obviously flawed logic.

Sorry, I had edited that last part before you replied (I mis-read your reply).

It is flawed as well to assume so many of the things in our lives are real while not demanding the same proof required for them as you do for the Bible. It is a double standard. Many Bible critics may believe that life arose by chance. That has no proof, violates the scientific method, and defies scientists operating in controlled labs. It even violates a law of science (abiogenesis).

I've never read an account of life's origins being described yet as a fact. There are several hypotheses, certainly, and it is an ongoing area of research.

I have little respect for inconsistency. I am sure you believe that to kill all the children on Earth is actually wrong.

Yes.

Can you prove that it is without God?

No

Without God can you justify our belief that humans have worth, are created equal, and have rights of any kind?

We define and apply these concepts ourselves. We don't always get it right, though.

Can you show that we are more valuable than the many bugs that you killed on the way to the store every day?

No, I can't show it (but I'm wondering how all these questions relate to Mary miraculously giving birth....)

You said to supply accounts of virgin births. You didn't say I had to believe them:

.........

What makes these accounts unbelievable to you?


So, the bottom line regarding a virgin human giving birth is:
It's a miracle and god did it. Have I got that right?

 

[PolyHedral]

Regardless of whether it is a good or bad philosophy I did not say he adopted the premise and "ran" with it. I said he did not seem to understand the premise behind the philosophy of cause and effect in general.

It doesn't matter what you say - that's what he did. He showed that the argument was ridiculous by logically extending its premises to an absurd conclusion. Either fix the argument (i.e. change the statement "Everything needs a cause") or abandon it.

[/size]

The implications of cause and effect are absolute.

Ooh, could you tell LegionOnomaMoi? We happen to be having a very complex debate over that exact issue.

He is a terrible philosopher and an abysmal theologian but a competent scientist. There is no reason he would be or should be good in the other fields unless he was falsely made a hero by people who feel that he champions their point of view.

Being as good as he is at science requires general intelligence and skill with logic - skills directly transferable to many fields, philosophy among them.

By the way cause and effect and its implications concerning God are not weak in any way, they are absolute, in escapable, and there for inconvenient to the unbelieving and therefore as in all cases incorrectly maligned.

I'm sure you'll be able to justify this to Legion. Perhaps by quoting General Relativity?

The same way the characteristics of the universe imply God so clearly that pure fantasies like oscillating universes and multiverses are adopted even though they require an infinitely larger amount of faith than the Bible does, and referred to science even though it violates their own scientific method.

If you insist that Dawkins should keep his nose out of your precious theology for lack of skill, then I kindly request you similarly keep your ill-founded arguments and irrationalism out of physics.

Otherwise I shall start quoting topology and statistical mechanics at you.

After that last post I am unsure how deep I want to get into an issue with you. I will just simply say that philosophers have concluded by the well-known and never violated principles of cause and effect what characteristics the cause of the universe must have.
1. Independent of time.
2. Independent of space.
3. Independent of matter.
4. Must exist prior to the universe.
5. Must be infinitely all powerful.

Don't make me laugh. That last one isn't even logically coherent.

6. Must be infinitely all knowing.
7. Must be uncaused.

Keep in mind that the combination of these two means that it is impossible for God to think.

8. It is also almost sure that it would have to be personal, volitional, rational, and lawful.

The implications of a fine tuned, caused, rational, ordered, and seemingly purposeful universe that is balanced on a knife edge to support life at all implies God so clearly that it scared the secular scientists so bad they invented any fantasy they could conjure to avoid the predicament

Have you studied (models of) other universes? It's surprisingly easy for life to pop up in them.

They and many others that have made a God out of a field of study that can barely access a small percentage of natural law that is only one of many ways to access reality have adopted multiverses or oscillating universe models as worthy of more consideration than theological claims and call it science even though they have less evidence (in fact none) than the theological claims

It's amazing that no evidence or validation at all lets you control the fundamental constituents of reality and build the nanomachinery that you see today, isn't it?

Almost no one believes the universe is eternal. It is a logical impossibility. An infinate amount of seconds or past events can't be traversed to arrive at this one. Professional debaters have now almost all rejected the eternal universe for one in which nothing existed and then time, matter, and space began to exist a finite time ago.

Were they professional mathematicians? I'd wager that they weren't.

Just because we call it "space" doesn't mean that laymen get to poke their fingers into a highly intricate and bizarre structure, and claim that they have any credibility. Mathematicians are quite happy with time lines that are longer than infinitely long, and can get them to work perfectly logically - neither the universe nor mathematics care what you consider "absurd."

In the beginning (time) God (who) created the heavens (space) and the earth (matter).

And then immediately screws it up by having water exist before electromagnetism. That's not a good start. He also uses "light" to describe something which is distinctly not light, and does not become anything resembling light for hundreds of thousands of years.

 

[gnostic]

If you insist that Dawkins should keep his nose out of your precious theology for lack of skill, then I kindly request you similarly keep your ill-founded arguments and irrationalism out of physics.

Not only physics. Biology, chemistry, geology, meteorology, history, archaeology, anthropology, etc.