There is more then enough evidence to prove God exists.

[SkepticThinker]

As I mentioned earlier, Dawkins scientifically "explains" the evolution of the lens thus-
"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously.
Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" ('Climbing Mount Improbable', page146)

Haha he'll have to do better than that!
To say it "spontaneously" appeared out of nowhere and then decided to form itself into a curved shape all on its own is pure wonderland stuff!..
Waddya say Alice?

"I do soooo wish something would make sense for a change!"

As I explained earlier (twice!), that is a complete misrepresentation of what is written in his book. He doesn't AT ALL suggest that anything appeared out of nowhere and decided to do anything. In fact, he almost says the opposite of that - that slight improvements build upon other slight improvements (hence the title of the book!) and that something that was once useful perhaps in some other way, can become useful in a much different way, given the event of a slight change to the earlier model. I'm not sure at this point that I even believe you've read the book. What he says in the book actually does make sense, when read in its proper context. The two sentences that directly follow the one you gave above is as follows, "Any old lump of half-way transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape (there are all sorts of reasons why it might) and it will immediately confer at least a slight improvement over a simple cup or pinhole. Slight improvement is all that is required to inch up the lower slopes of Mount Improbable."
Climbing Mount Improbable - Richard Dawkins - Google Books



And now you've quote mined my response to you as well. Dishonest discussions aren't going to get anybody anywhere.

 

[metis]

What you say here is positively true, however, you mistake the paradigm. It is not theism that is challenging science, it is theism responding to having their noses ground into scientific advancements and the usual announcement that science proves theism wrong, which it never has. Evolution was once their pearl. See, God must be a fallacy as a result of our discovery in evolution, only it backfired on them with many theist accepting evolution as Gods method for creation. Everything that science discovers has that edge of it disproving God in it. Watson and Crick ran into the pub, near their laboratory, shouting that they had found the meaning of life, which was immediately taken as proof that God is a fallacy, instead of realising that DNA was written by God. Science is at odds with theism, not the other way around. We want science to discover knew things that will benefit our society in anyway possible. We are Christians, so, we love everyone and want them to be happy. Science is a two edged sword. The acquisition of knew knowledge with the express hope that it will disprove the idea of God at the same time. It never has, and it never will. You cannot disprove the truth, though Dawkins tries very hard to. So, although your words are true it is science that initiates the confrontation by attempting to prove God wrong, we know that we cannot prove God to anyone other then ourselves, which is why faith is all about individuals not congregations. Religion is a personal facet of our journey through our own mortality. We are not, nor should not, try and prove that God exists. It would be seeking after a sign. No, we are defending our belief in the face of science desperately trying to prove that God is a fairy tale. The question that should be asked is Why? Why is science determined to disprove God and all the positivism that comes with him. Whose side are they fighting for. If not for God then who?

But you're playing the same we/they game that you stereotypically claim scientists pursue, and let me remind you that a high percentage of scientists are theists, and most of the rest are agnostics (defined as not committing one way or another) and not atheists (defined as a belief there are no deities).

 

[metis]

In modern terms, the bible is simply a chronicle of alien interaction with humans over many centuries.
Today's scientists scan the heavens looking for signs of aliens, but what if they've already been and gone?..

Many moons ago I had a blind date that seems to have proven your "alien" theory.

 

[metis]

Science is a religion like no other with a congregation that is unique. They, you, worship their own God with greater zeal and fevor then any theistic God that I know, and they keep their Commandments with greater adherence then mine. Science is a living organism with its own needs and desires. It needs to be worshipped, like the only true God, by a congregation that glorifies it's name and defends it's honour. Your God is, out of necessity, the polar opposite in character to that of the Christian God, however, a God it is and it's congregationalists are folk just like you.

Science is based on observations and experimentation utilizing the scientific method, whereas religion utilizes neither. Scientific hypotheses may be proven false but religious beliefs are mostly unfalsifiable. In science, we don't worship theories nor those who come up with them. I think Newton, Darwin, and Einstein contributed a lot to our understanding of how some things work, but I certainly don't worship them nor their theories.

And if one seriously thinks that somehow scientists stick together, they should get a copy of Scientific American and just look at the beginning whereas different scientists can refute some of the ideas presented by other scientists on a given previous issue. Scientists can be brutal towards each other.

 

[Shuttlecraft]

..He doesn't AT ALL suggest that anything appeared out of nowhere and decided to do anything..

Perhaps you've got a different copy of Climbing Mt Imp?
In mine Dawkins says-
"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously.
Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (page 146)

Or perhaps my interpretation of "spontaneously" is different to yours?
I take it to mean "out of thin air".
As for it then deciding to form itself on its own initiative into a "curved shape", Dawks has gotta be joking!
But in fairness to him he sometimes makes sense..-

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Science is a religion like no other with a congregation that is unique. They, you, worship their own God with greater zeal and fevor then any theistic God that I know, and they keep their Commandments with greater adherence then mine.

Total garbage. Science adjusts and changes over time. No conclusions are absolute - they are all tentative. That's the whole point of the scientific method; nothing is sacred, everything is questionable, and anything is possible provided there's sufficient justification. There are no "commandments" or "Gods" or even anything remotely comparable. It's not only wrong to assert otherwise, it's utterly and completely ridiculous.

Science is a living organism with its own needs and desires. It needs to be worshipped, like the only true God, by a congregation that glorifies it's name and defends it's honour. Your God is, out of necessity, the polar opposite in character to that of the Christian God, however, a God it is and it's congregationalists are folk just like you.

Spewing nonsense doesn't make that nonsense true. You're being so hyperbolic and ridiculous that it's impossible to take you seriously. If you genuinely believe what you have just written, you're not long worth debating any kind of scientific subject with. You're just too delusional.

 

[Serenity7855]

But you're playing the same we/they game that you stereotypically claim scientists pursue, and let me remind you that a high percentage of scientists are theists, and most of the rest are agnostics (defined as not committing one way or another) and not atheists (defined as a belief there are no deities).

That is simply not true. A percentage of scientists are theists, not a high percentage by any means. Some are agnostic but the vast majority are Atheists, unless you can show me evidence to the contrary.

I am not playing the same we/they game as it is them who are proactive not Christians who just defend their position. The fact that every single forum, like this one, has a majority membership of atheists, is testimony to that. We are the persecuted and they are the persecutors, it has always been that way since Satan and his followers were let loose on the earth.

 

[Shad]

Considering theists were once dominate in fields of science it has not always been this way. Nor has the persecuted ever been theists for the sake of being theist. If anything it has always been theists against other theists. Theists have lost their special privileges in many societies. This is not persecution but equality.

 

[Serenity7855]

Total garbage. Science adjusts and changes over time. No conclusions are absolute - they are all tentative. That's the whole point of the scientific method; nothing is sacred, everything is questionable, and anything is possible provided there's sufficient justification. There are no "commandments" or "Gods" or even anything remotely comparable. It's not only wrong to assert otherwise, it's utterly and completely ridiculous.

If you want to see rubbish then this is it. I am not talking about scripture and verse in Christianity no more so then I am talking about the scientific method and all of its ramifications. I am not giving you an opportunity to show us all that you know how experiments are conducted under the scientific method either. I am talking about the ethos of science in comparison to the ethos of theism. The overall organisms and not its individual parts, that you seem so eager to enlighten us about. We are not comparing like for like but ethos to ethos. I am somewhat surprised that I need to explain this.

Spewing nonsense doesn't make that nonsense true. You're being so hyperbolic and ridiculous that it's impossible to take you seriously. If you genuinely believe what you have just written, you're not long worth debating any kind of scientific subject with. You're just too delusional.

And your venomous vitriol does nothing to enhance your credibility. Those who make the most noise are those who are listened to less. That you tried to compare like for like in religion and science is testimony to your lack of comprehension NOT my inability to explain my opinions and beliefs. You are rude and offensive. No one take much notice of those who spout forth such guile, least of all me. Have a nice day, you hear?

You have taken it literal rather the metaphorical. You are suggesting that I believe that science has a literal God instead of a God of principles. How very strange.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Perhaps you've got a different copy of Climbing Mt Imp?
In mine Dawkins says-
"It is not difficult then for rudimentary lens-like objects to come into existence spontaneously.
Any old lump of halfway transparent jelly need only assume a curved shape" (page 146)

Or perhaps my interpretation of "spontaneously" is different to yours?
I take it to mean "out of thin air".
As for it then deciding to form itself on its own initiative into a "curved shape", Dawks has gotta be joking!
But in fairness to him he sometimes makes sense..

Perhaps you need to learn how to understand context and how these words you've haphazardly strung together don't accurately portray what was being said. I've given you the full context, which clearly demonstrates this. I've also given you a separate explanation, after you failed to grasp the words in their proper context.

You haven't actually read the book, have you?

Try being honest, if you can.

 

[Word]

I think the better question is, why does one need a "central reference book" at all? Never mind one that's so far removed from modern culture, science and society?

Why do you think It is "so far removed" from those things? That doesn't make any sense.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

If you want to see rubbish then this is it. I am not talking about scripture and verse in Christianity no more so then I am talking about the scientific method and all of its ramifications. I am not giving you an opportunity to show us all that you know how experiments are conducted under the scientific method either. I am talking about the ethos of science in comparison to the ethos of theism. The overall organisms and not its individual parts, that you seem so eager to enlighten us about. We are not comparing like for like but ethos to ethos. I am somewhat surprised that I need to explain this.

You don't, because it still makes no sense and smacks of total nonsense. The "ethos" of science is exactly what I described. Everything is tentative, nothing is sacred, anything is possible if the evidence leads to it. How on earth could that be considered in any way comparable to dogmatic religion? The comparison is utterly absurd.

And your venomous vitriol does nothing to enhance your credibility.

It's an accurate expression of my reaction to just how ridiculous your claims are.

Those who make the most noise are those who are listened to less. That you tried to compare like for like in religion and science is testimony to your lack of comprehension NOT my inability to explain my opinions and beliefs.

What are you talking about? When have I compared "like for like in religion and science"?

You are rude and offensive. No one take much notice of those who spout forth such guile, least of all me. Have a nice day, you hear?

You've failed to respond to a single one of my objections. Can you support your ill-informed and clearly nonsensical view or not?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Why do you think the Word is "so far removed" from those things? That doesn't make any sense.

Sure it does. It was written thousands of years ago, in a completely different time, place, culture and society than the one we find ourselves in today.

 

[Serenity7855]

Considering theists were once dominate in fields of science it has not always been this way. Nor has the persecuted ever been theists for the sake of being theist. If anything it has always been theists against other theists. Theists have lost their special privileges in many societies. This is not persecution but equality.

No, there was a time when Christian denominations fought against other Christian denominations. Which is no different then saying man against man as none of them were authorised to fight in the name of Jesus Christ. Today it is atheist scientists and disgruntled homosexuals who persecute theism. Still man against man. Nothing changes

You claim that God changes to fit in. This quote has just been posted suggesting the exact opposite. Two atheists having completely opposite beliefs. Where is the consistency.

Originally Posted by SkepticThinker View Post
I think the better question is, why does one need a "central reference book" at all? Never mind one that's so far removed from modern culture, science and society?

And yet you say that "Religion adapts, assimlates and changes or it dies", which is it?

 

[Word]

Sure it does. It was written thousands of years ago, in a completely different time, place, culture and society than the one we find ourselves in today.

"In a different culture"- So there are no more Jews?

"In a different place"- What do you mean by that? LOL

Mentioning when it was written doesn't matter. How are the teachings of Yeshua Ha Mashyach (Jesus) far removed from today?

 

[Ouroboros]

"In a different culture"- So there are no more Jews?

"In a different place"- What do you mean by that? LOL

Mentioning when it was written doesn't matter. How are the teachings of Yeshua Ha Mashyach (Jesus) far removed from today?

It's obvious. And it's something anthropologists and historians deal with all the time.

The cultural setting, language, idioms, the whole framework of ideas, memesphere (if you'd like), was different. It's always changing. Our concepts and thoughts of the world today are different than they were only 20-30 years ago. I'm old enough to see it.

 

[Serenity7855]

"In a different culture"- So there are no more Jews?

"In a different place"- What do you mean by that? LOL

Mentioning when it was written doesn't matter. How are the teachings of Yeshua Ha Mashyach (Jesus) far removed from today?

They are not, my friend. They are the same today as they were 2000 years ago. Adultery is still wrong, as is murder, stealing, bearing false witness and every commandment found in the scripture. To kill someone with a camel or a car is irrelevant. That act of murder is the same. I am baffles to witness such ignorant rhetoric from those who make it their business to attack Christianity.

 

[Word]

It's obvious. And it's something anthropologists and historians deal with all the time.

The cultural setting, language, idioms, the whole framework of ideas, memesphere (if you'd like), was different. It's always changing. Our concepts and thoughts of the world today are different than they were only 20-30 years ago. I'm old enough to see it.

I do see what you mean, but perhaps you don't know what's written in the Bible. You don't agree with "love your neighbor as yourself"? It's fine if you don't , but I'm just making sure you know exactly what you're agreeing with.

Yeshua Ha Mashyach's teachings transcend time, place and culture. He talks about healing, compassion and forgiveness...is that really out of touch with modern times?

 

[Shuttlecraft]

Perhaps you need to learn how to understand context and how these words you've haphazardly strung together don't accurately portray what was being said.
You haven't actually read the book, have you?
Try being honest if you can.

The words were a straight quote from Dawkins, so I'm surprised you're saying they don't accurately portray what he was saying..
Of course i've read the book or I wouldn't have found his quote!
(Incidentally I even had a brief snail-mail correspondence with Dawks in the 1990's)
As for honesty, i've said elsewhere in the hallowed halls of this website that I'm an ex-convict and that I once let a prostitute have my bed, I can't be any more honest than that!
Remember, with your old uncle Shuttlecraft, what you see is what you get..

 

[Word]

They are not, my friend. They are the same today as they were 2000 years ago. Adultery is still wrong, as is murder, stealing, bearing false witness and every commandment found in the scripture. To kill someone with a camel or a car is irrelevant. That act of murder is the same. I am baffles to witness such ignorant rhetoric from those who make it their business to attack Christianity.

Plain ignorance...If they really believe that, there's nothing for us to say except "The Lord bless you"..