time to renounce religion..

[uzziel49]

Could say the same for all the brilliant scientific minds that haven't found conclusive proof that a god doesn't exist either.

The point I was making about this being a DIY forum is that it's not likely to be the first place you'd look when searching for that first elusive evidence of a deity. You'd expect it all to be revealed within either the faith or scientific communities. That's all I was meaning. But of course if anyone would like to post it hear I'm sure it would receive an appropriate reception

 

[sooey]

Could say the same for all the brilliant scientific minds that haven't found conclusive proof that a god doesn't exist either.

Now you're just being stupid.

 

[uzziel49]

Why so, sooey? Isn't that what Prof. Richard Dawkins has spent his working life doing?

 

[sooey]

I don't think Dawkins is so stupid as to believe that anyone could ever prove a negative. I'm surprised that you appear to be.

 

[uzziel49]

Oh sooey, next you'll be trying to explain how "The Blind Watchmaker" and "The God Delusion" are not Dawkin's attempts to deny the existence of a god by means of science...

 

[sooey]

I wouldn't know, I've never read them. But I do know that it is utterly impossible to prove that something doesn't exist. (Do you not understand this?) So as I said, I would be very surprised if any scientist ever tried to. For all we know the tooth fairy exists, no one can ever prove that she doesn't.

 

[Big Tone]

Oh sooey, next you'll be trying to explain how "The Blind Watchmaker" and "The God Delusion" are not Dawkin's attempts to deny the existence of a god by means of science...

Yes, but recognition of true science always lags because of the Flat-Earthers, indoctrination and blind faith.

If Hawking has absolute proof or evidence that our existence did not come about because of divine intervention, or some kind of kick-start, do you really, honestly, think it would change how religious followers think?

The beauty of true science is that it remains open-minded and the burden of proof is not on scientists to disprove every crackpot notion or belief; scientists have done so many times in the past and there’s always followers who will believe what they want to believe however wrong or stupid it is!

I am willing to do a complete U-Turn! I do, however, demand proof or evidence before I start to just blindly follow...


I’m off to build an Ark now because, as we all know, it is entirely possible to flood the entire world and keep animals with diametrically opposed food and climate needs on a boat. And while I'm at it I'll hack the skin off my nob that nature designed with good reason...

 

[clf-gas]

For all we know the tooth fairy exists, no one can ever prove that she doesn't.

Sorry Ray but I take offence to that and feel I need to comment.

We all know the tuth fairy is a bloke

 

[uzziel49]

If Hawking has absolute proof or evidence that our existence did not come about because of divine intervention, or some kind of kick-start, do you really, honestly, think it would change how religious followers think?

Why not? Galileo has already been used as an illustration of science overwhelming religion. Who now does not believe that the earth revolves around the sun?

Btw, do you mean Hawking, or Dawkins? Guess it doesn't matter for your point.

 

[noseall]

lets start by playing down holidays and dates....

You mean like skipping Christmas!!!???

 

[uzziel49]

Sooey, if one takes the standpoint that faith and science cannot co-exists, then by proving the rule of one you disprove the other. That's what Dawkins is about, in his mind you can't have creative design co-existing with evolution, so by arguing for the one he denies the other.

 

[sooey]

Sooey, if one takes the standpoint that faith and science cannot co-exists, then by proving the rule of one you disprove the other. That's what Dawkins is about, in his mind you can't have creative design co-existing with evolution, so by arguing for the one he denies the other.

I haven't read his books like I said but I know enough about him to say that you completely misunderstand his arguments. He, along with many others say that evolution provides a good explanation of how we come to be here, without having to invoke some supernatural deity. Neither he nor any other scientist would say that they have proof that god doesn't exist, they just hold the notion up to ridicule, (which is pretty easy given what a ridiculous idea it is), while offering an alternative explanation based on proven science and leave people to make their own minds up.

 

[sooey]

For all we know the tooth fairy exists, no one can ever prove that she doesn't.

Sorry Ray but I take offence to that and feel I need to comment.

We all know the tuth fairy is a bloke

No, I'm not having that. My tooth fairy was deffo a girl.





me mam

 

[uzziel49]

Dawkins would argue that there is no need for a god, and sets out to prove it. Would that be fair comment? I guess the faith community would see that as an argument that there is no god, or at least the thin end of the wedge.

 

[sooey]

Dawkins would argue that there is no need for a god, and sets out to prove it. Would that be fair comment?

Of course, that's what I wrote before.

I guess the faith community would see that as an argument that there is no god, or at least the thin end of the wedge.

Why would they care if they have "faith" ?