The God Delusion - Chapter 2

Post by **otseng** » Mon May 14, 2007 6:09 pm

FinalEnigma wrote: If the evidence they have outweighs evidence against it to the extent of high probability then yes, obviously. The most reasonable thing to do in a situation is to accept(even if cautiously) whichever position has the preponderance of evidence.

I see there to be much more evidence for the existence of a God than against. Even in the book, Dawkins only presents one argument against the existence of a God.

In the situation of christianity I see it as being soo muddled by the 2000 years since the inception of the religion and the endless heated debate that has taken place in those 2000 years for eaither position to be truly shown to the average sense to be correct.

Even if it has been "muddled", that doesn't show the original version is not true. The current form might be off, but the original could still be valid. Also even if it has been debated for 2000 years, it likewise does not show it to be wrong.

It takes thorough examination at the least to reach a valid position.

I highly doubt anyone here has done a thorough examination to arrive at their conclusion. I'd be most impressed if anyone has done a thorough examination of all the evidence.

McCulloch · Post by **McCulloch** » Mon May 14, 2007 10:21 pm

otseng wrote:I see there to be much more evidence for the existence of a God than against.

I do not.

otseng wrote:Even in the book, Dawkins only presents one argument against the existence of a God.

Not quite true. In the previous chapter he dismantled various arguments which have been in use historically and are still being used by Christian apologists.

jjg · Post by **jjg** » Mon May 14, 2007 10:26 pm

He hasn't dismantled anything but just shown his own faulty understanding of the arguments.

FinalEnigma · Post by **FinalEnigma** » Tue May 15, 2007 3:02 am

otseng wrote:
FinalEnigma wrote: If the evidence they have outweighs evidence against it to the extent of high probability then yes, obviously. The most reasonable thing to do in a situation is to accept(even if cautiously) whichever position has the preponderance of evidence.
I see there to be much more evidence for the existence of a God than against. Even in the book, Dawkins only presents one argument against the existence of a God.

Well, of course I disagree. But this isnt the place to debate every little piece of evidence.

In the situation of christianity I see it as being soo muddled by the 2000 years since the inception of the religion and the endless heated debate that has taken place in those 2000 years for eaither position to be truly shown to the average sense to be correct.
Even if it has been "muddled", that doesn't show the original version is not true. The current form might be off, but the original could still be valid. Also even if it has been debated for 2000 years, it likewise does not show it to be wrong.

I never meant to say it did. I was merely pointing out that, as you said, there are so many arguments built up back and forth that it would be very difficult to actually look thoroughly through everything.

It takes thorough examination at the least to reach a valid position.
I highly doubt anyone here has done a thorough examination to arrive at their conclusion. I'd be most impressed if anyone has done a thorough examination of all the evidence.

[/quote]
As would I. I dont claim to have examined everything, just as much as i can of what ive come across, i do admit though, i've been lazing a little lately. It's tough to take the time to examine everything that comes your way.

QED · Post by **QED** » Tue May 15, 2007 4:46 am

jjg wrote:He hasn't dismantled anything but just shown his own faulty understanding of the arguments.

jjg -- this is supposed to be a debate. The one-line post you presented here might have been a good opener for a lengthy post listing each point that Dawkins has misunderstood -- but you left that part out. We attempted to debate the First Cause argument with you in Chapter 3 but all I can recall of your responses are a long string of Z's -- no actual reasoning. This would be the more appropriate place for you to set out the misunderstandings that you perceive.

jjg · Post by **jjg** » Tue May 15, 2007 1:07 pm

The justify yourselves in the chapter 3 thread instead of agreeing with one liners like Dawkins wrote off these arguments.

Confused · Post by **Confused** » Wed May 16, 2007 5:57 am

jjg wrote:The justify yourselves in the chapter 3 thread instead of agreeing with one liners like Dawkins wrote off these arguments.

Where are these one liners you assert Dawkins has used? If you wish to refer to chapt 3, then by all means, go there. But where in chapt 2 do these one liners that you have used been used by Dawkins?

Confused · Post by **Confused** » Wed May 16, 2007 6:00 am

McCulloch wrote:
otseng wrote:I see there to be much more evidence for the existence of a God than against.
I do not.

otseng wrote:Even in the book, Dawkins only presents one argument against the existence of a God.
Not quite true. In the previous chapter he dismantled various arguments which have been in use historically and are still being used by Christian apologists.

I have to agree here, however, I think it isn't so much he has presented more evidence for or against the existence of God. I think he has presented a much stronger arguement against the probability of the existence of God and he uses much of chapters 3 and 4 to defend this.