The God Delusion - Chapter 2

[otseng]

[Cogitoergosum]

[FinalEnigma]

[Furrowed Brow]

[Confused]

I am formally requesting that we hold off on this chapter until Chapter one is complete. Otseng: you may feel as if Chapter one has nothing left to offer, but I think it sets the foundation for the entire book and there remain many many many issues to be addressed as I have already posted in the other thread for Chapter one.

[Confused]

[Confused]

[otseng]

I am formally requesting that we hold off on this chapter until Chapter one is complete. Otseng: you may feel as if Chapter one has nothing left to offer, but I think it sets the foundation for the entire book and there remain many many many issues to be addressed as I have already posted in the other thread for Chapter one.

No, I didn't say that chapter 1 has nothing left to offer. I started chapter 2 cause we have 25 people registered to debate the book, yet relatively few have participated in chapter 1. By opening up the next chapter, I was hoping more would participate.

[Confused]

I am formally requesting that we hold off on this chapter until Chapter one is complete. Otseng: you may feel as if Chapter one has nothing left to offer, but I think it sets the foundation for the entire book and there remain many many many issues to be addressed as I have already posted in the other thread for Chapter one.

No, I didn't say that chapter 1 has nothing left to offer. I started chapter 2 cause we have 25 people registered to debate the book, yet relatively few have participated in chapter 1. By opening up the next chapter, I was hoping more would participate.

Yes, I think I acknowledged this in the other section with the "coolio". I posted it here before I posted it there and learned you reasoning. My apologies.

[Confused]

Does the inability to disprove the existence of God provide a positive reason to believe?

Not in my opinion. I think the inability to disprove the existence of God is a challenge, not a scapegoat to believe. But I don't think it is impossible to prove or disprove the God of current religions. All one must do is use the same criteria to determine the probability of His existence based on what is known about Him. In the case of Christianity, we evaluate the bible. Since it is suppose to represent what is known as God, then by using convergence of evidence, we can test many of the events that are claimed to have occurred in the bible. This is where I think I was wrong when I said in an earlier post that I was neutral about Ruse. I think he completely misrepresents what most are doing. Because he claims atheists are attacking theists rather then creationism. He is dead wrong. What we challenge is what is known of God. We challenge the bible and the subsequent beliefs based on it, that includes creationism and now ID. However, I will have to say that I am basing this opinion based on what Dawkins presents. To really take a stand on Ruse, I would have to go further and ensure he wasn't taken out of context. Not something I really want to do. So my comments are limited on what is included in this book.
Back to topic. Simply because one cannot disprove something currently isn't a reason to believe in it. Think of our judicial system. Innocent until proven guilty. Based on probability, evaluation of biblical scripture, and watching those who believe in God not practice what is taught by Christ, my overall conclusion at this time is that there is more evidence not to believe than to believe. But I can't take a firm enough stand on this to be what Dawkins calls a "strong atheist'. I am more Defacto atheist but still have many shortcomings, especially in terms of afterlife. Though in future chapters this is addressed.