Richard Dawkins Finally Gets One Right! Whats Next, He Starts to Believe in God? Heaven Forbid!

[JimBowie1958]

I said I could prove the existence of God

Waiting on the proof..........

Blind Boo, I said that I had such proof, but not that I was in any mood or inclination to share it here.

This is a long and intricate subject, and the relatively simple case of explaining the relevance of the Greek Platonic school of thought was rather lengthy, and I have things to do in REAL LIFE (oh noes, what ever is that thing?)

But I will toss you a bone to chew on, if you care to.

We know that the infinite regression of time is impossible, mathematically impossible. The flow of time had to be started by something that is eternal, that exists outside the flow of time. That is one of the first and most basic proofs of the existence of a Creator. The Creator at this point is rather simple; an eternal Thing, undefined otherwise, but that does not prevent us from observing that there most be something eternal.

But it would be more beneficial for you to study/read about why the famous atheist Sir Anthony Flew came to believe in God, though he still stubbornly rejects the Christian concept of God, lol. Or even better study why Aristotle's school was viewed as a precursor to Christian Theology. Those would be of more benefit if you really are open minded on the topic.

LOL

What a retarded response. Do you have any clue what the infinite regression fallacy is?

 

[JimBowie1958]

I gave you a mathematical argument based on the infinite regression fallacy, but you are too stupid to understand it.

No you haven't, you are deluded. In which post was this evidence given?

It is right here, dumb fuck

Richard Dawkins Finally Gets One Right! Whats Next, He Starts to Believe in God? Heaven Forbid! | Page 3 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[cnm]

At the end of the day the existence of a God cannot be denied. It all had to originate from something.

Making up a fairy story is not an explanation.

 

[Roudy]

I follow Dawkins on twitter, and I have read 'the God delusion' . (but I am not an atheist) I am glad to see he has the courage to stick it to Muslims, considering we know how dangerous they are. I criticise the Quran but only under the name Dajjal not under my own name.

Do you know that Dajjal means devil in certain languages?

Not kidding, I'm pretty sure you know it's meaning:

Al-Masih ad-Dajjal (Arabic: المسيح الدجّال‎ Al-Masīḥ ad-Dajjāl, "the false messiah"), is an evil figure in Islamic eschatology.[1] He is to appear pretending to be the Masih (i.e. the Messiah) at a time in the future, before Yawm al-Qiyamah(Day of Resurrection), and is comparable to the Antichrist and Armilus in Christian and medieval Jewish eschatology, respectively.

 

[JimBowie1958]

Making up a fairy story is not an explanation.

You being too stupid to grasp arguments and what the scientific method is does not mean that they do not exist either, fool.

The infinite regression fallacy you couldn't find
Richard Dawkins Finally Gets One Right! Whats Next, He Starts to Believe in God? Heaven Forbid! | Page 3 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

the scientific method, where is the consensus step, idiot?

 

[cnm]

It is right here, dumb fuck

Richard Dawkins Finally Gets One Right! Whats Next, He Starts to Believe in God? Heaven Forbid! | Page 3 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

We know that the infinite regression of time is impossible, mathematically impossible. The flow of time had to be started by something that is eternal, that exists outside the flow of time. That is one of the first and most basic proofs of the existence of a Creator. The Creator at this point is rather simple; an eternal Thing, undefined otherwise, but that does not prevent us from observing that there most be something eternal.

Making assumptions is neither evidence nor an argument. We do not know that the flow of time had to be started. We do not know that there must be something eternal. You are making up stories.

No wonder I didn't recognise that [list of assumptions] as evidence.

 

[cnm]

the scientific method, where is the consensus step, idiot?

Under the 'Develop General Theories' heading, fairy tale teller.

 

[JimBowie1958]

It is right here, dumb fuck

Richard Dawkins Finally Gets One Right! Whats Next, He Starts to Believe in God? Heaven Forbid! | Page 3 | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

We know that the infinite regression of time is impossible, mathematically impossible. The flow of time had to be started by something that is eternal, that exists outside the flow of time. That is one of the first and most basic proofs of the existence of a Creator. The Creator at this point is rather simple; an eternal Thing, undefined otherwise, but that does not prevent us from observing that there most be something eternal.

Making assumptions is neither evidence nor an argument. We do not know that the flow of time had to be started. We do not know that there must be something eternal. You are making up stories.

No wonder I didn't recognise that screed as evidence.

Lol, it isnt a screed, idiot, just like you don't know what the hell the scientific method is you don't recognize the mathematical FACT that the infinite regression is impossible, and so we DO KNOW for a fact that time had a beginning, idiot.

And where is the consensus step in the scientific method, moron?

 

[JimBowie1958]

the scientific method, where is the consensus step, idiot?

Under the 'Develop General Theories' heading, fairy tale teller.

You are wrong, theory formation is not consensus for approval or anything else. That can be done by a handful of people while the entire scientific community is in complete disagreement, as what happened with the Bohr atom, the continental drift theory and the heliocentric model of the universe.

Face it, you are a lying fraud, a stupid moron who postures as if he knows something when he knows nothing but bullshit and lies.

You are a fucking troll and I am done with you, you stupid piece of shyte.

 

[cnm]

we DO KNOW for a fact that time had a beginning, idiot.

We do not. There are hypotheses to that effect, with some evidence. We do not know whether other universes exist. We don't know a lot of things. That is no excuse to make up stories of an eternal being.

 

[cnm]

FUCK YOU.

Ah, indisputable evidence of the existence of a creator.

 

[JimBowie1958]

For those who are interested in a real discussion, and not trolling little bastards like cnm, this is the Infinite Regression Fallacy as I have understood it over the years.

In the ancient world it was most often expressed as there being no plausible form by which one can have an infinite regression of causal events. We cannot have A caused by B which was caused by C which was caused by D going all the way back to infinity. The ancients realized that there has to be a first causal event.

To use mathematics, we know that a finite event cannot terminate in an infinite value or count. IF I were tasked to shell a million peanuts I could do that by hiring a million people to shell one peanut. I could plausibly get a billion peanuts shelled or a trillion. If I could hypothetically build a universe full of robots to shell peanuts I could conceivably, given enough time get a googleplex number of peanuts shelled. But I cannot have an infinite number of peanuts shelled because there is no final, last peanut. There is not terminal event and so it can never end.

If we were to hypothetically reverse the process and claim to have spent all eternity shelling an infinite number of peanuts we have the similar problem of there not being a first peanut to initiate the process, the mirror problem of our task of progressing to an infinite number of peanuts.

What this all means is simply that time must have a first moment, and of course through astrophysics we now know that the universe did have a starting point in the Big Bang. And the flow of time, no matter how many extra universes you put into it, or leaps of imaginary time you may want to exploit, the flow of time had to start somewhere because we cannot have an infinite regression of causal events.

That is the Infinite Regression Fallacy, in a peanutshell.

 

[cnm]

You are a liar, that is not consensus for approval or anything else.

If you want to base your idea of the scientific process on a wiki graphic, why not? It is of a piece with the rest of your ludicrous nonsense.

 

[cnm]

Old fogeys will wave their canes from the porch.

 

[cnm]

That is the Infinite Regression Fallacy, in a peanutshell.

Which, as a matter of interest, depends on units of time. If time can be infinitesimally minute - pun intended - then it is not a peanut. What is the smallest unit of time, beyond which time does not exist?

 

[Sally Vater]

It wouldn't surprise me if Dawkins eventually believes in Intelligent Design. Einstein did.

 

[cnm]

That's somewhat of a stretch...

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
A quote by Albert Einstein

 

[Sally Vater]

That's somewhat of a stretch...

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
A quote by Albert Einstein

That's somewhat of a stretch...

“It was, of course, a lie what you read about my religious convictions, a lie which is being systematically repeated. I do not believe in a personal God and I have never denied this but have expressed it clearly. If something is in me which can be called religious then it is the unbounded admiration for the structure of the world so far as our science can reveal it.”
A quote by Albert Einstein

Not really if you examine more of his words.

Every one who is seriously involved in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the Universe-a spirit vastly superior to that of man, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble.
The scientists’ religious feeling takes the form of a rapturous amazement at the harmony of natural law, which reveals an intelligence of such superiority that, compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an utterly insignificant reflection.
– Albert Einstein

 

[cnm]

How come no link to that translation? In any case Einstein makes it clear that the religious feeling is quite different, which seems to exclude the idea of a creator in his thoughts.

Some Spirit is Manifest in the Laws of the Universe, One that is Vastly Superior to that of Man

Quote Investigator

Quote Investigator: In 1936 Albert Einstein sent a letter to a sixth-grade student named Phyllis Wright. The letter was written in Einstein’s native language of German and not in English. His note was complex, multi-layered, and difficult to translate into English. The missive did contain a section that expressed an opinion similar to the one in the text presented by the questioner. Further below QI will present three distinct translations of an excerpt from the letter corresponding to the passage above. [...]

In 1999 an auction catalog featured the typewritten letter in German sent to Phyllis Wright and signed by A. Einstein. The description of the item included another translation [SCAE]:

On the other hand those who are devoted to scientific study are filled with the conviction that nature in its law-abidingness shows the presence of a spirit who is vastly greater than the human spirit and before whom we must humbly confess our own very modest powers. Scientific work, therefore, leads to religious feeling of a unique type which is, of course, different from the religious feeling of less informed men.​

 

[Sally Vater]

How come no link to that translation?

Some Spirit is Manifest in the Laws of the Universe, One that is Vastly Superior to that of Man

Quote Investigator

Quote Investigator: In 1936 Albert Einstein sent a letter to a sixth-grade student named Phyllis Wright. The letter was written in Einstein’s native language of German and not in English. His note was complex, multi-layered, and difficult to translate into English. The missive did contain a section that expressed an opinion similar to the one in the text presented by the questioner. Further below QI will present three distinct translations of an excerpt from the letter corresponding to the passage above. [...]

In 1999 an auction catalog featured the typewritten letter in German sent to Phyllis Wright and signed by A. Einstein. The description of the item included another translation [SCAE]:

On the other hand those who are devoted to scientific study are filled with the conviction that nature in its law-abidingness shows the presence of a spirit who is vastly greater than the human spirit and before whom we must humbly confess our own very modest powers. Scientific work, therefore, leads to religious feeling of a unique type which is, of course, different from the religious feeling of less informed men.​

The quote is easy to find. I stand by it being authentic. What Spirit is Einstein speaking of?