"The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins

[schmuck]

---

Interesting. I think that if he (Dawkins) sticks to his fanatical atheistic dogmatism, he fails in his "purpose".

Atheism is irrational and often a form of fanaticism to begin with. Theism, on the other hand, is rational. Belief in God can be shown to be quite reasonable.

cge daw, show nga rational og reasonable beh

[bodie]

cge daw, show nga rational og reasonable beh

That should be interesting... take note.. RATIONAL and REASONABLE.

[mannyamador]

Very easy.

Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God
Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli

Of the 20, I like #7. It has never really been refuted. On the other hand #20 is convincing too, but in a different way. If I have to choose only one, I go with #7. Not all of the 20 arguments are convincing to me, by the way.

Because the way I see it (like Dawkin's or any other atheists position), it is the existence of god that needs to be proven.

That's what sinks your ship (to borrow an image from the other thread). Atheism claims that God does NOT exist. It does not merely claim ignorance of whether he does (that is agnosticism). Therefore, it is totally insufficient for you to claim that God's existence has not been proven (although it has been proven). You must also prove that God does not (or cannot) exist. That's simple logic. So unless you do so, your position is merely dogmatic and not rational.

I have provided some proofs of God's existence, at least one of which has never been refuted. Can you disprove God's existence?

This should be entertaining!

P.S. #2 is good for me too. You can probably see how it is related to #7.

[regnauld]

Very easy.

Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God
Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli

Of the 20, I like #7. It has never really been refuted. On the other hand #20 is convincing too, but in a different way. If I have to choose only one, I go with #7. Not all of the 20 arguments are convincing to me, by the way.



That's what sinks your ship (to borrow an image from the other thread). Atheism claims that God does NOT exist. It does not merely claim ignorance of whether he does (that is agnosticism). Therefore, it is totally insufficient for you to claim that God's existence has not been proven (although it has been proven). You must also prove that God does not (or cannot) exist. That's simple logic. So unless you do so, your position is merely dogmatic and not rational.

I have provided some proofs of God's existence, at least one of which has never been refuted. Can you disprove God's existence?

This should be entertaining!

P.S. #2 is good for me too. You can probably see how it is related to #7.

I share with the argument of the Atheists that GOD does not exist but then this kind of GOD concept should be qualified. GOD does not exist as an Anthropomorphic GOD!

[Ramini]

Atheism is irrational and often a form of fanaticism to begin with. Theism, on the other hand, is rational. Belief in God can be shown to be quite reasonable.

Lami-ag taras sa imong dila bro oi!...hehehe!!! and your religion isn't irrational?..please little devout man..don't ever create such sweeping statements again.

[bardster]

Interesting. I think that if he (Dawkins) sticks to his fanatical atheistic dogmatism, he fails in his "purpose".

The definition of fanaticism is flawed. When one is fixated to a kind of dogma or some deity that qualifies fanaticism. The rejection thereof doesn't imply fanaticism but simply the absence of a belief of a god or dogma. Atheism is neither dogma nor religion.

Atheism is irrational and often a form of fanaticism to begin with. Theism, on the other hand, is rational. Belief in God can be shown to be quite reasonable.

Just because atheists stand on the basis of lack of empirical evidence (for theism) doesn't make them irrational at all. The mere query or the demand for evidence is itself rational.

[brownprose]

The definition of fanaticism is flawed. When one is fixated to a kind of dogma or some deity that qualifies fanaticism. The rejection thereof doesn't imply fanaticism but simply the absence of a belief of a god or dogma. Atheism is neither dogma nor religion.



Just because atheists stand on the basis of lack of empirical evidence (for theism) doesn't make them irrational at all. The mere query or the demand for evidence is itself rational.

Agree ko ani.

[NASYO]

i second d motion

[bodie]

Very easy.

Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God
Twenty Arguments For The Existence Of God by Peter Kreeft & Ronald K. Tacelli

Of the 20, I like #7. It has never really been refuted. On the other hand #20 is convincing too, but in a different way. If I have to choose only one, I go with #7. Not all of the 20 arguments are convincing to me, by the way.

Your wrong again. From your article

7. The Argument from Contingency

The basic form of this argument is simple.

1. If something exists, there must exist what it takes for that thing to exist.
2. The universe—the collection of beings in space and time—exists.
3. Therefore, there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist.
4. What it takes for the universe to exist cannot exist within the universe or be bounded by space and time.
5. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist must transcend both space and time.

Suppose you deny the first premise. Then if X exists, there need not exist what it takes for X to exist. But "what it takes for X to exist" means the immediate condition(s) for X's existence. You mean that X exists only if Y. Without Y, there can be no X. So the denial of premise 1 amounts to this: X exists; X can only exist if Y exists; and Y does not exist. This is absurd. So there must exist what it takes for the universe to exist. But what does it take?

We spoke of the universe as "the collection of beings in space and time." Consider one such being: yourself. You exist, and you are, in part at least, material. This means that you are a finite, limited and changing being, you know that right now, as you read this book, you are dependent for your existence on beings outside you. Not your parents or grandparents. They may no longer be alive, but you exist now. And right now you depend on many things in order to exist—for example, on the air you breathe. To be dependent in this way is to be contingent. You exist if something else right now exists.

But not everything can be like this. For then everything would need to be given being, but there would be nothing capable of giving it. There would not exist what it takes for anything to exist. So there must be something that does not exist conditionally; something which does not exist only if something else exists; something which exists in itself. What it takes for this thing to exist could only be this thing itself. Unlike changing material reality, there would be no distance, so to speak, between what this thing is and that it is. Obviously the collection of beings changing in space and time cannot be such a thing. Therefore, what it takes for the universe to exist cannot be identical with the universe itself or with a part of the universe.

Question 1: But why should we call this cause "God"? Maybe there is something unknown that grounds the universe of change we live in.

Reply: True. And this "unknown" is God. What we humans know directly is this sensible changing world. We also know that there must exist whatever it takes for something to exist. Therefore, we know that neither this changing universe as a whole nor any part of it can be itself what it takes for the universe to exist. But we have now such direct knowledge of the cause of changing things. We know that there must exist a cause; we know that this cause cannot be finite or material—that it must transcend such limitations. But what this ultimate cause is in itself remains, so far, a mystery.

There is more to be said by reason; and there is very much more God has made known about himself through revelation. But the proofs have given us some real knowledge as well: knowledge that the universe is created; knowledge that right now it is kept in being by a cause unbounded by any material limit, that transcends the kind of being we humans directly know. And that is surely knowledge worth having. We might figure out that someone's death was murder and no accident, without figuring out exactly who did it and why, and this might leave us frustrated and unsatisfied. But at least we would know what path of questioning to pursue; at least we would know that someone did it.

So it is with the proofs. They let us know that at every moment the being of the universe is the creative act of a Giver—A Giver transcending all material and spiritual limitations. Beyond that, they do not tell us much about what or who this Giver is—but they point in a very definite direction. We know that this Ultimate Reality—the Giver of being—cannot be material. And we know the gift which is given includes personal being: intelligence, will and spirit. The infinite transcendent cause of these things cannot be less than they are, but must be infinitely more. How and in what way we do not know. To some extent this Giver must always remain unknown to human reason. We should never expect otherwise. But reason can at least let us know that "someone did it." And that is of great value.


Your argument merely replaced one unknown... where the universe come from, and makes the leap of logic that it came from god. No evidence. If you have read the book, you will know that the arguments for this have already been forwarded. In a nutshell, it is...if god is the source of all things, then where did god come from? I think that is premise #1 of the argument.

If the universe should come into existence from something, the answer is not automatically God. Science does not work that way.

That's what sinks your ship (to borrow an image from the other thread). Atheism claims that God does NOT exist. It does not merely claim ignorance of whether he does (that is agnosticism). Therefore, it is totally insufficient for you to claim that God's existence has not been proven (although it has been proven). You must also prove that God does not (or cannot) exist. That's simple logic. So unless you do so, your position is merely dogmatic and not rational.

And there you go again. Taking things out of context, putting words in other people mouths and going into your own little world with your own laws.

Atheism claims that god does not exist true...but this is because there is no evidence that he exists.Prove that and atheists will have to rethink their position. Thats how science works. Put forward a theory and look for evidence. If the model does not fit make an make another model. We dont dogmatically hold to the belief ... evidence... physical evidence and logic is on our side.

You have your preconceived notions about athiests... try to learn a little more before trolling in this thread. And read the book too...since that we are trying to talk about here.

I have provided some proofs of God's existence, at least one of which has never been refuted. Can you disprove God's existence?

This should be entertaining!

Seriously, read Dawkins book. The 20 arguments for religion have been argued by Dawkins over there. A book which argues against what Dawkins have said has also been posted... read the first page or so of this thread.

I do not recall if all the arguments have been done individually, but point #7 has a rather lengthy and detailed discussion.

[schmuck]

#7 derives a conclusion without first proving its premises.
in short, conclusion built upon a house of cards.

Also, using the same argument, it can be used to prove the existence of the Flying Spaghetti Monster. That is if you accept that #7 is sound reasoning.