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

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by logician

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

How so? Rules have their limitations and exceptions. Perhaps a better way of putting that is that the interaction between variables can be so complex as to be beyond our current understanding of the topic. Our understanding of the laws of physics, for example, have developed to try and understand what happens to these laws when applied in extreme circumstances. This has lead to our understanding of physics becoming increasingly complex. Thus the simple rule becomes the generalisation, and the complex rule the full understanding.

Perhaps likewise our understanding of the variables as far as creationist principles are concerned are also limited, and thus we are only able to apply the generalisation because we do not know how the complex rule works as far as God is concerned. This is being presumptuous rather than fallacious. There is nothing inherently fallacious in that idea.

[logician]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

How so? Rules have their limitations and exceptions. Perhaps a better way of putting that is that the interaction between variables can be so complex as to be beyond our current understanding of the topic. Our understanding of the laws of physics, for example, have developed to try and understand what happens to these laws when applied in extreme circumstances. This has lead to our understanding of physics becoming increasingly complex. Thus the simple rule becomes the generalisation, and the complex rule the full understanding.

Perhaps likewise our understanding of the variables as far as creationist principles are concerned are also limited, and thus we are only able to apply the generalisation because we do not know how the complex rule works as far as God is concerned. This is being presumptuous rather than fallacious. There is nothing inherently fallacious in that idea.

This post really does not much make much sense, what we know about the multverse now is light years more that we knew 2 decades ago, there is a definite possibility that that the "creator god" theory will someday be ruled out completely. Right now it is of extremely low probability, and we certainly don't need such a ethereal non-answer to our questions.

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by logician

This post really does not much make much sense, what we know about the multverse now is light years more that we knew 2 decades ago, there is a definite possibility that that the "creator god" theory will someday be ruled out completely. Right now it is of extremely low probability, and we certainly don't need such a ethereal non-answer to our questions.

The term "definite probability" is quite dichotomous. What you mean is there is a possibility that theism may be eliminated. I would think that for that to be true you could at least fathom what kind of discovery it would take to eliminate the possibility of a creator god.

And that last part only works if scientific questions are the only questions you have.

[logician]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

The term "definite probability" is quite dichotomous. What you mean is there is a possibility that theism may be eliminated. I would think that for that to be true you could at least fathom what kind of discovery it would take to eliminate the possibility of a creator god.

And that last part only works if scientific questions are the only questions you have.

Any theory that proves that there is a multiverse in a state of constant evolution will disprove the need of a creator god.

[stephenw]

Originally Posted by logician

Any theory that proves that there is a multiverse in a state of constant evolution will disprove the need of a creator god.

There's a lot of leaps for a skeptic in that statement.

[logician]

Originally Posted by stephenw

There's a lot of leaps for a skeptic in that statement.

Not if the initial assumpion is there is no creator god. One needs to prove a creator god is needed for the multiverse to get started. An infinite multiverse in a constant state of evolution simply doesn't.

[Tau]

Originally Posted by logician

Any theory that proves that there is a multiverse in a state of constant evolution will disprove the need of a creator god.

We concur.

[misanthropic_clown]

Originally Posted by Tau

We concur.

Not particularly, surely it would just displace it to a more external level.

[Apex]

Originally Posted by logician

Any theory that proves that there is a multiverse in a state of constant evolution will disprove the need of a creator god.

And where is the logic in this statement?