I quoted this a while ago for some of the atheists here... it is very traumatic to their weltanschanunngs - so I do not like to injure them too often --but , I thought it was time to post it again.... "Richard Dawkins- The Person Clinton Richard Dawkins, probably the most renowned atheist alive today, currently serves as the Charles Simonyi Professor of the Public Understanding of Science, University of Oxford, and Professorial Fellow of New College. Dawkins received his M.A. and D.Sc. degrees from Oxford University and has since been awarded five honorary doctoral degrees. Quite the rhetorician himself, Dr. Dawkins at least attempts to summarize his keys arguments for logical consideration. Richard Dawkins - The God Delusion On pages 157 and 158 of The God Delusion, Richard Dawkins encapsulates the central argument of his book in six points. The following comes directly from Dawkinsâ book, except that I chose to shorten a few of the points here for the sake of brevity.1 1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises. 2. The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artifact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person. 3. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. 4. Darwinian evolution by natural selection offers the greatest, most powerful explanatory scope so far discovered in the biological sciences. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that -- an illusion. 5. We donât yet have an equivalent well-grounded, explanatory model for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with. 6. We should not give up the hope of a well-grounded explanatory model arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying model to match the biological one, the relatively weak models we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating God hypothesis of an intelligent designer. 7. If the argument of this chapter (book) is accepted, the factual premise of religion -- the God hypothesis â is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist. This is the main conclusion of the book so far." http://www.allaboutscience.org/richard-dawkins.htm" See that all that you emotional little atheists read 4 and 5.... - you do not even understand science, even though I have spoon fed it to you. I realize it was too emotional for your brain power. But now it is clear for you. Don't worry atheists Dawkins tells you to not yet give up hope... for a model may come that explains the appearance of design. I agree ... but in the mean time... you have been owned. Now for those of you who still not understand what Dawkins is saying. He has appeared at the University of California San Diego... (the lecture has been on T.V.) and he clearly stated that our universe looks designed, but he has expectation that physics will find an explanation similar to ones found in biology.
You post quotes from one scientist over and over... You and I both know that for every scientist who says the universe is finely tuned, there are AT LEAST an equal amount who believe the opposite, so stop trying to be misleading.
Perhaps you have trouble reading your own posts: "But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying model to match the biological one, the relatively weak models we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating God hypothesis of an intelligent designer." I would have posted the same thing you did in my argument against an intelligent creator. I fail to understand how you quoting Dawkins helps your cause, rather than hurt it.
You clearly do not comprehend the post. Read the first part... the trouble for atheists is to explain the appearance of design in the universe.... now hold that though for one moment... and realize how screwed up the et atheist have been for saying the universe does not appear designed. Do you see how stupid they were. But lets go to the next step. How does science explain that appearance. 1. He says biology does. 2. But he says what does physics say about that. Well says the highly regarding leading atheist scientist on the subject... physics can not explain the reasons for the appearance of fine tunings... (which leaves the concern for an atheist that there is a tuner.) The relatively weak model (he illustrated) is the multiverse model. A model which says we have almost infinite universes... and a model which requires faith... because there is no proof of even one other universe. ---- I realize science takes some understanding... but perhaps you need to think about things before you post.
another great example of the truth of this statement: Christians: Let their beliefs father their science. Their faith to father their thinking, And wishes to father their facts.
I see atheists getting emotional trying to defend their belief system, but I see no science backed by scientists.
Your ignorance is astounding. I have read The God Delusion, and understand it quite well. The difference between the way my brain works (scientific) and the way your brain works (creationist) is that I am always searching for new evidence, whereas your theory is definite and complete. I understand and fully accept that the multiverse theory may or may not be correct. I understand and fully accept that as we continue to learn more about the universe and how it works, more truths will be revealed. I am not under the DELUSION that the scientific explanation for the workings of the universe is finite and complete, whereas you are under the DELUSION that the universe was definitely created. The evidence for the universe NOT being created is the millions of scientific experiments performed throughout history in understanding how the universe works. The evidence for the universe being created are a bunch of outrageous stories that have been passed on throughout history.