Darth J wrote:I'm not an atheist and I still think this video is hilarious, because the moderator is discussing typical biblical- literalist Christian talking points.
But if evolution is not cosmology, as he says, then how is evolution proof in favor of atheism?
It is certainly proof against the Adam and Eve story being literally true and the Noah's ark/global flood being literally true----both of which are taught by the LDS Church.
But why does evolution imply that there is no "God" of any kind at all?
Nothing "proves" atheism, including evolution. It's practically impossible to prove a nonexistence.
However, it certainly can imply no god, given that god is not necessary in order to explain the variety of species the earth currently has. Really, evolution is just another in long line of discoveries to come along which make the necessity of god to explain things smaller.
God belief is for people who don't want to live life on the universe's terms.
Berlinski is a well-known figure known for his criticism of evolutionary and sometimes defense of Intelligent Design. I think it is kind to say he doesn't have a good reputation. Flew's "There's is a God" was ghostwritten by people of similar repute. To simply reference their works as if they were decisive refutation of anything isn't going to and shouldn't get much respect. It's not like were talking about some influential academic work or anything like that that might actually have enough cache to just reference.
Lost should be able at least to outline a point or two if he/she expects his contribution to be taken seriously by an audience who no doubt is probably skeptical of his sources. It'd be like showing up on a Mormon apogetics board, announcing everything they think is refuted by Walter Martin, then skipping off into the sunset.
Darth J wrote: But why does evolution imply that there is no "God" of any kind at all?
It doesn't. However perhaps Dawkins was presenting a counter argument to a theist position that complexity of life or intelligent design is evidence for a God. So to someone who uses that as reasoning in support of a God, evolution counters it..all the complexity can be accounted for by evolution. And if complexity observed in the universe is a reason for God then how of course how did God ever get created.
"I don't know" is not equivalent to "it doesn't exist."
Didn't people get sick before germs were discovered?
But as far as the counter-argument, almost every atheist argument I've seen (actually, ever one I can recall seeing) is arguing against the Judeo-Christian Bible God.
That doesn't prove that there is no "God" of any kind whatsoever.
So I suspect Dawkins was addressing the argument to believers perhaps many if not most think of complexity as evidence for God. Didn't you put up a picture of a sexy girl as evidence for God?:)
If lovin' the Lord is wrong, I don't wanna be right.
Darth J wrote:I'm not an atheist and I still think this video is hilarious, because the moderator is discussing typical biblical- literalist Christian talking points.
But if evolution is not cosmology, as he says, then how is evolution proof in favor of atheism?
It is certainly proof against the Adam and Eve story being literally true and the Noah's ark/global flood being literally true----both of which are taught by the LDS Church.
But why does evolution imply that there is no "God" of any kind at all?
Nothing "proves" atheism, including evolution. It's practically impossible to prove a nonexistence.
However, it certainly can imply no god, given that god is not necessary in order to explain the variety of species the earth currently has. Really, evolution is just another in long line of discoveries to come along which make the necessity of god to explain things smaller.
Yes, but atheism is a proposition: there is no God.
Agnosticism is different: I don't believe it because it hasn't been proven, I think it is extremely unlikely, and/or I don't care.
I'm still not seeing how this isn't an argument about the Judeo-Christian biblical creator God. Evolution is based on information being passed on and reconfigured (genes). If information is inherent in the universe (or at least on this planet; we don't know about the whole universe), then there is some intelligence of some kind in nature. Evolution is ultimately due to the software being written and re-written.
No, that doesn't necessitate the biblical God having a direct hand in it. But the existence and transmission of information is also consistent with some kind of intelligence of some kind permeating the universe.
EDIT: And "whether God is necessary" (whatever that means) and "whether God exists" seem to me to be two different ideas.
Darth J wrote:Yes, but atheism is a proposition: there is no God.
Agnosticism is different: I don't believe it because it hasn't been proven, I think it is extremely unlikely, and/or I don't care.
Atheism is a belief about God. Agnosticism is a belief about the epistemology of knowing God. Both terms can apply to the same person.
I'm still not seeing how this isn't an argument about the Judeo-Christian biblical creator God.
Theism implies a personal creator, that God guided evolution so it would produce humans so he could have some type of relationship with us. Evolution begins to threaten that.
Atheism is defined by most atheists you are going to encounter (and with good cause) as simply lack of belief in God. I advocate the term just be used in reference to those who are familiar with the idea of a deity so newborns aren't considered atheists simply because they don't believe, but there you have it.
You will find few atheist philosophers or even people here who will define atheism as the proposition there is no God. You will however see atheism divided into subcategories like "weak" and "strong" atheism where strong atheism is defined as supporting that proposition.
Likewise, agnosticism will be defined in terms of the possibility of knowledge of God. (It's built right into the word.) This is true to the term's origin. An agnostic position is that one cannot in practice or in principle have knowledge of God. Unless you are a fideist, if you're an agnostic then you should be an atheist.
So all those posters here you see calling themselves atheists? Yeah, chances are you might have misjudged what they think.
Darth J wrote: EDIT: And "whether God is necessary" (whatever that means) and "whether God exists" seem to me to be two different ideas.
Saying God is necessary is asserting that is logically impossible for God not to exist. Another way to put it is that God exists in all logically possible worlds. The ontological argument holds that God is a necessary being. So does the TAG in a different, more round-about way.
MrStakhanovite wrote:Atheism is a belief about God. Agnosticism is a belief about the epistemology of knowing God. Both terms can apply to the same person.
Okay, I can buy that. Do you think atheism is an ontological belief, or not necessarily?
Theism implies a personal creator, that God guided evolution so it would produce humans so he could have some type of relationship with us. Evolution begins to threaten that.
That's possible, but is it necessary? Is it also possible to think that God (whatever that might mean) has a relationship with all life, but that humans are more able to conceptualize/articulate it?
And isn't there the alternative that evolution is on its own, and whatever God is just pushed the first domino?
Darth J wrote: EDIT: And "whether God is necessary" (whatever that means) and "whether God exists" seem to me to be two different ideas.
Saying God is necessary is asserting that is logically impossible for God not to exist. Another way to put it is that God exists in all logically possible worlds. The ontological argument holds that God is a necessary being. So does the TAG in a different, more round-about way.
Let me start a new thread so what I'm saying might make more sense.
