The God Delusion - TTLG Forums

Vivian on 18/1/2007 at 00:33

I thought stalin was just pissed off because they kept getting his statues wrong?

fett on 18/1/2007 at 01:17

Quote Posted by Pyrian

they're not just against religious rights, in the "war on terror" they've shown themselves to be against ALL human rights.

Aren't you overstating? If 75% of the country opposes the 'war on terror' that has to include a pretty large group of christians.

Quote:

You were ascribing fundamentalist positions to ALL Christians. Other objections have also been raised.

I'm trying to play fair. The prevailing fear seems to regard fundamentalists, who are pushing their religious agenda into the political arena, and they absolutely DO fit the descriptions I gave. I think somehow I'm not understanding your objection.

Quote:

The genie was never IN the bottle; illegal abortions were the norm before they were legalized. Like drugs or alcohol, it's not something you can prevent, only fight. Anyway, if you're actually interested, the state of the political battle over abortion in the U.S. is quite fragile at the moment - there are court cases pending as we speak that could overturn RvW, and some states where abortion access is so limited that it might as well be illegal.

In this I'll concede a bit because I've grown tired of keeping up with the push/pull of the whole thing. I'll bet the bank that once Bush is out of office, the threat to abortion rights will disappear along with him.

Chimpy Chompy on 18/1/2007 at 06:42

Quote Posted by Strontium Dog

There exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us - this is a scientific hypothesis.

How is this hypothesis testable and falsifiable?

Again I'm not talking about miracles or water into wine, or 7-day creation, or any kind of interference with the universe after the big bang, or anything like that. I want to know how the simple existence of a "prime mover" is a scientific hypothesis.

Also how can we apply the scientific method to something not of this universe anyway? (or maybe GBM can expand on his spooky back alleys of science).

I know I've asked this already but you were too busy chasing Thirith. :p

jay pettitt on 18/1/2007 at 08:03

It isn't a hypothesis, it's a theory. Though not a very good one. The insistence of a supernatural element does conveniently take it outside scientific jurisdiction. But you might argue that all this stuff in the world got here somehow. We've seen systems of design and manufacture produce stuff. We can look for evidence of design and manufacture. We can also look for traces of white beard or godly droppings. There's written accounts also - though they might not be entirely reliable.

We're not short on overwhelming quantities of evidence that could point to God's existance. It's just none of it has come up trumps yet.

Obviously that's not going to stop people from believing whatever the hell they want to believe. There's always a way of twisting things to suit; insisting on the supernatural element for example.

Chimpy Chompy on 18/1/2007 at 08:39

A scientific theory makes testable predictions - what are they in this case?

Briareos H on 18/1/2007 at 09:04

A system which can be proven consistent and complete is inconsistent.

Here's your god.

jay pettitt on 18/1/2007 at 10:09

True enough.

Quote Posted by Chimpy Chompy

A scientific theory makes testable predictions - what are they in this case?

If the theory is a good one you could try observing supernatural beings creating universes and predicting what might happen. Truthfully though, hypothesis tend to do the testable bits - they're more bite size. You use your brain to think up hypothesis that relate to the theory. Irreducible complexity argues that things designed by an intelligent agent will have certain tell tale characteristics. You could hypothesise that if the natural world was created by an intelligent designer it may contain examples of such characteristics and then you can go looking for them. Maybe another person will come up with another hypothesis and test that. Over time we'll start to get a picture of what's what. Sorry if that's not instant enough or absolute enough proof/disproof for you - but I think we both know there's no reason to expect a break through anytime soon - other than the already existing complete and utter lack of evidence to support creationism. Regardless; if the Universe was created by an intelligent being then Science ought to be interested.

shadow rodent on 18/1/2007 at 14:03

Having read this thread and subsequently Dawkin's work, I'd like to suggest people expressing interest in the man's theories or his attitudes towards rival dogmas view this talk show interview.

I found him suprisingly effective at communicating his 'theory' in the face of some hostile adversity.

(http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9HtY1chchM&mode=related&search=)

oooh youtube :p

Chimpy Chompy on 18/1/2007 at 14:31

Quote Posted by jay pettitt

Irreducible complexity argues that things designed by an intelligent agent will have certain tell tale characteristics.

I had a brief look over Irreducible Complexity, looks like some component of the Intelligent Design argument. So that's still basically looking for evidence of a god that actively intervenes in the workings of the physical universe - something I've tried to make clear I tend towards personally rejecting anyway.

Think of a universe that proceeds entirely due to natural laws, which were put down by a creator. Is that creator still something you can probe with the scientific method?

The Alchemist on 18/1/2007 at 14:53

Quote Posted by shadow rodent

Good stuff. I'm agnostic so I'm not exactly on camp with Dawkins, but he defended and expressed his ideas pretty well here and the arguments against him were kinda silly. That one guy totally didn't understand the concept of fear of death in a godless, naturally evolved world when it is indeed very obvious as Dawkins put it.