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

[Alex_G]

Originally Posted by Fluffy

I think there are two alternatives:
1) A person might have a personal experience which cannot be used to justify the existence of God to another but is sufficient to justify the existence of God to oneself.

To me a personal experience to prove to oneself doesnt really mean anything, as its just a loop within someones own mind. If you consider God as a candidate for existing outside of some1ns mind, surely sufficient evidence would have to go further than simple personal justification as a result of a personal experience. Its sufficient in justifying a concept of God though.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

2) We might be able to rationally deduce the existence of God. For example, belief in God might be a basic belief and therefore not in need of justification.

not sure if i quite get you.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Because the most that science does not take in account certain kinds of evidence (and it definitely shouldn't) and isn't concerned with non-empirical means of demonstrating something. Therefore, there might be some things that are useful in explaining our universe which do not fit into these criteria. For example, mathematics.

Even with science's use of specific empirical evidence, id like to think it could yeild somthing to indicate Gods existance if he indeed did.

Originally Posted by Fluffy

Yes I fully agree and I'm glad you feel this way. Many people seem to ignore this point.

All down to definitions in the end, and the limitations of our methods of communication :P

[logician]

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?

It depends on what you define as a god, logically for example, one would not expect an omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent god to exist in this universe, as there is much needless suffering (even if you don't believe in a literal hell). Other types of pantheistic gods that are just "consciousnesss" or "being" might exist, but are beyond our capability to detect from any scientific means. The fact that there are many "bugs" in the universe I think lends credence to the "no god" thesis.

[Rolling_Stone]

Originally Posted by misanthropic_clown

I recently had the pleasure of attending a public lecture by Professor Richard Dawkins at my university. He was, overall, very good, but there was one point that I still feel a little confused about.

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. This point seemed to be skimmed over somewhat, which is why I want to open a discussion on it now.

Do you think that the universe should/would be different if there is a God [note that Dawkins places emphasis on the God of the Abrahamic religions when he says God]?

What do you think a Godly universe should look like, and adversely what should a naturalistic universe look like? What qualities would you be looking for in order to judge one way or another?

It's important that he stressed the Abramamic religions because outside that, the logical support for his positive atheism breaks down. Even then, not all the Abrahamic religions believe in a God that are affected by his arguments.

[Wandered Off]

Originally Posted by RobinD69

The world we see now has been cursed by God for mans actions, therefor all the confusion evolutionist like to use as proof for their side of the arguement.

What would be the point of cursing the entire planet because of someone's sin? That seems like a bully's tantrum unworthy of deity, which suggests to me it's a mythological explanation to account for what some consider imperfection.

[Autodidact]

Well, if by God you specifically mean the God of the Bible, then if He existed and was as described, we would observe the things stated about him to be true. For example, prayers would get answered at a rate higher than random chance. They don't. Therefore either He doesn't exist or is different than as described there.

[Autodidact]

I don't know if I would go so far as Dawkins. After all, if God is both omnipotent and unknowable, then any set of circumstances whatsoever could be consistent with His existence. What I would say is that God's behavior is consistent with the hypothesis that He doesn't exist. His actions, if any, are always undetectable and immeasurable and consistent with random chance.

The only God I can see an argument for is a Deist God who set up everything, including random chance itself. But that God
(1) is not the Abrahamic God
(2) would make no difference to my life.

[Fluffy]

Originally Posted by Autodidact

Well, if by God you specifically mean the God of the Bible, then if He existed and was as described, we would observe the things stated about him to be true. For example, prayers would get answered at a rate higher than random chance. They don't. Therefore either He doesn't exist or is different than as described there.

There are 2 further possibilities:
1) God's effect on the world is indistinguishable from random chance (Edit: I see your next post takes account of this possibility )
2) There is an interpretation of the Bible that is consistent with empirical observations and therefore distinct from the interpretations that are not.

Originally Posted by Alex G

To me a personal experience to prove to oneself doesnt really mean anything, as its just a loop within someones own mind. If you consider God as a candidate for existing outside of some1ns mind, surely sufficient evidence would have to go further than simple personal justification as a result of a personal experience. Its sufficient in justifying a concept of God though.

What source do you receive information from that is not also a personal experience?

Originally Posted by Alex G

not sure if i quite get you.

There are various rational arguments for the existence of God. For example, Plantinga's Ontological Argument demonstrates belief in God to be rational.

Originally Posted by Alex G

Even with science's use of specific empirical evidence, id like to think it could yeild somthing to indicate Gods existance if he indeed did.

But there is no reason to assume this especially if one has a personal experience that demonstrates otherwise. If you have not had such a personal experience then it is rational to conclude that the possibility is remote and so discard it but it is irrational to conclude that the possibility is non-existent. Similarly, if one has had such a personal experience, it would be irrational to conclude that the possibility is remote.

[Somkid]

In the Abrahamic texts the god was sure sticking its nose in everywhere for a thousand plus years and then ***poof*** it stopped interacting with the planet and the people so... I think what he is saying is "the message" would be spread to all people by now and that this god person would be making this happen or that happen against what we consider to be natural.