What do you think about Dawkins?

[Ziggy Stardust]

For one Dawkin's brain is not a product of intelligent yet he believes his book (which claim there in no nature intelligent design) is so exactly where did the intelligence come from. He trying to use a intelligent design book as proof there is no nature intelligence even though he believe he is loaded with it.

Why does something that has intelligence need to be intelligently designed? The intelligence argument really doesn't benefit the Creationist side at all, since you can witness the evidence of the increase in intelligence in humans even in documented history.

But I am really guessing at what you mean with terms like: nature intelligence. I took it you meant intelligent designed. Since you said: nature intelligent design, once. But because you are vague about the concept you might also mean intelligent behaviour in nature. But then your argument would make even less sense.

I am merely wondering if you are intentionally this vague so you can have some wringling room later on.

 

[holy king]

For one Dawkin's brain is not a product of intelligent yet he believes his book (which claim there in no nature intelligent design) is so exactly where did the intelligence come from. He trying to use a intelligent design book as proof there is no nature intelligence even though he believe he is loaded with it.

Moderator Action: Would you like to rephrase that?

actually, no.

 

[Bei1052]

Let me add something to Lillefix's post - the answer/question "who created the creator?" may seem unsophisticated, but it cuts to the chase.

Believers often refuse the scientific notions by saing "everything must have been created by someone - and that someone was our God" but when they're asked to apply this principle on their God, they suddenly invent an exception - "no, our God is eternal, blablablah". Like it was supposed to explain anything. If God didn't need a creator, why the heck should the Universe need a creator?

They refuse Bing Bang theory because they can't get around the notion that there was no time before the Big Bang and thus don't understand that the question "what was before Big Bang?" is nonsensial, pretty much like a question "where does a circle start?"

The best thing is that even if they somehow proved that our universe was created (maybe in a particle accelerator built by some other race in some other universe), it wouldn't confirm their God-hypothesis since they assign many other properties to their God

*ahem*

1.) Assuming you believe that the universe hasn't existed forever, then you accept the fact that the universe has a beginning of some sort. If you accept that the universe has a beginning of some sort, then you accept that something caused the formation of the universe for there to be a beginning of some sort. Unless you believe that something can create itself, then the formation of the universe had to have been caused by something outside of it (Of course, if you believe that something can create itself, then I'd like an example, please). Ergo, people that outside force to be God.

2.) Assuming you believe the universe has always existed, answer for me this question: "Which came first? The big bang or the big crunch?" Obviously, the question of "Which came first?" is pointless in a cyclical model, much like the question "Where does a circle" begin in non-sensical. The question "How did that circle get there?", however, is not. If you see a circle, you're not going to believe that the circle has been there forever. You're going to assume that someone or something caused that circle to be. Now, granted, you could always point out the fact that this isn't evidence for someone or something setting into motion the nature of the cyclical universe, but this begs the question of whether or not the universe has to conform to the laws present within universe.

 

[Bill3000]

Assuming you believe that the universe hasn't existed forever, then you accept the fact that the universe has a beginning of some sort. If you accept that the universe has a beginning of some sort, then you accept that something caused the formation of the universe for there to be a beginning of some sort. Unless you believe that something can create itself, then the formation of the universe had to have been caused by something outside of it (Of course, if you believe that something can create itself, then I'd like an example, please). Ergo, people that outside force to be God.

You've heard of eternal inflation, right? It's a proposed model and an extension of inflationary cosmology, which states that universes could be created from regions of rapid inflation from a larger universe. There's other models as well.

As for "something that can create itself", I point to virtual particles.

2.) Assuming you believe the universe has always existed, answer for me this question: "Which came first? The big bang or the big crunch?" Obviously, the question of "Where does a circle" begin in non-sensical. The question, "How did that circle get there?" is not.

Big bang/big crunch cycles are highly unlikely due to entropy; those cycles will inevitably end. Besides, it's likely that our universe isn't going to go into a big crunch, considering that the acceleration is increasing.

As for the OP, eh. Dawkins really isn't any more offensive than your typical polemic of the church fathers against the heretics and heathens of Christianity. He's far more of a popularizer of atheism than someone who is a genuine expert on the issue. I sympathize with the religious considering that their religion is so important to them that you're not going to convince someone with a polemic like Dawkins does, but to be frank I think it's important to open the taboo and threaten's one faith with arguments against one's religion instead of sheltering yourself against it. If you have real genuine faith, you will come out stronger.

 

[civ_king]

at least he doesn't burn people for heresy

I don't understand the people who say God has a plan for everyone and yet hate Hitler, because if God has a plan for everyone, he planned for all those Jews to die making Hitler an Agent of God's will, on top of that how can someone who knowingly orders genocide be good?

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

I really, really admire his work as a biologist. I've got all of his books on the subject. But when it comes to going on and on about religion? Meh. Doesn't appeal. Let people live how they want, that's what I say.

(This is as an Atheist/Agnostic)

 

[civ_king]

I really, really admire his work as a biologist. I've got all of his books on the subject. But when it comes to going on and on about religion? Meh. Doesn't appeal. Let people live how they want, that's what I say.

(This is as an Atheist/Agnostic)

People think he is a jerk because he comes off as condescending, I dislike the fact that he comes off as condescending but he probably isn't condescending intentionally, and I appreciate his works as a biologist too (coming from an Atheist)

 

[Talkie_Toaster]

People think he is a jerk because he comes off as condescending, I dislike the fact that he comes off as condescending but he probably isn't condescending intentionally, and I appreciate his works as a biologist too (coming from an Atheist)

Oh, sure, I think he means well. He's probably a nice person in real life. I just don't particularly like his style. The whole black and white "religion is evil always" thing.

 

[Bei1052]

You've heard of eternal inflation, right? It's a proposed model and an extension of inflationary cosmology, which states that universes could be created from regions of rapid inflation from a larger universe. There's other models as well.

Can't say I've heard of it. And I'm pretty illiterate when it comes to physics and cosmology, so you're going to have to dumb it down and explain it to me.

As for "something that can create itself", I point to virtual particles.

From what I understand of virtual particles they don't "create themselves", but are rather created in situations where they normally shouldn't be created. It seems that you're mixing up something "creating itself" and something arising from "nothing". Something "creating itself" literally implies that it wills itself into existence by its own accord (The direct implication is that it exists before it exists).

Big bang/big crunch cycles are highly unlikely due to entropy; those cycles will inevitably end. Besides, it's likely that our universe isn't going to go into a big crunch, considering that the acceleration is increasing.

Well, I wasn't stating the certainty of the cyclical model. Rather, I was asking a question to Winner (Or anyone using such an argument) based on the assumption that the cyclical model is true.

 

[Berzerker]

Big bang/big crunch cycles are highly unlikely due to entropy; those cycles will inevitably end. Besides, it's likely that our universe isn't going to go into a big crunch, considering that the acceleration is increasing.

Entropy? What triggers a big bang if not a previous big crunch - and dont our laws break down at that point? Where is the mass going? How much mass is required for a big bang? If the universe has more than enough mass to trigger a big bang, and a big crunch is the mechanism for delivering that mass to a point in space, what happens if the big bang ignites before the big crunch is finished delivering the mass to that point in space? Material from the prior universe would still be falling inward as the next big bang is set off... That would account for fluctuations in the background radiation from the big bang, not the alleged lack of uniformity in that point in space.

 

[Bill3000]

Entropy? What triggers a big bang if not a previous big crunch - and dont our laws break down at that point? Where is the mass going? How much mass is required for a big bang? If the universe has more than enough mass to trigger a big bang, and a big crunch is the mechanism for delivering that mass to a point in space, what happens if the big bang ignites before the big crunch is finished delivering the mass to that point in space? Material from the prior universe would still be falling inward as the next big bang is set off... That would account for fluctuations in the background radiation from the big bang, not the alleged lack of uniformity in that point in space.

A-hem

 

[Berzerker]

Where is entropy mentioned in that article? Why dont you quote your article to answer me rather than expect me to find your answers for you...

 

[warpus]

1.) Assuming you believe that the universe hasn't existed forever, then you accept the fact that the universe has a beginning of some sort. If you accept that the universe has a beginning of some sort, then you accept that something caused the formation of the universe for there to be a beginning of some sort. Unless you believe that something can create itself, then the formation of the universe had to have been caused by something outside of it (Of course, if you believe that something can create itself, then I'd like an example, please). Ergo, people that outside force to be God.

Whoa, how do you jump from "needed an outside catalyst for creation" to "It was God" ???

 

[Berzerker]

Whoa, how do you jump from "needed an outside catalyst for creation" to "It was God" ???

God is the word some people use for that outside catalyst

 

[Seon]

Yeah, you can call it god, but it doesn't mean that it is actually a god of worship. It can be anything from an ailien extra dimensional particle acclerator and chicken.

 

[Bill3000]

Where is entropy mentioned in that article? Why dont you quote your article to answer me rather than expect me to find your answers for you...

Well, you asked "What triggers a big bang if not a previous big crunch", and I gave you the answer, inflation.

 

[Berzerker]

Yeah, you can call it god, but it doesn't mean that it is actually a god of worship. It can be anything from an ailien extra dimensional particle acclerator and chicken.

who said its something or someone to worship?

Well, you asked "What triggers a big bang if not a previous big crunch", and I gave you the answer, inflation.

what does entropy have to do with it? Inflation is what happened after the bang, not before. Nevermind Bill

 

[warpus]

God is the word some people use for that outside catalyst

Not really. Most people mean an intelligent super-powerful entity that interacts with humanity when they say "God". It's far more specific than just "outside catalyst responsible for the creation of the Universe"

 

[capslock]

Brian Dawkins IS God.

THats what i think about Dawkins (even if he isn't an Eagle anymore)

 

[Miles Teg]

Not really. Most people mean an intelligent super-powerful entity that interacts with humanity when they say "God". It's far more specific than just "outside catalyst responsible for the creation of the Universe"

That's what annoys me.

What annoys me even more is evangelists who take theologians and philosophers who believe in an outside catalyst and use their argument for a personal god. It simply doesn't work.