Richard Dawkins

[chilli]

This properly belongs in the philosophy/spirituality forum, but I'd really love to hear from the more scientifically minded among us, and I know many of you don't frequent that forum, except for a laugh.

I am developing a growing admiration and respect for Richard Dawkins, and I find him to be an extremely interesting and hilarious person to read and listen to. I've been reading The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins, lots of great stuff in there so far and I haven't finished it yet, but I'm a bit stuck in the section "Why There Almost Certainly is No God."

As far as I can tell, the claim Dawkins makes in the heading of this section rests almost entirely on the reasoning that a God, in the sense of a being with mind that created the universe, is hugely improbable, and to posit such a being as an explanation for the beginning of life or the universe is deeply unsatisfactory because the improbability of such a God existing is many times greater than the high improbability of life or the even the universe itself existing:

As ever, the theist's answer is deeply unsatisfying, because it leaves the existence of God unexplained.

Following this reasoning, he expresses amazement that so many of his peers in the scientific community do think its reasonable to believe in such a God as an explanation for all that exists, and he speculates that this is because that as a biologist his consciousness has been raised because of his immersion in the theory of Darwinian evolution:

Maybe the psychological reason for this amazing blindness has something to do with the fact that many people have not had their consciousness raised, as biologists have, by natural selection and its power to tame improbability.

Aside from the obvious problem that there are in fact biologists who believe in a God (although far fewer than in the other sciences), and the fact that this sounds like a fairly conceited argument to make, what I find interesting is the way that in his treatment of his theistically-minded peers' postulations, he accepts that life may have begun as the work of a superhuman being, but completely rejects the idea that this might be a God who dwells outside of time and space, and has always existed:

It may even be a superhuman designer - but, if so, it will most certainly not be a designer who just popped into existence, or who always existed.

This, in spite of the fact that only a few pages earlier he acknowledges that time and space probably began at the inception of the Universe, as a result of the Big Bang. In light of this, why is it so unreasonable to posit as an explanation an eternal being that transcends our dimensions of space and time as the one who started the whole ball rolling, so to speak? It seems to me that Dawkins' unwillingness to accept this idea, rather than a higher consciousness, could instead be explained as a psychological shortcoming on his part, which is the result of being so used to thinking in terms of linear time and space, forcing Dawkins to think of such a God as pre-existent (implying a time bound entity), as opposed to truly eternal.

Of course we all, as finite beings with a beginning and an end, are incapable of truly grasping the nature of a being that is not restricted by such, and this tendency may be exacerbated in those trained in the biology, with it's focus on the apparent linear progression of time, and diminished by those trained in sciences such as physics, which seem to be populated by far more believers than biology.

I find it interesting that Dawkins' rejection of the idea of a God seems to hinge on this one point, which seems to me less than rock solid. What do you think?

Edited July 20, 2008 by Sublime Crime

[mark80]

I love the god delusion, such well crafted piece of work.

I am not very well hearsed in it as i am still going through it.

From his work what i gather he bases his ideas on the concept of a couscious being being our designer is not feasible.

humans need answers thats what differs us from the animals. the answers lay in what we can explain.

Look at the progression of relaigions through time, no body stills prays to the god of fire, noone still beilives helios flies his charity of fire across the sky. We have explanations that amke them tehrefore redundant. Thus the progression from counsciouness to phsyical interactions of natural laws that govern them. The gods served there purpose to explain and thus sastified our curious nature - we had answers and when betetr stuff comes along we replace them with other answers - yet all the time we have answers.

I'll ahve more to add later.

[nabraxas]

I like Dawkins when he writes about biology. "the Selfish Gene" is an excellent book. I saw him give a quality genetics lecture at the Royal Institute.

However, when he writes about religion I think he goes too far.

Basically he becomes a fundamentalist atheist, & to believe that there is no god seems as much a belief system as theism.

no body stills prays to the god of fire

tell that to the the Zorastrians & Hindus.

Edited July 20, 2008 by nabraxas

[Teotzlcoatl]

I think "Boom" (The Big Bang Theory) is just as shitty as "O, God made everything"...

I think this dude needs to eat some cacti and drink some Aya', then I want him to write about "how we know almost everything, and the more we learn the more god goes away"... did this mother fucker skip quantom physics or something?! Science is PROVING God is REAL!!! Watch the movie "What the "Bleep" do we Know?"... it's very good!

*Note*- Replace the word "God" with "Tao" and you may understand what I'm talking about a little better...

[faustus]

Science is PROVING God is REAL!!!

and can you suggest a replicable experiment to demonstrate this?

[Teotzlcoatl]

Ya, drink Ayahuasca.

Look into quantom physics... basically we are God and our minds are God... Tao is much better of a word... but the best way to discuss "God" is to not talk at all... I prefer " ........ ".

Read the "Tao Teh Ching" by Lao Tzu and try to understand "God" or "Tao" through the mind of Taoist, not a Jew, Christian or Muslim.

Edited July 20, 2008 by Teotz'

[mark80]

tell that to the the Zorastrians & Hindus.

I was more talking about the cucasian races hence it should be taken with refrence to helios.

I think "Boom" (The Big Bang Theory) is just as shitty as "O, God made everything"...

See thats were religion and science differ. We accept ours is just a theory - not fact.

I think this dude needs to eat some cacti and drink some Aya', then I want him to write about "how we know almost everything, and the more we learn the more god goes away"... did this mother fucker skip quantom physics or something?! Science is PROVING God is REAL!!! Watch the movie "What the "Bleep" do we Know?"... it's very good!

Maybe this "mother fucker" (is he a mother fucker becuase he has different views to yourself?) skipped it but so did you... obviously.

"basically we are God and our minds are God" what the hell (no pun intended) does that have to do QP? QP has been suggested to be glorfied mathematics when you come up with mathematical proof for couscious designer, i will fully and whole heartidly take back my comments.

Are you gonna suggest next that biology proves it? such irreducible complexity?

About your aya' and cacti comments. Are you saying that divination you feel is because of god coming through the plants into you?

Do you take an aspirin for your headache and than feel god inside of you? Or do you just accept that there is a pharamcological basis for its action? perhaps divination is just a pharmacological consqeunce of its ingestation.

[Undergrounder]

yeah i cringe every time i hear someone drag quantum mechanics kicking and screaming into a debate about religion or magic or consciousness or ESP or [insert crackpot scheme here].

[Space Shroom]

yeah i cringe every time i hear someone drag quantum mechanics kicking and screaming into a debate about religion or magic or consciousness or ESP or [insert crackpot scheme here].

ESP crackpot theme (pardon me upfront if I've taken your comment out of context)? I'd rather like to see refutations of the many experiments carried out by the soviets and latter the Americans. Quite a unwarranted comment by you, particularly from a forum mainly concerning with all that supernormal (like spiritual experiences via taking ayahuasca for example).

Quantum mechanics I can see why one would 'cringe' at the fact that it gets dragged into such subjects, after all quantum mechanics does try to give a theoretical explanation to most things. Indeed the front men of this academic area have done a substantial amount of work to shed light on many matters, particularity the many interesting theories. It gets out of hand though when people use it to drag into debate without being completely informed what they are on about, just because quantum mechanics sounds so fancy. Anyway I'll stop ranting.

Cheerio

[2b]

I'd rather like to see refutations of the many experiments carried out by the soviets and latter the Americans. Quite a unwarranted comment by you, particularly from a forum mainly concerning with all that supernormal

Like the men who stare at goats ? The Americans' did do alot of research trying to get any sort of secret edge over the emeny, the new age warroirs using peace and ESP as weapons, trying to stop a goats heart just by staring at it. Got to admit i like the fact that they would give it a go, but no real evidence has come out of it all.

particularly from a forum mainly concerning with all that supernormal

Please don't tar all of us with the same brush I'm just here for the drinks and free food . You are right that there is a fair bit of that stuff going on here, but i feel the numbers a pretty evenly split between those that believe and those that doubt.

[Hagakure]

Dawkins logic is terrific and he is a very smart cookie. but calling religious people idiots isnt going to result in big enough changes. people just get defensive and stuck in their ways (though i have no doubt it shakes some people from the fringes)

i recently listened to an excellent podcast entitiled "Reinventing the Sacred" by Stuart Kaufman.

http://feeds.conversationsnetwork.org/~r/c...-2008.06.06.mp3

He is a complexity scientist who was involved in the early days of the Santa Fe institute which is basically responsible for the development of the whole field of complexity theory. his take on the relationship between spirituality and science is really nice IMHO.

if the field of complexity and emergence interests you then take a look here for a pop science introduction

http://www.wnyc.org/shows/radiolab/episodes/2005/02/18

[chilli]

Thanks Hagakure, I'll check those out tonight... yes, I'm extremely interested in complexity, chaos and emergence since a post of your turned me on to them a year or so ago.

I agree that Dawkins is obviously highly intelligent and very sharp, I love the way he boldly exposes flaws in other people's reasoning and stands up for what he believes, but the purpose of starting this thread was to ask if anyone else can see a flaw in Dawkins' own usually excellent logic on this particular point.

Also, the more I think about it, I think there is another obvious blindpost in his reasoning with regards to religion. Obviously, he is quite well known for attributing much or even most of the evil in the world to religion. I find this bizarre given his knowledge of evolution, as us/them groupthink behavior is apparent in religious and non religious groups, and furthermore seems to be an element of human nature that may have been bequeathed to us by the evolutionary process itself.

The irony is almost unbearable given Dawkins so often seems to fall into the same trap when he talks about people who believe what he does having a higher consciousness than the rest of the ignorant unbelievers, so to speak... thus creating another division between us and them.

I agree with him that if the human race is to survive we need to transcend these boundaries and ways of thinking, but I think he has misattributed the cause of this mindset as religion, when I think the kinds of religious belief he deplores could be more accurately considered as symptoms of this us/them mentality.

I'm not explaining this very well, I've been sick and am drugged on codeine... does anyone else know what the hell I'm talking about?

Edited July 21, 2008 by Sublime Crime

[Hagakure]

i have heard some podcasts of christians attacking dawkins (can you tell im a podcast fanatic yet?) and they generally sound pathetic. he is pretty rock solid in his logic.

i havent heard a convincing argument against him but appeals to quantom physics might just do it for me

[baphomet]

I found it funny that in his documentary Dick found it quite challenging to debate with a fanatical christian fundamentalist and became quite flustered, I think he thought that his superior intellect and reasoning would quickly prevail but I think he found it more challenging than first expected. I also found it funny that that same christian fundy was busted for smoking ice and fucking a male prostitute soon after (its a strange old world we live in!)

Why can't people reconcile the ideas of a superior consciousness and natural selection both being true? Maybe god wants us to kill each other and sees this as a necessary for the evolution of the species? Why can't they just accept the fact that he may not be such a nice caring god after all? Maybe there is a creator or supreme being who wanted a certain level of chaos without having total chaos, perhaps this is something that Dick just can't wrap his mind around? Maybe modern science is too blind and narrow minded to explain all they try to explain without going back to the roots of modern science (alchemy), perhaps they overlooked some of the things that the occultists who created modern science knew back then? I don't think they like re writing science books either for some reason even when they know they should. Until the narrow minded science community realizes and admits that they don't know anywhere near as much as they thought they did/pretended to and they may have been wrong about certain things for a very long time then they will continue to be humiliated by a bunch of FKN nutters with microscopes. The sad thing is that when these deluded morons find out that modern science is based on a flawed/incomplete theory (Darwins) and they have far less answers than they claim to they use it as PROOF that their deluded views are the truth and teach it in schools. The scientific method is one of the best things that ever happened to this world but Darwin was an underacheiver at best and modern science is in a lot of shit if they don't realise and admit this then move on!

Teotz lighten up man, sorry to say it but What The Bleep' was made by a bunch of nutters and is mostly bullshit, random event generators went crazy on 911 and lots of weird shit does happen but that movie is far from credible IMO! To accept the information in that film one must realise that the film makers are suggesting that Jane Roberts is channeling ascended masters from beyond the grave!

"humans need answers thats what differs us from the animals"

How do you know that animals don't ask questions?

"no body stills prays to the god of fire, noone still beilives helios flies his charity of fire across the sky. We have explanations that amke them tehrefore redundant."

How do you know that the people who made up those myths were not refering to a "divine principal" such as helios representing the force that moves the earth around the sun and Eris representing the chaos principal, etc? What makes you so sure that there was not an esoteric side to these myths that was only taught to a select few and an exoteric side that was taught to the masses?

"The gods served there purpose to explain and thus sastified our curious nature"

Indeed!

PS: BTW SC.. Where did all the coughing and spluttering go?

Edited July 21, 2008 by baphomet

[Hagakure]

"Why can't people reconcile the ideas of a superior consciousness and natural selection both being true?"

if complexity can emmerge from simplicity then why is a superior consciousness required? this superior conciousness was invented by man to explain things they didnt understand. im not saying we understand everything but we sure dont yet see anything that suggests a designer is required. plus if a designer is required then who designed the designer?

"I don't think they like re writing science books either for some reason even when they know they should."

dude, whats that based on? ill mention one thing. free markets. if you have a science book that you dont update, while your competitors update theirs then which book is going to be used in universities etc.

"Until the narrow minded science community realizes and admits that they don't know anywhere near as much as they thought they did and can't explain everything and they may have been wrong about certain things for a very long time then they will continue to be humiliated by a bunch of FKN nutters with microscopes."

scientists can be wrong. scientists can be wrong about things for a long time. but guess who proves them wrong. other scientists. if you are a scientist and can find a flaw in a major theory you have got one huge meal ticket. your further research will be funded, you might make professor at some prestigious school, hot scientist chicks aplenty etc. show me a case where a religious group's work has humiliated science. i can show you thousands of examples of the opposite.

"The sad thing is that when these deluded morons find out that modern science is based on a flawed/incomplete theory (Darwins) and they have far less answers than they claim to they use it as PROOF that their deluded views are the truth and teach it in schools. The scientific method is one of the best things that ever happened to this world but Darwin was an underacheiver at best and modern science is in a lot of shit if they don't realise and admit this then move on!"

Darwin was an absolute genius. his work was incredibly meticulous due to him having a certain amount of fear in releasing a work that went against the establishment to such a degree and his perfectionist attitude. i think it was something like 10 years he worked on origin of species and he only released when he got wind of some other scientist developing a similar idea. but darwin didnt know about DNA and many other recent developments. he lays the foundation for the field of evolutionary biology but others have progressed his work to levels he wouldnt have been able to imagine.

dissing Darwin in such a matter is like looking at quantum physics or something and calling Newton an underachiever for not understanding it.

[mark80]

[quote name='baphomet' date='Jul 21

[mark80]

"humans need answers thats what differs us from the animals"

How do you know that animals don't ask questions?

"no body stills prays to the god of fire, noone still beilives helios flies his charity of fire across the sky. We have explanations that amke them tehrefore redundant."

How do you know that the people who made up those myths were not refering to a "divine principal" such as helios representing the force that moves the earth around the sun and Eris representing the chaos principal, etc? What makes you so sure that there was not an esoteric side to these myths that was only taught to a select few and an exoteric side that was taught to the masses?

"The gods served there purpose to explain and thus sastified our curious nature"

Indeed!

PS: BTW SC.. Where did all the coughing and spluttering go?

It was basic refereal that questions asking leads to cousciouness and decision making. Sure aniamals ask questions (afterall questions are basic instinct to couscious function) but not the higher degree people do. I will admit that statement was vague, and i hope this clarifies i was refering to degrees couscinous.

"How do you know that the people who made up those myths were not refering to a "divine principal" such as helios representing the force that moves the earth around the sun and Eris representing the chaos principal, etc? What makes you so sure that there was not an esoteric side to these myths that was only taught to a select few and an exoteric side that was taught to the masses?"

people don't prey to natural laws, only to things that govern them, You don't prey to the axe but to the executioner.

What also makes me curious is that it wasn't until galileo thought that earth rounded the sun, he was locked away. why would they hide scientific advancements?

So instead of looking at basic human psychology and the advacements and progression of understanding of the understanding of the natural laws, which were obvisousily spread (in dfferent forms) through different socities, you wish to say atht people knew and just didn'tw nat others to know so they made up a stroy like sanat clause to explain to the masses? Surely that is a betetr discription of religion than science?

But yet I am not sure, however the evidence supports my argument and not yours, but i guess when it comes to topic of reilgion you can bet someone will bring this scrapping the bottom of barrel for answers arguments.

[baphomet]

"if complexity can emmerge from simplicity then why is a superior consciousness required?

If complexity can emerge from simplicity then why cant you explain irreducible complexity? Oh I forgot.. you can't!!

"we sure dont yet see anything that suggests a designer is required"

Then please explain flagella of bacteria?

There does not necessarily have to be a creator god who designed it IMO but there must be more to that life form than what modern science can explain. I am not necessarily a believer in a creator god who created all things and I am not a member of any organised religion, I just think that modern science has hit a dead end and I like to watch them squirm!

"I don't think they like re writing science books either for some reason even when they know they should."

dude, whats that based on?

Surely you knew what I was getting at?

"scientists can be wrong. scientists can be wrong about things for a long time. but guess who proves them wrong. other scientists. if you are a scientist and can find a flaw in a major theory you have got one huge meal ticket. your further research will be funded, you might make professor at some prestigious school, hot scientist chicks aplenty etc"

..And then you wake up!

"show me a case where a religious group's work has humiliated science."

Umm.. Irreducible complexity?

"Darwin was an absolute genius"

Thats debatable!

"he lays the foundation for the field of evolutionary biology but others have progressed his work to levels he wouldnt have been able to imagine."

And still failed to prove his theory 149 years on! (lol)

Edited July 21, 2008 by baphomet

[mark80]

"if complexity can emmerge from simplicity then why is a superior consciousness required?

If complexity can emerge from simplicity then why cant you explain irreducible complexity? Oh I forgot.. you can't!!

You can and quite easily.

"we sure dont yet see anything that suggests a designer is required"[/b]

Then please explain flagella of bacteria?

They can be reduced.

There does not necessarily have to be a creator god who designed it IMO but there must be more to that life form than what modern science can explain. I am not necessarily a believer in a creator god who created all things and I am not a member of any organised religion, I just think that modern science has hit a dead end and I like to watch them squirm!

"I don't think they like re writing science books either for some reason even when they know they should."

dude, whats that based on?

Surely you knew what I was getting at?

Lol! irreudcucible complexity is a very poor arguemnt at best.

"scientists can be wrong. scientists can be wrong about things for a long time. but guess who proves them wrong. other scientists. if you are a scientist and can find a flaw in a major theory you have got one huge meal ticket. your further research will be funded, you might make professor at some prestigious school, hot scientist chicks aplenty etc"

..And then you wake up! and find that irreducbile complexity is garbage!

"show me a case where a religious group's work has humiliated science."

Umm.. Irreducible complexity?

"Darwin was an absolute genius"

Thats debatable! so is the bible dude!

"he lays the foundation for the field of evolutionary biology but others have progressed his work to levels he wouldnt have been able to imagine."

And still failed to prove his theory 149 years on! (lol)

actaully molecular biology seems prove his theory very well, espcially when looking at muatations over genereations which can be seen relativily quickly over things like drasphila's. The effetc of natural pressure on natural systems has been shown over and over again.

"Mainstream scientists regard this argument as having been largely disproved in the light of fairly recent research.[45] They point out that the basal body of the flagella has been found to be similar to the Type III secretory system (TTSS), a needle-like structure that pathogenic germs such as Salmonella and Yersinia pestis use to inject toxins into living eucaryote cells. The needle's base has many[clarify] elements in common with the flagellum, but it is missing most[clarify] of the proteins that make a flagellum work. Thus, this system seems to negate the claim that taking away any of the flagellum's parts would render it useless. This has caused Kenneth Miller to note that, "The parts of this supposedly irreducibly complex system actually have functions of their own.""

[baphomet]

"people don't prey to natural laws, only to things that govern them,"

What I was suggesting was that maybe the gods/myths that you spoke of were representative or allegory for natural laws/principals and maybe this was taught to an initiated few in the ancient mystery schools whilst the masses were fed fairy tales.

"why would they hide scientific advancements?"

Because knowledge is power! 'They' do it all the time!!

So instead of looking at basic human psychology and the advacements and progression of understanding of the understanding of the natural laws, which were obvisousily spread (in dfferent forms) through different socities, you wish to say atht people knew and just didn'tw nat others to know so they made up a stroy like sanat clause to explain to the masses?

Well.. kind of!

"Surely that is a betetr discription of religion than science?"

Both really!!

But yet I am not sure, however the evidence supports my argument and not yours, but i guess when it comes to topic of reilgion you can bet someone will bring this scrapping the bottom of barrel for answers arguments.

Oh dear... your serious aren't you?

[chilli]

i have heard some podcasts of christians attacking dawkins (can you tell im a podcast fanatic yet?) and they generally sound pathetic. he is pretty rock solid in his logic.

i havent heard a convincing argument against him but appeals to quantom physics might just do it for me

I am not attacking Dawkins, nor am I a Christian, and it disturbs me that you have referred to other people's arguments and not my own. If you meant to imply my own reasoning as outlined above was pathetic, please just say so outright, and provide reasons for it!

I too have read a number of these kinds of arguments made by Christians and people of other faiths, and have shook my head in disgusted wonder at the stuff they come up with to hold on to their unfounded beliefs and certainties, and the intellectual dishonesty they employ. The problem is, I am starting to feel the same way when I read some of Dawkins' arguments against the possibility of a God.

I've also read and heard a number of atheists and agnostics questioning the validity of some of his arguments about religion. Generally, the less certain someone is about their own brand of belief, the stronger and more reasonable their arguments seem to be. Perhaps it is because of its overweening tendency towards certainty that Dawkins brand of atheism seems to have weak points, and surely he is not exempt from being wrong on some things, like the rest of us mere mortals!

I am not a religious person, and I'm deeply suspicious of my own thoughts on this matter because of my Christian upbringing. Eg. why do I use a capital letter for Christian, but not for atheist? I am approaching this, as much as I can with my limited human reference, from the perspective of reason, and I am starting to think some of Dawkins views on this subject are in unreasonable and illogical.

For example the aforementioned fact that his main argument against the existence of a God is based on the Ultimate 747 argument, in which he argues that a God that could create the universe and life would need to be far more complex than the creation, and so only adds to the already high improbabilty of the universe and life existing. As I said, this seems to me flawed as it only accepts the idea of a God that is bound by time and matter, and any other kind of God is dismissed out of hand, presumably out of a naturalistic presupposition. Outside the occurrence of our universe, there would be no necessity for matter, time or laws of physics as we currently understand them. My point is that Dawkins himself seems to acknowledge this as likely, but isn't consistent in applying it to his arguments about the possibility of a God.

With this in mind, I'd love it if someone would engage any of the actual issues I have raised, as I would be eager to be corrected on this matter, as I am trying to dispel some of my persistent agnosticism... maybe that is a bad idea, when I see the attitudes of people who are so certain of what they believe!

Sorry I didn't mean to write so much, I was trying to keep this simple, I should know better where religion is involved!

[baphomet]

"if complexity can emmerge from simplicity then why is a superior consciousness required?

You can and quite easily...They can be reduced... Lol! irreudcucible complexity is a very poor arguemnt at best.

Go for it Einstein! Disprove Irreducible Complexity for us then..

"Darwin was an absolute genius"

Thats debatable! so is the bible dude!

No shit?

"actaully molecular biology seems prove his theory very well"

So molecular biology has proven that we evolved from monkeys? Be sure to show me this evidence too please..

Edited July 21, 2008 by baphomet

[chilli]

I found it funny that in his documentary Dick found it quite challenging to debate with a fanatical christian fundamentalist and became quite flustered, I think he thought that his superior intellect and reasoning would quickly prevail but I think he found it more challenging than first expected.

I didn't get the impression he was challenged at all! The stuff that came out of that guys mouth was gibberish, and dawkins didn't need to say anything, he showed how ignorant and stupid he was just by opening his mouth. He did look flustered, but I think it is obvious it's because of how much of a rude cockhead he was being!

[chilli]

Holy shit, I can't believe this is going downhill so fast, can anyone with half a brain just answer the one or two points I started this thread to discuss?

[baphomet]

I didn't get the impression he was challenged at all! The stuff that came out of that guys mouth was gibberish, and dawkins didn't need to say anything, he showed how ignorant and stupid he was just by opening his mouth. He did look flustered, but I think it is obvious it's because of how much of a rude cockhead he was being!

Well I disagree thats all, I think Dawkins put in a very poor account of himself in that discussion.

When jahovas witnesses knock on my door they are usually surprised to receive a warm welcome but leave here completely shattered with their faith in tatters, I honestly think I could have done a much better job than Dawkins to be honest! As arrogant as that may sound.

"For example the aforementioned fact that his main argument against the existence of a God is based on the Ultimate 747 argument, in which he argues that a God that could create the universe and life would need to be far more complex than the creation, and so only adds to the already high improbabilty of the universe and life existing. As I said, this seems to me flawed as it only accepts the idea of a God that is bound by time and matter, and any other kind of God is dismissed out of hand, presumably out of a naturalistic presupposition. Outside the occurrence of our universe, there would be no necessity for matter, time or laws of physics as we currently understand them."

Kind of reminds me of something someone said in Teotzs favouirite film, "its like a fish trying to understand and describe the water in which they live".

Edited July 21, 2008 by baphomet