Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God?

[Veritas Aequitas]

It is. It's irrational any way you slice it.
But yeah, he realizes it. Why else do you think he's at pains not to be called it? He doesn't want to discredit himself immediately.

I have already shown you, the term "atheist" was and is still a pejorative term thrown at non-believers.

If it ever was that, it's not now. It's just a descriptive term.

"A + theos" in Greek, negation plus the standard word for God. And ironically, the early Christians were termed "atheists" by their polytheist contemporaries, for not believing in enough "gods." https://www.theguardian.com/books/2018/ ... rd-harries. So it's a label that has been both applied and misapplied to different kinds of people, including Christians.

Nowadays, it just means somebody who believes there's no God.

I insist the term 'atheist' is still a pejorative term thrown at non-believers, e.g. as stated by your God,

• The fool has said in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
  They are corrupt,
  They have done abominable works,
  There is none who does good.
  Psalm 14:1

In some countries the term 'atheist' when labelled on someone could even land one to be killed by a mob.

The point is we are in a philosophy forum and to maintain intellectual integrity, one has to qualify in the proper contexts if the term 'atheist' is used.

Nope.

There are only two possible things: the Atheist is speaking only for himself, or he's trying to say that his disbelief should be obligatory to others. If it's the former, it's weak. If it's the latter, it's devoid of reasons and evidence.

You are always imposing your ideology

Not my ideology...unless you mean that my ideology is "logic."

It's the Atheists' own claims that put them in this untenable position. The same critique could be mounted from any religious person, or equally, from a secular person who can do logic.

As above, it is your ideology, i.e. insisting "what is an atheist" in your narrow view.

It won't help what you call the positions. You can call them position X and position Y, if you want. Atheism is irrational, and agnosticism is weak. Take your pick. There's no other option.

Point here is, Dawkins is not an atheist and we have to accept his explanation.

If that's so, they he's got no basis to insist that belief in God is a "delusion."

But he does. So he's an "Atheist." He just doesn't want to own up to it.

Note,

• "delusion" is an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

It is a delusion from Dawkins scientific perspective that theists insist their God is very real despite that 'God exists' as claimed is improbable.
As I had stated, it is your ideology in insisting "he's an Atheist" despite Dawkins explanation.

You just cannot insist "Atheism is irrational" hastily.

I don't: I point it out logically.

Where?
Before you argue "atheism is irrational" you have to define and qualify the context of which form of 'atheism' you are accusing of being irrational.
It is intellectual dishonest to state 'atheism is irrational' that include all sorts of atheism.
You just cannot state, for example, 'whites are evil' like the Critical Race Theorists are doing at present.

There you go again in imposing your ideology

Not at all.

I did not call anything a "delusion": he did. Now he has to ante up his reasoning, and show that God can be proved to be a "delusion."

It is your ideology in hastily putting 'atheism' in one basket.
Note the definition of delusion above. Delusion refer to the insistent belief of an illusionary God despite no justifications.

No. The point is that you are ignorant of Flew's mental state, and won't read his book for fear of being shown wrong.

I've read it. I have it right here. You're wrong.

It is noted Flew depended on the Fine-Tuning Argument aka Argument from Design to justify his Deism.

That's not correct. He had several lines of extremely cogent reasoning.
Read the book, and you'll know.

The point of this discussion is about the Fine-tuning Argument or the Design Argument and not about his other arguments which are also based on scientific facts followed by his narrow philosophical argument driven by his desperate cognitive dissonance arising from an inherent existential crisis.

I have read the book, Flew stated,

• Perhaps the most popular and intuitively plausible argument for God’s existence is the so-called argument from design.
  According to this argument, the design that is apparent in nature suggests the existence of a cosmic Designer.
  I have often stressed that this is actually an argument to design from order, as such arguments proceed from the perceived order in nature to show evidence of design and, thus, a Designer.
  Although I was once sharply critical of the argument to design, I have since come to see that, when correctly formulated, this argument constitutes a persuasive case for the existence of God.
  Developments in two areas in particular have led me to this conclusion.
  The first is the question of the origin of the laws of nature and the related insights of eminent modern scientists.
  The second is the question of the origin of life and reproduction.

Whatever the cogent reasonings, the issue is Flew relied heavily on the Argument from Design aka the Fine Tuning Argument.

Flew thereby relied on scientific facts [at best polished conjectures] to arrive at the conclusion that God exists.
Thus his conclusion is merely at best a polished conjecture.
Show what is wrong with this logic?

There was no "syllogism." Just a claim with no warrant.

How so?
Reproduced my argument and show how it is not valid?

It wasn't an "argument." It wasn't a "syllogism." If you think it was either, then you obviously don't know what those things are. I can't make it valid for you, because it wasn't valid in the first place. It also wasn't true. It was just gratuitous.

Suggest you reproduce my argument and show why it is not logically.

Basically it meant,
1. Theists [e.g. Flew] relied on scientific facts which are at best polished conjectures.
2. Therefore it follows the conclusion are also polished conjectures.

In addition whatever is conjectured as a God, it is impossible for God to exists as real.

It's reasonable that you provide the quotation you consider worthy of comment.

But you won't: because, I suspect, you've actually read nothing. You just looked up a sketch of the contents. But you've thought about it so little that you can't even pick out a particular point or quotation to question.

If you want to be serious, read Flew's book or the Blackwell guide, instead of just pretending to. I promise you, I have both on hand, and will happily tackle any matter you deem interesting.

If you don't want to be serious, what's the point?

I have read the relevant Fine Tuning Argument [to topic] by Robin Williams in Chapter 4 of the Blackwell Guide.
As I had argued the FTA equivocates the empirical with transcendental in arriving at its conclusion.
This is similar to Hume 'is-ought' guillotine, and in this case you cannot get from "is" [empirical matter of fact] i.e. the empirical to the "transcendental' which is outside the scope of the matter of fact.

Note Robin Williams definition of his God which is transcendental;

• The Theistic hypothesis (T).
  According to this hypothesis, there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, everlasting or eternal, perfectly free creator of the universe whose existence does not depend on anything outside itself.

You can believe all you want that I have not read Chapter 4 of the Blackwell Guide. The truth is I have read it, thus the ability to produce the above quote.
It is you who do not have the intellectual integrity to read it and present the argument therein to support your claim.

I have also read the critical and relevant part of Flew's Book where is relied heavily on the FTA Argument which is based on 'polished conjectures'.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oh, and PS -- Even Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHXXacBAm2A
Going to watch that one?

Hey IC, I told you deception is a SIN thus possibility of ending in Hell.

"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there IS evidence for God"

Dawkins had already admitted in his God Delusion he is a 6/7 atheist which imply he allowed 1/7 for the possibility of a God [theism].
The point is Dawkins is a scientist and the Scientific Framework and System cannot ensure 100% certainty else one who claim for 100% certainty cannot qualify as a scientist.

In the video Dawkins stated the fine-tuning argument MAY be a possible argument for God from the Physics perspective [not biological] and Hitchen stated it is the best argument theists can present for their theism.
Their concession in this case is merely showing their humility in not playing God in claiming absolute certainty.
Dawkins had also claimed despite his concession he implied on a personal basis outside his scientific constraint, God is an impossibility.

It is very common to ask for "one best argument to one's claim" but it does not imply that one's best argument would be true or real.

The video merely cherry picked without taking the full contexts of Dawkins and Hitchen's position towards theism.

Meanwhile IC is extending the deception in insisting,
"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there [size]IS[/size] evidence for God" as if it is their categorical view.

Hey IC, I told you deception is a SIN thus possibility of ending in Hell.

I don't think that physics can ensure us that God exists or not. You need metaphysics. I have an argument against the existence of God: Any action including the act of creation needs time. Time is a part of creation. That means that time is needed to create time. This is a regress. Regress is logically impossible. Therefore the act of creation is logically impossible. Therefore, there is no God.

As I had argued, scientific facts [physics, biology, chemistry, etc.] are at best merely polished conjectures.
Therefore it would be silly for theists to rely on scientific facts to justify their omni-whatever God exists.

Re 'time'.
Theists will argue God being the Greatest is not conditioned by time.
Thus God exists independent of time.

[Veritas Aequitas]

Oh, and PS -- Even Dawkins and Hitchens admit there IS evidence for God. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHXXacBAm2A
Going to watch that one?

Hey IC, I told you deception is a SIN thus possibility of ending in Hell.

"Dawkins and Hitchens DID not admit there IS evidence for God"

Dawkins and Hitchens are part of what I call the necessary "demolition crew" tasked with helping to tear down the old worn-out edifices of the "old spiritual paradigm bubble" that humans have lived in for the last several millennia.

However, neither of them are in possession of anything resembling "blue prints" for the creation of a "new spiritual paradigm."

Indeed, Richard Dawkins is nothing more than a tiny-minded materialist who exemplifies the sentiment depicted in this famous cartoon...

Now if Dawkins could provide a truly logical explanation for, again, the pre-existing "MIRACLE" of this amazing setting that made our coming into existence possible, then he might be worth listening to.

Until then, he is nothing more than a sledgehammer wielding member of the abovementioned demolition crew.
_______

Dawkins as a scientist is restraint by the Scientific Framework's maxim, "conclude as far at the evidence takes" based on a rigorous scientific process. This is the 'top-down' approach with the objective of producing knowledge that will be of high utility to humanity.

Since Dawkins is restraint by the above maxim, there is no way he should justify your flimsy 'jumping to a hasty conclusion' i.e. God exists. That is your 'bottom up" approach which is triggered by some terrible cognitive dissonance driven by an existential crisis to seek consonance, thus you "jumping the Gun".

As I had suggested, you MUST review your own psychological state [common to the majority] on why you desperately jumped to the conclusion God exists without any follow-through rational argument and evidence.

Btw, your "EYE" thingy that you drew in most of your images are similarly drawn by those with mental disorders and those who do trips because evolution had hardwired humans to always look [sight & eyes] outward to facilitate survival.

[attofishpi]

Sadly by invoking the word "miracle" you are already making a massive claim for which you have precisely ZERO reason or evidence.
On the other hand Dawkins and Hitchens are honest enough to state that the fine tuning of the universe might be the best chance for a theist to have some ground to stand on, but you have blustered onto that ground and already made a damn fool of yourself by suggesting that you already have an answer.
Are these the thin straws to clutch onto in your feeble attempt to claim the existence of a god? Pathetic

Oh let them have their beliefs.

..as you are entitled to yours.

Magic has to mean God did it, there's no other explanation out there, we all must concede to the mystery of MAGIC.

I know God exists, but wtf magic is? ...no idea - just like Ricky.

[Dontaskme]

Sadly by invoking the word "miracle" you are already making a massive claim for which you have precisely ZERO reason or evidence.
On the other hand Dawkins and Hitchens are honest enough to state that the fine tuning of the universe might be the best chance for a theist to have some ground to stand on, but you have blustered onto that ground and already made a damn fool of yourself by suggesting that you already have an answer.
Are these the thin straws to clutch onto in your feeble attempt to claim the existence of a god? Pathetic

Oh let them have their beliefs.

..as you are entitled to yours.

Magic has to mean God did it, there's no other explanation out there, we all must concede to the mystery of MAGIC.

I know God exists, but wtf magic is? ...no idea - just like Ricky.

You know nothing. And you know you know nothing.
The word “God” conjures up whatever you believe the word means. Words magically make a something out of nothing.

[Sculptor]

Sadly by invoking the word "miracle" you are already making a massive claim for which you have precisely ZERO reason or evidence.
On the other hand Dawkins and Hitchens are honest enough to state that the fine tuning of the universe might be the best chance for a theist to have some ground to stand on, but you have blustered onto that ground and already made a damn fool of yourself by suggesting that you already have an answer.
Are these the thin straws to clutch onto in your feeble attempt to claim the existence of a god? Pathetic

Oh let them have their beliefs.

Magic has to mean God did it, there's no other explanation out there, we all must concede to the mystery of MAGIC.

I'm not stopping them.
But they do need to keep their beliefs to themselves and stop abusing children

[attofishpi]

Sadly by invoking the word "miracle" you are already making a massive claim for which you have precisely ZERO reason or evidence.
On the other hand Dawkins and Hitchens are honest enough to state that the fine tuning of the universe might be the best chance for a theist to have some ground to stand on, but you have blustered onto that ground and already made a damn fool of yourself by suggesting that you already have an answer.
Are these the thin straws to clutch onto in your feeble attempt to claim the existence of a god? Pathetic

Oh let them have their beliefs.

Magic has to mean God did it, there's no other explanation out there, we all must concede to the mystery of MAGIC.

I'm not stopping them.
But they do need to keep their beliefs to themselves and stop abusing children

..atheists they truly R ...or...the stupidest KUNTS on the planet.

[Dontaskme]

Oh let them have their beliefs.

Magic has to mean God did it, there's no other explanation out there, we all must concede to the mystery of MAGIC.

I'm not stopping them.
But they do need to keep their beliefs to themselves and stop abusing children

..atheists they truly R ...or...the stupidest KUNTS on the planet.

More abuse.

[attofishpi]

You know nothing. And you know you know nothing.

Contrary. I know something, if you disagree then you are an idiot.

The word “God” conjures up whatever you believe the word means. Words magically make a something out of nothing.

No. The term God, conjures whatever one believes such an entity can conceivably be plausible to exist..and therein lies your QUEST_ion.

[Dontaskme]

You know nothing. And you know you know nothing.

Contrary. I know something, if you disagree then you are an idiot.

The word “God” conjures up whatever you believe the word means. Words magically make a something out of nothing.

No. The term God, conjures whatever one believes such an entity can conceivably be plausible to exist..and therein lies your QUEST_ion.

Imaginary characters know nothing. Nothing knows something.

[Immanuel Can]

I insist the term 'atheist' is still a pejorative term thrown at non-believers

It's not, actually. It's a Greek term, applied first to those they regarded as insufficiently reverent to their many "gods," including the Christians.

• The fool has said in his heart,
  “There is no God.”
  They are corrupt,
  They have done abominable works,
  There is none who does good.
  Psalm 14:1

Yep, that's absolutely right. Atheism is very foolish.

It has, and can have, no evidentiary basis sufficient to its central claim. So it always ends up speaking out of both sides of its mouth, just as you see with Dawkins. I'll stand by Scripture on that.

And did you notice: by quoting Psalm 14, and accusing it of indicting "Atheists," you've just conceded the rightness of my definition of "Atheism" yet again?

Or did that fact escape you?

If, as you think, it insults "Atheists" in particular, then "Atheist" means the same as one who says, "There is no God." You just gave away the game there.

In some countries the term 'atheist' when labelled on someone could even land one to be killed by a mob.

In the same countries, being callled a "Christian" will get you killed even faster.

You are always imposing your ideology

Not my ideology...unless you mean that my ideology is "logic."

It's the Atheists' own claims that put them in this untenable position. The same critique could be mounted from any religious person, or equally, from a secular person who can do logic.

As above, it is your ideology

Not a bit.

It's a logical problem. It doesn't even require one to know anything at all but logic plus Atheism to see it.

Point here is, Dawkins is not an atheist and we have to accept his explanation.

If that's so, they he's got no basis to insist that belief in God is a "delusion."

But he does. So he's an "Atheist." He just doesn't want to own up to it.

Note,

• "delusion" is an idiosyncratic belief or impression maintained despite being contradicted by reality or rational argument, typically as a symptom of mental disorder.

It is a delusion from Dawkins scientific perspective

There's nothing "scientific" about Dawkins perspective on that.

He became an Atheist at age 17. And there is no scientific evidence sufficient to warrant Atheism, even today. He knows that, too.

Before you argue "atheism is irrational" you have to define and qualify the context of which form of 'atheism' you are accusing of being irrational.

I did that, in my last message. I stipulated the exact definition of "Atheism" in my usage.

Did you take a nap?

It is noted Flew depended on the Fine-Tuning Argument aka Argument from Design to justify his Deism.

That's not correct. He had several lines of extremely cogent reasoning.
Read the book, and you'll know.

The point of this discussion is about the Fine-tuning Argument or the Design Argument

Look at the headline of this thread.

I have read the book...Whatever the cogent reasonings, the issue is Flew relied heavily on the Argument from Design aka the Fine Tuning Argument.

The Fine Tuning Argument is only one of the set of arguments that fit under the larger category of "arguments from design." There are a bunch of them. If you actually read the book, I think you'd know that.

Flew thereby relied on scientific facts [at best polished conjectures] to arrive at the conclusion that God exists.
Thus his conclusion is merely at best a polished conjecture.

So now you want to say that "scientific facts" are nothing more than "polished conjectures"?

How so?
Reproduced my argument and show how it is not valid?

It wasn't an "argument." It wasn't a "syllogism." If you think it was either, then you obviously don't know what those things are. I can't make it valid for you, because it wasn't valid in the first place. It also wasn't true. It was just gratuitous.

Suggest you reproduce my argument and show why it is not logically.

I can't.

There was no argument to reproduce. There was just a claim, unsubstantiated by anything.

it is impossible for God to exists as real.

You keep saying that. But you still have no evidence to warrant it.

It's reasonable that you provide the quotation you consider worthy of comment.

It wasn't worthy of comment...or even of note.

It has been you who has been pleading for some response. But there was nothing permitting of any response. Unsubstantiated claims are like that.

If you want to be serious, read Flew's book or the Blackwell guide, instead of just pretending to. I promise you, I have both on hand, and will happily tackle any matter you deem interesting.

If you don't want to be serious, what's the point?

I have read the relevant Fine Tuning Argument [to topic] by Robin Williams in Chapter 4 of the Blackwell Guide.

Good. What's your question or objection?

As I had argued the FTA equivocates the empirical with transcendental in arriving at its conclusion.

Not at all. There's absolutely no prerequisite for anybody to believe in the transcendent in order to see the data and accept the conclusion. So I'm now sure again you haven't read it at all. I suspect you're trying to cull some review off somebody else, so you don't have to. Unfortunately, whomever you picked didn't do a good job, so the stratagem was exposed.

If I'm wrong, give me the page number and quotation where this "equivocation" takes place, and I'll look it up. I have the Blackwell guide right here.

Note Robin Williams definition of his God which is transcendental;

• The Theistic hypothesis (T).
  According to this hypothesis, there exists an omnipotent, omniscient, everlasting or eternal, perfectly free creator of the universe whose existence does not depend on anything outside itself.

Where's this "equivocation"?

All that's here is a definition, a description of what the Theistic Hypothesis means. It's not even a section of argumentation, just of definition -- and the sort of definition that even a raw secularists would have to accept.

You can believe all you want that I have not read Chapter 4 of the Blackwell Guide. The truth is I have read it, thus the ability to produce the above quote.

Well, if you read any of it, what's clear is that you didn't understand any of it. You don't even know the difference between a definition and an argument, apparently.

It is you who do not have the intellectual integrity to read it

Like I say, I have it right here. Page number and quotation, please?

[seeds]

...Now if Dawkins could provide a truly logical explanation for, again, the pre-existing "MIRACLE" of this amazing setting that made our coming into existence possible, then he might be worth listening to.

Until then, he is nothing more than a sledgehammer wielding member of the abovementioned demolition crew.

Dawkins as a scientist is restraint by the Scientific Framework's maxim, "conclude as far at the evidence takes" based on a rigorous scientific process. This is the 'top-down' approach with the objective of producing knowledge that will be of high utility to humanity.

Since Dawkins is restraint by the above maxim, there is no way he should justify your flimsy 'jumping to a hasty conclusion' i.e. God exists....

Likewise, the same applies in the opposite direction, in that because Dawkins is "restrained" by a scientific (materialistic) framework, he should not be jumping to a hasty conclusion that God is a "delusion" simply because God does not present himself (herself/itself) as something that is scientifically measurable.

As I had suggested, you MUST review your own psychological state [common to the majority] on why you desperately jumped to the conclusion God exists without any follow-through rational argument and evidence.

How many times, and in how many different ways do I have to suggest to you that any form of scientifically verifiable "evidence" for the existence of God, and, more importantly, any form of "verifiable evidence" that our lives will continue on after death, might possibly result in the end of humanity on this particular planet?

Btw, your "EYE" thingy that you drew in most of your images are similarly drawn by those with mental disorders and those who do trips because evolution had hardwired humans to always look [sight & eyes] outward to facilitate survival.

As I have stated over and over again, the attenuated level of consciousness that humans must function at in order to make the "strange reality" of this universe seem "natural" and "logical" to us, is what lies at the root of the problem of you, Veritas, not being conscious enough to realize that you are not conscious enough to understand what my "EYE thingy" represents.

I wish I could wake you up, but the "illusion" of objective reality is so perfectly executed (designed), and so utterly convincing that it causes most humans to be unknowingly relegated to deep levels of somnambulism (some deeper than others), which, in turn, perpetuates their problem.

Now, of course, in your inevitable blusterous response, you will unwittingly demonstrate to me the depth and degree of your own particular level of somnambulism.

And that's because the revealing of your own particular level of somnambulism will be proportional to how "cocksure" you are in your defense of your "God is an impossibility to be real" codswallop.
_______

[vegetariantaxidermy]

It's hilarious when kristian apologists try to make it sound all 'scientific' when they present 'evidence' for their supernatural beast, blithering on about 'thermodynamic laws blah blah....' Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of 'faith'?

[Immanuel Can]

Doesn't that kind of defeat the purpose of 'faith'?

Well, you don't know what "faith" is.

And while that's more tragic than hilarious, it's funny how it puts the shoe on the other foot.

It's always amusing to me how Atheists want to tell you a) what you believe (as if they either know or care), and b) how you should believe it (while they don't even realize they have a belief at all). It's a kind of strange jig of lack of self-awareness they routinely go through, totally unaware of the spectacle they're actually creating.

It looks quite different to what they imagine, from where I'm sitting.

[popeye1945]

Immanual,

Mythology is the other man's religion, yes when mythology is believed it is religion. The atheists aren't telling you what to believe, just don't believe the absurd it makes us embarrassed for you.