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

[lilithu]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

In order to bring God into the realm of being a scientific hypothesis, Dawkins claims that the universe would be a much different thing with a God than without one.

Was he talking about controlled experiments?? Normally in science, you perform controlled experiments. You have two sets of samples that are identical in every way (ideally) except for the one thing that is being tested. Then, if there are difference between the two sets, you can infer that it was the thing being tested that is responsible for the difference.

God cannot be a scientific hypothesis because we cannot do a controlled experiment with God. Ie - one universe with God and one universe without God and then look at the difference.

[logician]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

However, given that we cannot explain how something very simple came into existence, backtracking the trend that far seems unreliable. A creation event (however it happened) is very different from simple things becoming more complex. Therefore, there is no real reason to assume that a complex being popping into existence is more unlikely than simple things popping into existence.

Of course, the way out of this is to assume matter and energy have always existed, i.e. something has always existed, rather than simple or complex things "popping" into existence. Natural selection has been nature's choice for designing all the complexity we see now. Dawkins ideas are more to answer the ID theory that says any complex living being, or parts thereof, must have an intellegent designer. His answer is how could the most complex being according to ID not have been designed by some greater intelligence accoreding to their own theory.?

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by logician

Of course, the way out of this is to assume matter and energy have always existed, i.e. something has always existed, rather than simple or complex things "popping" into existence. Natural selection has been nature's choice for designing all the complexity we see now. Dawkins ideas are more to answer the ID theory that says any complex living being, or parts thereof, must have an intellegent designer. His answer is how could the most complex being according to ID not have been designed by some greater intelligence accoreding to their own theory.?

It becomes increasingly evident that physics and religion both look to some external environment which is different to the one we have now to explain life, the universe and everything. Even stating matter and energy always existed demands an explanation. ID'ers do not apply ID rules to God because it occured outside the universe, just in the same way the rules of physics we experience here do not seem to apply to the question of where our universe came from.

[crystalonyx]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

It becomes increasingly evident that physics and religion both look to some external environment which is different to the one we have now to explain life, the universe and everything. Even stating matter and energy always existed demands an explanation. ID'ers do not apply ID rules to God because it occured outside the universe, just in the same way the rules of physics we experience here do not seem to apply to the question of where our universe came from.

Actually, science does NOT look to some external environment to explain life.

"ID'ers do not apply ID rules to God "

Of course, not, which is the whole fallacy of their argument, they're making it up as they go along.

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by crystalonyx

Actually, science does NOT look to some external environment to explain life.

"ID'ers do not apply ID rules to God "

Of course, not, which is the whole fallacy of their argument, they're making it up as they go along.

I was using life, the universe and everything in its metaphorical sense of explaining everything. Perhaps putting quote marks would have made that clearer. I know fully that science seeks to answer to origin of life by purely scientific means.

And there is nothing fallacious about saying that the generalised rule does not work at some point. Most rules have their limitations, that just makes them limited, not fallacious. ID'ers draw the line of limitation with God.

[Tau]

Originally Posted by Father Heathen

I think if the universe was designed by an intelligent mind it would be a lot less random and chaotic and a lot more organized and structured towards efficiency and purpose.

The universe is utterly perfect.

Dawkins is a great scientist and has done much to further the general understanding of evolution.

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by Tau

The universe is utterly perfect.

Dawkins is a great scientist and has done much to further the general understanding of evolution.

I'm not sure how you get your definition of a perfect universe from a comparative field of less than one (for we do not yet even know this universe anywhere near perfectly).

I'm not quite sure why you dropped in that last sentence. I don't disagree with you, but it is still a little odd.

[logician]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

ID'ers draw the line of limitation with God.

Which is a lot of what Dawkins talks about, this is fallacious thinking.

[Tau]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

I'm not sure how you get your definition of a perfect universe from a comparative field of less than one (for we do not yet even know this universe anywhere near perfectly).

I'm not quite sure why you dropped in that last sentence. I don't disagree with you, but it is still a little odd.

How can you say it isnt perfect?

There is nothing that compares, it is perfect because it is nature.

Dawkins is a great scientist, this is a thread about Richard Dawkins, I was simply voicing my opinion of the man, why is that so confusing for you?