Comments on: Book Review: The God Delusion http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html NIGHTTIME IS FOR DREAMING. DAYLIGHT IS FOR ACTION. Mon, 23 Jan 2012 12:09:52 -0800 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9 hourly 1 By: Ebonmuse http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22880 Ebonmuse Mon, 09 Apr 2007 23:20:43 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22880 Folks, I think this discussion has been off-topic for quite a while. Folks, I think this discussion has been off-topic for quite a while.

]]> By: Nes http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22876 Nes Mon, 09 Apr 2007 22:35:55 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22876 <blockquote>Your entire way of looking at reality is indeed subjective, seen through the lenses of your senses and mind. Does that make it untrue?</blockquote> Maybe if I were a solipsist. I'm willing to drop this line of questioning though, to get this thread back on subject.

Your entire way of looking at reality is indeed subjective, seen through the lenses of your senses and mind. Does that make it untrue?

Maybe if I were a solipsist. I'm willing to drop this line of questioning though, to get this thread back on subject.

]]> By: Jarrod http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22865 Jarrod Mon, 09 Apr 2007 14:05:24 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22865 Jimi: I'm positively flattered that you believe, of all things, that I am a plant, and even acknowledge the possibility that I might make things more interesting. Bravo! That said, I am certainly not a plant. I think even the most patient of plants would have problems continuing this thread unless he were payed a decent sum of money to do so. All the comments are to and from me because it seems that people here enjoy arguing, and I enjoy seeing other viewpoints and challenging both them and my own. That all said, I do believe I have provided answers of some sort or another, which is why this thread has deviated from a book argument to a flat out theology/philosophy argument; people are busy answering my answers. I've answered with plain explanations, analogies, examples, and a bit of analysis. Whether or not you choose to critically look at and consider those answers is entirely up to you. Although, I'm wondering when I 'insist on insulting people.' With my long post to Ipetrich aside, which was done to make a point, I've been trying very hard to be civil and amicable; in fact, if you look far enough up the posts, you'll find one from Ebonmuse thanking me for being 'civil and sincere.' I'm utterly failing to understand where these attacks of yours are coming from. But again, we're getting off topic here. I didn't start posting on this thread because I wanted to debate every little aspect of God with you all, as interesting as it is. I came here with some helpful criticism of Dawkins' book, i.e., if you want to convert theists, X,Y, and Z arguments that Dawkins makes are not the way to go about it. I'm all for discussion and argumentation, I just think that Dawkins is doing it the wrong way, and disputing the amazing praise he seems to be getting from this site. So let's go back to the subject matter, allright? Jimi:
I'm positively flattered that you believe, of all things, that I am a plant, and even acknowledge the possibility that I might make things more interesting. Bravo!
That said, I am certainly not a plant. I think even the most patient of plants would have problems continuing this thread unless he were payed a decent sum of money to do so. All the comments are to and from me because it seems that people here enjoy arguing, and I enjoy seeing other viewpoints and challenging both them and my own.

That all said, I do believe I have provided answers of some sort or another, which is why this thread has deviated from a book argument to a flat out theology/philosophy argument; people are busy answering my answers. I've answered with plain explanations, analogies, examples, and a bit of analysis. Whether or not you choose to critically look at and consider those answers is entirely up to you.
Although, I'm wondering when I 'insist on insulting people.' With my long post to Ipetrich aside, which was done to make a point, I've been trying very hard to be civil and amicable; in fact, if you look far enough up the posts, you'll find one from Ebonmuse thanking me for being 'civil and sincere.' I'm utterly failing to understand where these attacks of yours are coming from.
But again, we're getting off topic here. I didn't start posting on this thread because I wanted to debate every little aspect of God with you all, as interesting as it is. I came here with some helpful criticism of Dawkins' book, i.e., if you want to convert theists, X,Y, and Z arguments that Dawkins makes are not the way to go about it. I'm all for discussion and argumentation, I just think that Dawkins is doing it the wrong way, and disputing the amazing praise he seems to be getting from this site. So let's go back to the subject matter, allright?

]]> By: Jimi http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22863 Jimi Mon, 09 Apr 2007 05:35:04 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22863 Everybody It seems all comments are either to or from "Jarrod." Since "Jarrod" won't answer basic questions, won't take a rational stand , and insists on insulting people, I - and others I've let read his "answers" - suspect he is a plant to get arguments boiling, thus making this site more interesting. It already was interesting to me before this "Jarrod" character was introduced. -- Everybody
It seems all comments are either to or from "Jarrod."
Since "Jarrod" won't answer basic questions, won't take a rational stand , and insists on insulting people, I - and others I've let read his "answers" - suspect he is a plant to get arguments boiling, thus making this site more interesting. It already was interesting to me before this "Jarrod" character was introduced.
--

]]> By: Jarrod http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22850 Jarrod Sun, 08 Apr 2007 17:38:59 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22850 Nes: Hey, I did mention another way of knowing, yes, but I have yet to explain it simply because of posts like yours. The method(s) I'm referring to are not independently verifiable, so it figures that whether I explain them or not, it wouldn't matter to you or anyone reading this. Yes, subjective experiences can be rather fallible. That does not mean they always are. Your entire way of looking at reality is indeed subjective, seen through the lenses of your senses and mind. Does that make it untrue? Jacob R: Yes, God is outside our universe, no, that doesn't mean we can't interact with him, or vice versa. The general conception of the Christian God is an omnipotent and omniscient being who is generally outside our realm of understanding. AS such, these sorts of things, as bizarre as they seem to us, can happen. As for your assertion that things with no verifiable or testable consequences are meaningless, perhaps you should tell this to plenty of theoretical scientists and even Dawkins himself. Dawkins frequently postulates things in his book that have no verifiable way of testing and uses them as answers to objections. He gives no evidence and no support for his assertions. Does that make them meaningless? You can extend that argument to plenty of fields of science. Theoretical physics like string theory and aspects of quantum theory are untestable, but does that render them meaningless? It's the same for anything dealing with the past. Can we definitively say that man evolved from a given ape-like creature? Not really. We can speculate, and guess based off the evidence, but it can never be truly verified. Woops, there goes a ton of anthropology. Is that meaningless too? We're getting off topic here. I didn't start this whole discussion to debate theology or philosophy with people, I started it to point out that despite the stunning praise given by atheists for Dawkins' book, it is inherently flawed. I've made assertions about such things along the way, and no one has really bothered to answer them. Can we please get back to the topic? Nes:
Hey, I did mention another way of knowing, yes, but I have yet to explain it simply because of posts like yours. The method(s) I'm referring to are not independently verifiable, so it figures that whether I explain them or not, it wouldn't matter to you or anyone reading this. Yes, subjective experiences can be rather fallible. That does not mean they always are. Your entire way of looking at reality is indeed subjective, seen through the lenses of your senses and mind. Does that make it untrue?
Jacob R:
Yes, God is outside our universe, no, that doesn't mean we can't interact with him, or vice versa. The general conception of the Christian God is an omnipotent and omniscient being who is generally outside our realm of understanding. AS such, these sorts of things, as bizarre as they seem to us, can happen.
As for your assertion that things with no verifiable or testable consequences are meaningless, perhaps you should tell this to plenty of theoretical scientists and even Dawkins himself. Dawkins frequently postulates things in his book that have no verifiable way of testing and uses them as answers to objections. He gives no evidence and no support for his assertions. Does that make them meaningless?
You can extend that argument to plenty of fields of science. Theoretical physics like string theory and aspects of quantum theory are untestable, but does that render them meaningless? It's the same for anything dealing with the past. Can we definitively say that man evolved from a given ape-like creature? Not really. We can speculate, and guess based off the evidence, but it can never be truly verified. Woops, there goes a ton of anthropology. Is that meaningless too?
We're getting off topic here. I didn't start this whole discussion to debate theology or philosophy with people, I started it to point out that despite the stunning praise given by atheists for Dawkins' book, it is inherently flawed. I've made assertions about such things along the way, and no one has really bothered to answer them. Can we please get back to the topic?

]]> By: Nes http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22788 Nes Wed, 04 Apr 2007 21:15:04 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22788 Jarrod: I'm sorry, as I don't have the best memory in the world, and this thread has become very long, but I think you mentioned an <a href="http://skeptico.blogs.com/skeptico/2005/10/the_appeal_to_o.html" rel="nofollow">other way of knowing</a> besides science for the second or third time, without explaining what it is. Would you care to? I would be happy to consider it if it was independently verifiable. Subjective experiences can be rather fallible when it comes to describing reality (<a href="http://www.sciencenews.org/articles/20050709/bob9.asp" rel="nofollow">sleep paralysis</a> being my favorite example). Jarrod:

I'm sorry, as I don't have the best memory in the world, and this thread has become very long, but I think you mentioned an other way of knowing besides science for the second or third time, without explaining what it is. Would you care to?

I would be happy to consider it if it was independently verifiable. Subjective experiences can be rather fallible when it comes to describing reality (sleep paralysis being my favorite example).

]]> By: Jacob R http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22764 Jacob R Wed, 04 Apr 2007 08:59:10 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22764 What I meant by useless is that for us to interact with 'God' , such as prayer, it must be in our universe. An entity that lies outside our universe can not interact with things inside the universe nor can the entities within interact with anything outside. Thus any activity attempting to interact with 'God' would necessarily be pointless. It equates to the ignostic way of thinking about 'God'. Ignosticism is the view that the question of the existence of 'God' is meaningless because it has no verifiable or testable consequences (<i>it lies outside the universe</i>) and should therefore be ignored. If your curious as to why i put God in (') take a look at this <a href="http://www.strongatheism.net/library/atheology/argument_from_noncognitivism/" rel="nofollow">link</a>. What I meant by useless is that for us to interact with 'God' , such as prayer, it must be in our universe. An entity that lies outside our universe can not interact with things inside the universe nor can the entities within interact with anything outside. Thus any activity attempting to interact with 'God' would necessarily be pointless. It equates to the ignostic way of thinking about 'God'. Ignosticism is the view that the question of the existence of 'God' is meaningless because it has no verifiable or testable consequences (it lies outside the universe) and should therefore be ignored.

If your curious as to why i put God in (') take a look at this link.

]]> By: Jarrod http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22762 Jarrod Wed, 04 Apr 2007 02:20:05 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22762 Jacob R: The God I'm talking about here is the Catholic conception of God. Base whatever comments you have on that version. Hope that helps. In reply to your objection to this ongoing debate about time: Hmm, yes, I suppose we could test for it, in certain ways. This seems to be the idea that Dawkins was getting at, and as I mentioned earlier to Ipetrich, I believe, this is also where Dawkins falls flat on his face. And yes, it would seem that if something is outside of our universe all the time, it's 'useless,' but that doesn't mean it isn't meaningful, or that it doesn't exist. Our mutual friend Dawkins might even debate the 'useless' part, since he seems to think that the multiverse idea is quite useful. Which is again where he falls into problems, and this is where I have issues with the book. If the man wants to convince believers, he ought to at least apply his own creed to his analysis, and use things with evidence, rather then put forward sorry-ass arguments like 'the X idea suggests that Y is true.' Utterly unscientific and thus by Dawkins' own standards pointless and ridiculous. Jacob R: The God I'm talking about here is the Catholic conception of God. Base whatever comments you have on that version. Hope that helps.
In reply to your objection to this ongoing debate about time: Hmm, yes, I suppose we could test for it, in certain ways. This seems to be the idea that Dawkins was getting at, and as I mentioned earlier to Ipetrich, I believe, this is also where Dawkins falls flat on his face. And yes, it would seem that if something is outside of our universe all the time, it's 'useless,' but that doesn't mean it isn't meaningful, or that it doesn't exist. Our mutual friend Dawkins might even debate the 'useless' part, since he seems to think that the multiverse idea is quite useful. Which is again where he falls into problems, and this is where I have issues with the book. If the man wants to convince believers, he ought to at least apply his own creed to his analysis, and use things with evidence, rather then put forward sorry-ass arguments like 'the X idea suggests that Y is true.' Utterly unscientific and thus by Dawkins' own standards pointless and ridiculous.

]]> By: Jacob R http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22761 Jacob R Wed, 04 Apr 2007 02:04:00 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22761 The problem Jarrod is that I have researched what 'God' is from the Christian viewpoint, I got tired after the 100th version. Which version of 'God' am I supposed to learn about: the Baptist, the Catholic, the Quaker, the Anglican, or any of the other myriad Christian sects? I get very tired of people telling me to research 'God' when there are so many versions. Of course this is without mentioning all the other various religions with all of their versions of 'God' or gods. On the whole "outside of time" thing; for 'God' to interact with our universe it would have to reenter time and our universe, as soon as it does we can test for it scientifically, we can learn how it does what it does. Saying something is outside our universe effectively renders it useless to everday activities, this also goes for the multiverse idea. The problem Jarrod is that I have researched what 'God' is from the Christian viewpoint, I got tired after the 100th version. Which version of 'God' am I supposed to learn about: the Baptist, the Catholic, the Quaker, the Anglican, or any of the other myriad Christian sects? I get very tired of people telling me to research 'God' when there are so many versions. Of course this is without mentioning all the other various religions with all of their versions of 'God' or gods.

On the whole "outside of time" thing; for 'God' to interact with our universe it would have to reenter time and our universe, as soon as it does we can test for it scientifically, we can learn how it does what it does. Saying something is outside our universe effectively renders it useless to everday activities, this also goes for the multiverse idea.

]]> By: Jarrod http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22754 Jarrod Tue, 03 Apr 2007 22:02:25 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22754 Jimi: I'm trying to answer your question about what evidence there is for God, but before that can be properly answered the question of what necessarily constitutes evidence must be addressed. That's why I brought up a question in response to your question. I believe 'truth' can be derived from nonscientific method, and as such my 'evidence' won't hold any weight with someone who believes only science can reveal truth. I'm not dodging the question, I'm getting to the root of it. Jacob R: I've been trying very hard to 'enlighten' the people making silly statements; it's not my fault if they refuse to see my answers as such. If you want to know what Christian thought on what God is entails, you ought to go pick up a book and educate yourself. I'm sure you know the basic ideas about the Christian God; if you want to find out any more of the details, go research them. This is too small a forum to explain every little thing. My point is that so many of the atheists attacking one thing or another really don't know what they're talking about because they've failed to acquaint themselves with the depth of what people actually believe. Ipetrich: *sigh* As much as I'd rather not deal with you, I'm a fan of fighting losing battles. You're very much guilty of ad hominem attacks, whether it's calling me a 'bible-thumper' when I haven't quoted a single verse, implying that I'm a liar or an idiot, or calling me conceited. Is that good enough evidence for you? Oh, and by the way, I did not cite all those intellectual accomplishments because I'm full of myself; if that were the case, I would have mentioned them much earlier. I brought them up because you and several other people seem to think I'm an unthinking brain-dead loon, and since you insist on having 'evidence' for everything, I gave you some. It's that simple. It's so ironic that you would point out the multiverse idea as a response to the 'outside the universe' idea and then start ranting about how subjects are meaningless because they are not testable. By that standard, anything and everything associated with literature, etc., is meaningless, because it is not 'testable,' and so are a great many other 'scientific' things. Multiverse ideas are by that standard meaningless, as is most of string theory. I wonder what all the physicists working on that would say if you informed them their work is meaningless. Russel's teapot IS inside our universe, as you said, and as such, it is testable. Sure, it may not be now, but at some sufficiently advanced time we'd be able to find that teapot if we wanted to, yes? That's why that argument really has nothing to do with God. A teapot is ultimately scientifically testable, God is not. As to mathematics transcending our universe, do you have any evidence that that is true? Or is it merely speculation? Last I checked, neither you, nor any scientist alive, can say with any scientific or logical certainty what things are like outside our universe. Why? Because we have no frame of reference. As I keep saying, even Dawkins admitted to something along these lines. Hmm, I don't think I ever mentioned the 747 argument, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. I don't recall if Dawkins ever says directly that God is bound by evolution, but he certainly seems to imply it. He views God as complex in a structural sense, like some sort of amazing organism or computer, defines complexity in a biological sense, and then goes on to declare that such complexity can only have come from natural selection. If that's not declaring God an organism bound by evolution, I don't know what is. By the way, that's all on page 150, for reference purposes. Since when were timeless things necessarily static? I looked up the word static, just to make sure, and you ought to as well, since nowhere did I see a definition that static means timeless, or vice versa. Static simply means unchanging. You can't honestly state that something outside of time is necessarily static simply because you have no evidence or frame of reference. Have you ever seen anything outside of time? Has science? Didn't think so. Your view that such a thing MUST be static is just a skewed view generated by your immersion in time. You simply can't seem to see otherwise. I addressed this with my fish analogy, if you bothered to actually read it. One last bit of theology. Yes, that was an 'after the fact' statement, but not in the way you seem to think it is. If you knew any sort of historical criticism of the Bible, you would know that the ancient Israelites effectively took the creation story from another civilization, then modified it to express their theological views. This isn't after any fact 'concoction' on my part. I didn't make up any sort of truth and fit it onto the verses. They were written to convey that truth in the first place. As I keep telling you to do, please go research the subject before you talk about it. On a side note, why the heck are you quoting some ancient dead guy? I thought they were unreliable sources. Or is that only the ones that don't conform to your viewpoint? You again haven't really addressed anything I've said, beyond reiterating the same old talking points and attacks. Please, for the sake of discourse, learn what you are talking about and then come argue. On an off note, this whole thread is getting off track. Would anyone like to go back to dealing with Dawkins' book rather then this bizarre offshoot? Jimi: I'm trying to answer your question about what evidence there is for God, but before that can be properly answered the question of what necessarily constitutes evidence must be addressed. That's why I brought up a question in response to your question. I believe 'truth' can be derived from nonscientific method, and as such my 'evidence' won't hold any weight with someone who believes only science can reveal truth. I'm not dodging the question, I'm getting to the root of it.
Jacob R: I've been trying very hard to 'enlighten' the people making silly statements; it's not my fault if they refuse to see my answers as such. If you want to know what Christian thought on what God is entails, you ought to go pick up a book and educate yourself. I'm sure you know the basic ideas about the Christian God; if you want to find out any more of the details, go research them. This is too small a forum to explain every little thing. My point is that so many of the atheists attacking one thing or another really don't know what they're talking about because they've failed to acquaint themselves with the depth of what people actually believe.
Ipetrich: *sigh*
As much as I'd rather not deal with you, I'm a fan of fighting losing battles.
You're very much guilty of ad hominem attacks, whether it's calling me a 'bible-thumper' when I haven't quoted a single verse, implying that I'm a liar or an idiot, or calling me conceited. Is that good enough evidence for you?
Oh, and by the way, I did not cite all those intellectual accomplishments because I'm full of myself; if that were the case, I would have mentioned them much earlier. I brought them up because you and several other people seem to think I'm an unthinking brain-dead loon, and since you insist on having 'evidence' for everything, I gave you some. It's that simple.
It's so ironic that you would point out the multiverse idea as a response to the 'outside the universe' idea and then start ranting about how subjects are meaningless because they are not testable. By that standard, anything and everything associated with literature, etc., is meaningless, because it is not 'testable,' and so are a great many other 'scientific' things. Multiverse ideas are by that standard meaningless, as is most of string theory. I wonder what all the physicists working on that would say if you informed them their work is meaningless.
Russel's teapot IS inside our universe, as you said, and as such, it is testable. Sure, it may not be now, but at some sufficiently advanced time we'd be able to find that teapot if we wanted to, yes? That's why that argument really has nothing to do with God. A teapot is ultimately scientifically testable, God is not.
As to mathematics transcending our universe, do you have any evidence that that is true? Or is it merely speculation? Last I checked, neither you, nor any scientist alive, can say with any scientific or logical certainty what things are like outside our universe. Why? Because we have no frame of reference. As I keep saying, even Dawkins admitted to something along these lines.
Hmm, I don't think I ever mentioned the 747 argument, so I don't know why you're bringing it up. I don't recall if Dawkins ever says directly that God is bound by evolution, but he certainly seems to imply it. He views God as complex in a structural sense, like some sort of amazing organism or computer, defines complexity in a biological sense, and then goes on to declare that such complexity can only have come from natural selection. If that's not declaring God an organism bound by evolution, I don't know what is. By the way, that's all on page 150, for reference purposes.
Since when were timeless things necessarily static? I looked up the word static, just to make sure, and you ought to as well, since nowhere did I see a definition that static means timeless, or vice versa. Static simply means unchanging. You can't honestly state that something outside of time is necessarily static simply because you have no evidence or frame of reference. Have you ever seen anything outside of time? Has science? Didn't think so. Your view that such a thing MUST be static is just a skewed view generated by your immersion in time. You simply can't seem to see otherwise. I addressed this with my fish analogy, if you bothered to actually read it.
One last bit of theology. Yes, that was an 'after the fact' statement, but not in the way you seem to think it is. If you knew any sort of historical criticism of the Bible, you would know that the ancient Israelites effectively took the creation story from another civilization, then modified it to express their theological views. This isn't after any fact 'concoction' on my part. I didn't make up any sort of truth and fit it onto the verses. They were written to convey that truth in the first place. As I keep telling you to do, please go research the subject before you talk about it.
On a side note, why the heck are you quoting some ancient dead guy? I thought they were unreliable sources. Or is that only the ones that don't conform to your viewpoint?
You again haven't really addressed anything I've said, beyond reiterating the same old talking points and attacks. Please, for the sake of discourse, learn what you are talking about and then come argue.
On an off note, this whole thread is getting off track. Would anyone like to go back to dealing with Dawkins' book rather then this bizarre offshoot?

]]> By: lpetrich http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22732 lpetrich Mon, 02 Apr 2007 20:03:52 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22732 In response to Jarrod, I ask how I am supposed to be guilty of ad hominem attacks. And if he doesn't like my arguments, then that is his right. Bragging about what a genius one is does not prove very much -- I myself can do that, and with some justification, but I prefer not to pat myself on the back about what a genius I am. I don't want to seem conceited. And there is nothing in the methodology of science that excludes consideration of entities outside our Universe. I've seen multiverse speculations, for instance. But if one cannot construct testable hypotheses, then it's a meaningless subject, which is the point of the atheist bestiary I had mentioned earlier here. Bertrand Russell's interplanetary teapot is clearly an inhabitant of our Universe, but he proposed that as an example of an untestable hypothesis that there is no reason to suppose to be true. As to mathematics being inside our Universe, does that mean that if there are realms outside of our Universe, it may be possible that 2 + 2 = 5 in such realms? Mathematics follows from logical consistency, and that happens in every possible Universe. Also, RD's "Ultimate 747" argument is a way of addressing the claim that complexity can only originate from greater complexity. It has nothing to do with God being "subject to the laws of evolution", whatever those "laws" might be. As to "outside of time" being difficult to imagine, I have much less difficulty in imagining timeless things -- everything static is timeless. I don't see how claiming to have been "created in the image of God" is an expression of great humility. It's like saying "The Creator and Ruler of this whole Universe looks exactly like me!" And if that is humility, then I don't think I want to see pride. As to Jarrod's argument that it is some sort of theological statement, that seems like some after-the-fact concoction. Just like the Trinity. In fact, it's always the other way around, as Xenophanes had noted 2500 years ago; if horses and cows and lions imagined gods, they'd imagine gods that looked like horses and cows and lions, as the case may be. In response to Jarrod, I ask how I am supposed to be guilty of ad hominem attacks. And if he doesn't like my arguments, then that is his right. Bragging about what a genius one is does not prove very much -- I myself can do that, and with some justification, but I prefer not to pat myself on the back about what a genius I am. I don't want to seem conceited.

And there is nothing in the methodology of science that excludes consideration of entities outside our Universe. I've seen multiverse speculations, for instance. But if one cannot construct testable hypotheses, then it's a meaningless subject, which is the point of the atheist bestiary I had mentioned earlier here. Bertrand Russell's interplanetary teapot is clearly an inhabitant of our Universe, but he proposed that as an example of an untestable hypothesis that there is no reason to suppose to be true.

As to mathematics being inside our Universe, does that mean that if there are realms outside of our Universe, it may be possible that 2 + 2 = 5 in such realms? Mathematics follows from logical consistency, and that happens in every possible Universe.

Also, RD's "Ultimate 747" argument is a way of addressing the claim that complexity can only originate from greater complexity. It has nothing to do with God being "subject to the laws of evolution", whatever those "laws" might be.

As to "outside of time" being difficult to imagine, I have much less difficulty in imagining timeless things -- everything static is timeless.

I don't see how claiming to have been "created in the image of God" is an expression of great humility. It's like saying "The Creator and Ruler of this whole Universe looks exactly like me!" And if that is humility, then I don't think I want to see pride.

As to Jarrod's argument that it is some sort of theological statement, that seems like some after-the-fact concoction. Just like the Trinity.

In fact, it's always the other way around, as Xenophanes had noted 2500 years ago; if horses and cows and lions imagined gods, they'd imagine gods that looked like horses and cows and lions, as the case may be.

]]> By: Jacob R http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22727 Jacob R Mon, 02 Apr 2007 09:01:22 +0000 http://www.daylightatheism.org/2006/09/the-god-delusion.html#comment-22727 Jarrod Please in form us as to what exactly 'God' is, its attributes, how it interacts with the world, and any basic ideas as to how to interact with it. Making clear exactly what we are arguing about will help us form our questions better. It doesn't have to be detailed just the basics will do, and if we ask a silly question please enlighten us as to why. Jarrod

Please in form us as to what exactly 'God' is, its attributes, how it interacts with the world, and any basic ideas as to how to interact with it.

Making clear exactly what we are arguing about will help us form our questions better.

It doesn't have to be detailed just the basics will do, and if we ask a silly question please enlighten us as to why.

]]>