Daoust

You all know who the first guy is, the second guy is John Lennox, who is Fellow in Mathematics and the Philosophy of Science at Oxford.


(Today, October 3, 2007) MBN will present a debate sponsored by Fixed Point Foundation on what is arguably the most critical question of our time: the existence of God. The decision one makes regarding this question has implications that reverberate throughout eternity to be sure, but it also affects temporal existence from government policy to the individual. Historically, man’s belief in the transcendent has served as a restraint on his conduct and provided hope for his future. Now, it is argued, “God is dead”, and man can do very well without him.

The debate will feature Professor Richard Dawkins, Fellow of the Royal Society and Charles Simonyi Chair for the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford University and Dr. John Lennox (MA, MA, Ph.D., D.Phil., D.Sc.), Reader in Mathematics and Fellow in Mathematics and Philosophy of Science, Green College, University of Oxford.


To learn more about the debate, go here:
http://au.christiantoday.com/article...pits-/3255.htm

__________________
I have faith in a few things - divinity and grace
But even when I'm on my knees I know the devil preys

Willravel

Finally someone with half a brain to debate Dawkins.

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

DaveOrion

Finally someone realizes that Dawkins only has half a brain.

__________________
The world cares very little about what you know; it is what you are able to do that really matters.

Willravel

Ugh. What I mean is that they usually pair him up with a priest or something, which just reinforced the apples and oranges arguments you can see reflected here on TFP.

Also, Richard Dawkins is one of the smartest people alive today. Saying he has half a brain ignores his incredible acomplishments.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard...nd_recognition

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

ShaniFaye

All his "smarts" don't make him any less the ass

__________________
I want the diabetic plan that comes with rollover carbs. I dont like the unused one expiring at midnite!!

Shauk

it's hard being smarter than most of your fellow race and not gain a sense of superiority. I'm sure you've encountered stupid people before, it makes you very irritable.

Ustwo

Hes a complete asshole, but I've come to appreciate it, even in areas I don't agree with him.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

DaveOrion

Saying that priests or 'something ' only have half a brain is flamebait at its finest.

__________________
The world cares very little about what you know; it is what you are able to do that really matters.

Willravel

Usually it's college students asking him "What if you're wrong?!" instead of asking a real question. Those are the half brains. They aren't listening to Dawkins at all. They're just there to be smart asses. I didn't intend to suggest that the priests were half brains.

As for the priests, they're just not arguing the same things at all. The priest argues faith, then Dawkins argues logic. They both stare at each other for a minute, then repeat. This is probably followed by tea, but I can't be sure because the YouTube video usually ends before that point.

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

filtherton

What's there to debate? The existence of god is unprovable, therefore any assertions for or against are axiomatic, and as such, they aren't really debatable on their own. Logic never enters the picture- axioms are outside the scope of logic.

Here's a perfectly valid, and logically unassailable proof that god exists:

The universe is too complex to have come about on its own, therefore some manner of god exists. QED

I'm not saying it's that interesting, or even that i find it convincing. It is still a valid proof, as far as logical rigor goes. You can't invalidate the logic there, because if you know anything about formal logic, you know that the logic of that simple proof is bullet proof, like as in IT'S CRIME FIGHTING TIME.

The point where the notion of proof came into matters of pure philosophy was the exact point where people who don't understand what it means to prove something- or even how meaningless a proof can be- got involved.

Once you can get past the need to prove axioms, you can get to the more important and interesting things, like what those axioms actually mean. This is where the real debate should lie, but it's also where shit gets messy and everybody gets pissy for a while and then eventually agrees to disagree, or implicitly agrees to disagree.

Ustwo

Any being that could create the universe would be more complex than the universe, therefore saying it was created by god creates a bigger problem than it solves.

The existence of god is possible, but not probable.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Shauk

then there is always the question of "where, who, or what" lead up to the existance of this "god"

did we think him into existence, or did he come from an even higher power?

filtherton

The nature of a diety might be such that a universe in which it exists would be less complex than a universe in which it did not.

But it really depends on what you mean by complex.

fresnelly

Also, the number of Angels that can dance on the head of a pin is 1764.

__________________
"I am Ronald of Mordor, the Mage, the Destroyer.

Taste the scorched fruit inside my pies.

Chew the bitter towelette of truth."

J Pod by Douglas Coupland

Challah

That's absolutely true, but being an ass doesn't make him any less correct.

I'm picking up a copy of The God Delusion.

Willravel

It's a fascinating read. I'd recommend it to anyone.

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

Ustwo

Much of it was preaching to the choir to me, but the part on the Darwinian evolution I found very enlightening as to the question 'why religion'.

__________________
Agents of the enemies who hold office in our own government, who attempt to eliminate our "freedoms" and our "right to know" are posting among us, I fear.....on this very forum. - host

Obama - Know a Man by the friends he keeps.

Challah

Well, the book shop around the corner didn't have a copy of the The God Delusion, so I bought The End of Faith by Sam Harris instead. Apparently it's along the same lines.

DaveOrion

I find it fascinating that atheists now try to convert others to their faith, or lack there of. Soon they'll be going door to door passing out pamphlets of Dawkins delusional musings. God help us all......

What do you get when you cross an atheist with a Jehovah's Witness???
Someone who knocks on your door for no apparent reason.

Now they have a reason.......

__________________
The world cares very little about what you know; it is what you are able to do that really matters.

Willravel

I'm not trying to "convert" anyone. I read the bible. It's also an interesting read. If someone is capable, they'll naturally become an atheist. I just answer questions if people ask.

__________________
ɯǝɥʇ ǝʌlos uɐɔ ǝʍ ʇɐɥʇ ǝɔuɐɹouƃı ɥƃnoɹɥʇ ʇou sı ʇı 'sɯǝlqoɹd ǝʇɐǝɹɔ uɐɔ ǝƃpǝlʍouʞ ɟı

Infinite_Loser

Oh, please do elaborate.

__________________
I believe in equality; Everyone is equally inferior to me.

DaveOrion

But your view of the Bible is solely based on your fundamentalist upbringing. Taken in its proper context, taking into account when and who it was written by, considering many parts are allegorical if not mythical and should not be taken literally, seeing it as a whole, a story leading up to a defining moment in human history, it ain't half bad.

I still love you will, you atheist bastard.

__________________
The world cares very little about what you know; it is what you are able to do that really matters.

Daoust

Interesting that you say this. One of Lennox's points that he made in the debate was that atheism is a religion, or faith. Dawkins disagreed.

I am not sure yet if the debate is up online. I think it will be soon. When it does I'll post a link. I've read a post debate play by play and I think it sounded very interesting.

__________________
I have faith in a few things - divinity and grace
But even when I'm on my knees I know the devil preys

DaveOrion

Does he have to???

__________________
The world cares very little about what you know; it is what you are able to do that really matters.

ubertuber

Really? Like ustwo, Dawkins is preaching to the choir where I'm concerned. However, I didn't find the book to be compelling at all. There are lots of head-nodding moments if you already agreed with him, but not so many parts that would be convincing to a person of different beliefs. In that way it really reminded me of Mere Christianity. And then there's the part about Dawkins coming off as pushy and shrill. I'm not at all convinced that Dawkins is an effective standard-bearer.

Honestly I thought that Hitchens book was far more recommendable. It suffered the same flaws, but to a far lesser extent.

Can you say more about your surprise? It only seems natural to me that atheists would be as motivated (if not more) than religious folks to spread their views. I wouldn't classify atheism as a religion though - in that it lacks faith as a component that would seem to be a sloppy classification. In fact, I think one would be missing the point of atheism if they only consider it to be a negative classification - the absence of religious belief. I think of atheists (and myself) as being devoted to the observable universe and rationalism. That's a positive classification (here I mean negative and positive in their classification orientation, not qualitative senses).

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

Willravel