Dawkin's Universe (evolution, creation, attending, Abraham, God)

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

Those where my thoughts at the time. I would have raised the question, but there were a lot of people queuing up to ask stuff (that and I'm a coward).

I don't blame you! I wanted to ask loads of questions at a similar talk but I didn't either. Its a bit intimidating to ask questions especially if the speaker has riled up an audience to a contrary position. I really don't like the way that Hitchen treats his questioners sometimes because it takes guts to get up there!

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

I don't really see it as much of an issue, but since Dawkins appeared to give the point some importance, I was curious as to what naturalists thought of the point.

Personally I don't think it is a necessary point from an atheistic perspective. All the atheist needs in order to justifiably differ from the agnostic is to demonstrate that the chance of God existing is less than 50%. In my humble opinion, this can be done without resorting to what, on the face of it, appears to be a shaky assertion. However, I too would be very interested to see what substance, if any, there is behind it.

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by The Seeker

I agree. I would also add that I wouldn't see the need for evolution in a world that was created by an omnipotent God. Why wouldn't he/she create things to be perfectly suited for their environment and purpose to begin with?

So why, in your view (and others) would it be necessary for God's Universe to be 100% efficient [or perhaps at least more than it is now]?

[Alex_G]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I don't really understand Dawkins' point here either. It seems to me that given an omnipotent being, the universe could look just as it is and still admit its existence.

However, I suppose an argument could be constructed based on what universe would be most likely given an omnipotent being and whether or not we are, in fact, that universe. I'm just not sure how you would go about doing such a thing convincingly.

I think it comes down to observable phenomena in our enviroment, and our efforts to explain them. We use science to activly explain and understand our world, and we do so by looking at evidence to support ideas. Many of the phenomena we find are explainable without a deity. As Occams razor says, that the explanation of any phenomonan should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis of theory.

[The Seeker]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

So why, in your view (and others) would it be necessary for God's Universe to be 100% efficient [or perhaps at least more than it is now]?

Because God is omniscient and omnipotent. Why would such a being create something that was wasteful? Wouldn't he/she want to create something that was as perfect as it could possibly be? If I were a computer genius, would it make sense for me to create a program that was full of bugs?

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by The Seeker

Because God is omniscient and omnipotent. Why would such a being create something that was wasteful? Wouldn't he/she want to create something that was as perfect as it could possibly be? If I were a computer genius, would it make sense for me to create a program that was full of bugs?

I'm not particularly keen of answering questions with questions, but I hope you will humour me.

Does God strive to create perfect things? Is it a necessary part of His endeavor?

That is generally not the thrust of religious thought. We get lot's of thought about animals and people being marvellous and wonderful, but I'd be hard pressed to find someone who would say the human body is perfect. In a religious sense, it is more a disposable tool in a grander purpose.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by AlexG

I think it comes down to observable phenomena in our enviroment, and our efforts to explain them. We use science to activly explain and understand our world, and we do so by looking at evidence to support ideas. Many of the phenomena we find are explainable without a deity. As Occams razor says, that the explanation of any phenomonan should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis of theory.

Okay but since God is not a scientific hypothesis, it is irrelevant whether or not it conforms to the standards set by science. We admit other kinds of non-scientific hypothesis (for example the scientific method) so God might be plausible on another level.

Yes God is not needed under Occam's Razor. But neither is a belief in perception or induction and these things are necessary for science to be accurate.

[Alex_G]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Okay but since God is not a scientific hypothesis, it is irrelevant whether or not it conforms to the standards set by science. We admit other kinds of non-scientific hypothesis (for example the scientific method) so God might be plausible on another level.

Yes God is not needed under Occam's Razor. But neither is a belief in perception or induction and these things are necessary for science to be accurate.

Ok, i was just looking at God from a scientific angle, because i dont really see any other means to attempt proof of his existance. If God is a realistic candidate for explaining our universe, i can't see why he should be immune from scientific means for pursuit and understanding.

This is going to weigh heavily on what u define God as in the 1st place to be fair, the reletive plausability will depend on this.

[Random]

Let's face it, if God really did create the Universe and all, why would it have Richard Dawkins in it?

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Alex_G

Ok, i was just looking at God from a scientific angle, because i dont really see any other means to attempt proof of his existance.

I think there are two alternatives:
1) A person might have a personal experience which cannot be used to justify the exis