Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 2:47:48 GMT -5
Quote - "Doesn't that statement you quoted of his, "God couldn't create the big bang because time was created during that event, and nothing can operate outside time," confirm that there is NOT any need for a God to exist OUTSIDE of the universe?" In science there are no "miracles." Everything is cause and effect. Only, cosmology defends the notion there was NO CAUSE & EFFECT FOR THE BIG BANG ITSELF. It just happened, like... er... a.... miracle.
"In other words, we don't know!" That's a cop out.
OR cosmologists say the universe was forever. "In other words, we don't know!" That's a cop out, too
ps Hawkings has changed his position on what is time several times. Fact is - we don't know what time is. We don't even know if it is an "emergent property" from other things, or it's a fundamental. Even "distance" is now suspected of not being a fundamental anymore - that's Amazing.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 24, 2014 3:10:43 GMT -5
Quote page 96 "Those gospels which didn't make it were omitted by those ecclesiastics perhaps because they included stories even more embarrassingly implausible than those those of the four canonical ones." (With reference to Gospel of Thomas and wicked boy Jesus)
This is simply, historically w.r.o.n.g. In the 2nd and 3rd Centuries many alternate "gospels" were written. These were considered out of character to the canonical Gospels. Also, where had these "gospels" been for the previous two or three centuries?
Such apocrypha were no more supernatural in content than the Gospels - why would the church fathers have been embarrassed about them? Doesn't make sense.
Dawkins didn't care that most historians would not agree with him.
Conclusion - Non sequitur (Latin for "it does not follow"), in formal logic, is an argument in which its conclusion does not follow from its premise.
Same page. Quote - "Nobody knows who the four evangelists were." (Mattew, Mark, Luke and John) This would be strange if it was true. We have the account of Paul for the church till about AD 70. The gospels were known to these people. And the Gospel according to John, for instance, bears a close similarity in writing style to John's letters, and the actual person of John we read in the Gospels.
Conclusion 1 - is not supported historically Conclusion 2 - Non sequitur. Conclusion 3 - lots of copy and paste. I have yet to read an original idea.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 24, 2014 17:21:59 GMT -5
You missed my point. If I believed in God I would do all those things for God and I still wouldn't have to change anything but who I did it for. If I knew there was a God who loved me, I would do those things for that God. My point was it's not that I'm unwilling because there is nothing I'm doing I would have to change. So it wouldn't be any hardship. Most people say those who don't believe in God are unwilling because they insinuate that we don't believe because we would have to give up something. I would say that in my case I wouldn't be giving up anything and I think there are a lot of non believers that wouldn't have to give anything up either. It's just that they don't see any proof or reason to believe in a God. One thing you would be giving up, I think... Your right to think for yourself in return for having the mind of Christ. You don't think for yourself?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 5:23:43 GMT -5
I am up to page 118, and whilst on a train I took down some notes.
Virgin birth. Dawkins reels out the same ol' same ol' line that "virgin" meant "young girl" and not a woman, who as Mary confessed, had "not known a man." "Virgin" has multiple meanings, and in the OT most brides were young women. What was remarkable about the "virgin" of prophecy wasn't that she was "young."
Noting how many scientists disbelieve in the bible is a standard non sequitur. I am quite happy with the NOMA that Dawkins derided (non overlapping magisteriums) because a scientist, any scientist, is just a person who works in a laboratory, or telescope or super-collider etc.. That doesn't make them an authority on religion. I am reminded of people hanging onto the opinions of people like Miley Cyrus, Sinead O'Connor, or even Shirley Maclaine.
Dawkins believes people can live a fuller, better life without belief in God. I see the rise of atheism in the West (particularly since the 1960's) coinciding with the rise in drug abuse, welfare dependency, family breakdown, violence, child porn and the like. To be believable he needs to demonstrate this, but then he would only be proving, yes, another non sequitur.
Bayesian argument p105 is an argument about an argument regards the probability of God. That's a strawman argument. I can bring up all sorts of atheist arguments that prospered over the centuries - and atheists would ask what relevance are they to the case.
The "ultimate 747" assembling itself out of a junk yard is more ridicule. Like "creationists" Dawkins hasn't read his bible carefully. He quotes a John Ruskin 1851 "If only the Geologists would let me alone, I could do very well, but those dreadful hammers! I hear the clunk of them at the end of every cadence of the bible verses." Maybe. Genesis said the early Earth was oceanic, and then the continents emerged. That was not understood until 2008 - by Australian geologists.
And finally, the "stunning simplicity" of evolution has be placed against the stunning simplicity of the Gospels. Something that not only Dawkins, but the churches themselves have never understood.
There are better atheist books than this one.
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 25, 2014 14:07:02 GMT -5
I am up to page 118, and whilst on a train I took down some notes. Virgin birth. Dawkins reels out the same ol' same ol' line that "virgin" meant "young girl" and not a woman, who as Mary confessed, had "not known a man." "Virgin" has multiple meanings, and in the OT most brides were young women. What was remarkable about the "virgin" of prophecy wasn't that she was "young." Noting how many scientists disbelieve in the bible is a standard non sequitur. I am quite happy with the NOMA that Dawkins derided (non overlapping magisteriums) because a scientist, any scientist, is just a person who works in a laboratory, or telescope or super-collider etc.. That doesn't make them an authority on religion. I am reminded of people hanging onto the opinions of people like Miley Cyrus, Sinead O'Connor, or even Shirley Maclaine. Dawkins believes people can live a fuller, better life without belief in God. I see the rise of atheism in the West (particularly since the 1960's) coinciding with the rise in drug abuse, welfare dependency, family breakdown, violence, child porn and the like. To be believable he needs to demonstrate this, but then he would only be proving, yes, another non sequitur. Bayesian argument p105 is an argument about an argument regards the probability of God. That's a strawman argument. I can bring up all sorts of atheist arguments that prospered over the centuries - and atheists would ask what relevance are they to the case. The "ultimate 747" assembling itself out of a junk yard is more ridicule. Like "creationists" Dawkins hasn't read his bible carefully. He quotes a John Ruskin 1851 " If only the Geologists would let me alone, I could do very well, but those dreadful hammers! I hear the clunk of them at the end of every cadence of the bible verses." Maybe. Genesis said the early Earth was oceanic, and then the continents emerged. That was not understood until 2008 - by Australian geologists. And finally, the "stunning simplicity" of evolution has be placed against the stunning simplicity of the Gospels. Something that not only Dawkins, but the churches themselves have never understood. There are better atheist books than this one. There was an interesting thing I read the other day about the southern states. As you may or may not know it is referred to the Bible belt. There are more poor on welfare, crime, porn, drugs etc in this so called bible belt. So it's isn't the atheists, but the religious that seem to have more problems with what you stated above. I know a lot of atheists, obviously, and they are upstanding citizens, not drug addicts, can't comment on porn and there is no way I would know that and they are rich enough to not need welfare. So quite placing the blame for the rise (which there really isn't anyway) on atheists for all the woes of the world. If my birth family is an example of good christians we may need a God to help us all.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 25, 2014 16:46:02 GMT -5
I never understood the need for an atheist book.
I could see the need if someone were to present proof that there was a paranormal entity but until that time...
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 17:03:42 GMT -5
Noting how many scientists disbelieve in the bible is a standard non sequitur. Bert, can you explain what you mean by your use of the term "disbelieve in the bible"? By that I mean what is it specifically that those who you claim disbelieve in the bible, do not believe about the bible? Matt10
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 18:18:38 GMT -5
Noting how many scientists disbelieve in the bible is a standard non sequitur. Bert, can you explain what you mean by your use of the term "disbelieve in the bible"? By that I mean what is it specifically that those who you claim disbelieve in the bible, do not believe about the bible? Matt10 Anyone can "believe" aspects of the bible, it is, after all, the history of the Jews. By "disbelieve" I mean someone does not accept it is the word of God.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 18:23:21 GMT -5
Quote - "There was an interesting thing I read the other day about the southern states. As you may or may not know it is referred to the Bible belt. There are more poor on welfare, crime, porn, drugs etc in this so called bible belt. So it's isn't the atheists, but the religious that seem to have more problems with what you stated above. I know a lot of atheists, obviously, and they are upstanding citizens, not drug addicts, can't comment on porn and there is no way I would know that and they are rich enough to not need welfare. So quite placing the blame for the rise (which there really isn't anyway) on atheists for all the woes of the world. If my birth family is an example of good christians we may need a God to help us all."
It is obvious that many people who are "religious" have never had a genuine relationship with God. That is demonstrated by their behaving no different or even worse that people who make no claim about God. But if every God believer was "good" and every atheist was "bad" it still wouldn't prove one way or the other there is a God.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 25, 2014 18:39:48 GMT -5
It is obvious that many people who are "religious" have never had a genuine relationship with God. That is demonstrated by their behaving no different or even worse that people who make no claim about God. This sounds like the familiar "no true Scotsman" logical fallacy.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 25, 2014 18:41:03 GMT -5
Bert, can you explain what you mean by your use of the term "disbelieve in the bible"? By that I mean what is it specifically that those who you claim disbelieve in the bible, do not believe about the bible? Matt10 Anyone can "believe" aspects of the bible, it is, after all, the history of the Jews.And much of this 'history' is doubtful.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 18:41:47 GMT -5
Behavior of a believer doesn't prove or disprove what they believe in this case. Anymore than behavior of an disbeliever.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 25, 2014 18:56:48 GMT -5
I am up to page 118, and whilst on a train I took down some notes. Dawkins believes people can live a fuller, better life without belief in God.
I see the rise of atheism in the West (particularly since the 1960's) coinciding with the rise in drug abuse, welfare dependency, family breakdown, violence, child porn and the like.The "ultimate 747" assembling itself out of a junk yard is more ridicule. Like "creationists" Dawkins hasn't read his bible carefully. And finally, the "stunning simplicity" of evolution has be placed against the stunning simplicity of the Gospels. S0, Dawkins believes "people can live a fuller, better life without belief in God?" I KNOW that they can! I'm doing it! I see the "change after the 1960's" coinciding with the Civil Rights Movement for blacks, the rise of the Feminist Movement with more equality in salary & job opportunities for women in the professions, business and political fields. The "The "ultimate 747" assembling itself out of a junk yard?" Then why do so many fundamentalist Christians still use that stupid example ? Even had a worker express the same thing once!
"Stunning simplicity of the Gospels?" You have to joking!
What is "simplicity" in the gospels about a person being dead for three, (3) days then raising from the dead and rising into the sky?
|
|
|
Post by snow on Nov 25, 2014 19:59:18 GMT -5
Quote - "There was an interesting thing I read the other day about the southern states. As you may or may not know it is referred to the Bible belt. There are more poor on welfare, crime, porn, drugs etc in this so called bible belt. So it's isn't the atheists, but the religious that seem to have more problems with what you stated above. I know a lot of atheists, obviously, and they are upstanding citizens, not drug addicts, can't comment on porn and there is no way I would know that and they are rich enough to not need welfare. So quite placing the blame for the rise (which there really isn't anyway) on atheists for all the woes of the world. If my birth family is an example of good christians we may need a God to help us all." It is obvious that many people who are "religious" have never had a genuine relationship with God. That is demonstrated by their behaving no different or even worse that people who make no claim about God. But if every God believer was "good" and every atheist was "bad" it still wouldn't prove one way or the other there is a God.No, you got that right. There are good and bad in both groups and there is no proof one way or the other that there is a God.
|
|
|
Post by slowtosee on Nov 25, 2014 20:07:26 GMT -5
Hi dmmichgood , I am curious as to how your life became more full and better after your cessation in belief in god. Did you feel you had a relationship with God, or merely a belief in god or? Did you view god as a stern taskmaster type or as a loving being towards you? No problem if u not want to answer. Alvin
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 20:31:54 GMT -5
Quote - S0, Dawkins believes "people can live a fuller, better life without belief in God?" I KNOW that they can! I'm doing it! Jesus showed through His grace and the joy of his life, what living for God meant. He was lifted above all the things which pertain to earth and time.
Quote - I see the "change after the 1960's" coinciding with the Civil Rights Movement for blacks, the rise of the Feminist Movement with more equality in salary & job opportunities for women in the professions, business and political fields. Yes, that's one side of the coin. But for every element of "progress" there is always that understated "cost." The feminist movement in itself came at a cost - in the process of conceding that how men, live, dress, talk and think is better than how women do it, they have reduced themselves to economic units, and eroded their very own femininity, motherhood and family life - by way of example. Even Helen Reddy conceded in her "I am woman" song there were costs to feminism - though she didn't/wouldn't spell them out.
Quote - The "The "ultimate 747" assembling itself out of a junk yard?" Then why do so many fundamentalist Christians still use that stupid example ? Even had a worker express the same thing once! Yes, lots of Workers go along with these analogies. Most of what Workers say about science is simply Wrong. But that doesn't change anything. Lots of science people, Dawkins included, get the bible Wrong.
Quote - "Stunning simplicity of the Gospels?" You have to joking! What is "simplicity" in the gospels about a person being dead for three, (3) days then raising from the dead and rising into the sky? Are you referring to any science, or lack thereof, in the resurrection? That's not what I speak of. The simplicity is in the story of Jesus and the living of His life.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 25, 2014 21:09:55 GMT -5
Ok, "I believe in the bible." I believe it is the inspired word of God, because of its power, its authority, and its history. I don't believe it is fully literal - there's lots of symbolic stuff there, too. I believe it was written ** largely ** by those who witnessed its record. I believe it has been mangled through translations - but its message remains the same. And I believe the bible was deliberately crafted to be "prove" itself to those who wanted to believe, and crafted to "disprove" itself for those who want to disbelieve. Do you realize how ridiculous that last statement sounds?
How it only shows that you would claim anything, -up in down, black is white, anything, -just in order to try to convince yourself that something is true?
You just destroy all your credibility with a remark like that!
Kinda' like believing that you really can have your cake & eat it too!
Kinda' like "getting or not getting" what you prayed for but never-the-less insisting that GOD did answer your prayer!
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 25, 2014 21:23:49 GMT -5
Hi dmmichgood , I am curious as to how your life became more full and better after your cessation in belief in god. Did you feel you had a relationship with God, or merely a belief in god or? Did you view god as a stern taskmaster type or as a loving being towards you? No problem if u not want to answer. Alvin I have No problem answering, Alvin. Yes, I felt that I had a "relationship " with God, not just a belief in God.
I felt that HE guided me in life's decisions, even those that I might not be the happiest with because HE knew best for me.
No, I did not see HIM as a stern taskmaster, -that HE did what HE did because it was best for me.
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 25, 2014 21:44:17 GMT -5
Quote - I see the "change after the 1960's" coinciding with the Civil Rights Movement for blacks, the rise of the Feminist Movement with more equality in salary & job opportunities for women in the professions, business and political fields. Yes, that's one side of the coin. But for every element of "progress" there is always that understated "cost." The feminist movement in itself came at a cost - in the process of conceding that how men, live, dress,talk and think is better than how women do it, they have reduced themselves to economic units, and eroded their very own femininity, motherhood and family life - by way of example. Even Helen Reddy conceded in her "I am woman"song there were costs to feminism - though she didn't/wouldn't spell them out.Quote - "Stunning simplicity of the Gospels?" You have to joking! What is "simplicity" in the gospels about a person being dead for three, (3) days then raising from the dead and rising into the sky? Are you referring to any science, or lack thereof, in the resurrection? That's not what I speak of. The simplicity is in the story of Jesus and the living of His life. Bert said: "Yes, that's one side of the coin. But for every element of "progress" there is always that understated "cost." The feminist movement in itself came at a cost - in the process of conceding that how men, live, dress,talk and think is better than how women do it, they have reduced themselves to economic units, and eroded their very own femininity, motherhood and family life - by way of example.
Yeh, Bert, We women have heard that old canard over & over & over again from men like you, (as we just head to the bank in our red high heels maintaining our femininity, and still are the ones who have the babies (are you jealous yet?)& enjoy our family!
Bert said:
"Are you referring to any science, or lack thereof, in the resurrection? That's not what I speak of. The simplicity is in the story of Jesus and the living of His life."
Well, YES, I WAS referring to the lack scientific evidence for a dead body being resurrected & flying off into the clouds. But isn't that also part of the story of Jesus?
Don't you believe in the resurrection, bert?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 22:36:16 GMT -5
Quote - "Do you realize how ridiculous that last statement sounds? How it only shows that you would claim anything, -up in down, black is white, anything, -just in order to try to convince yourself that something is true? You just destroy all your credibility with a remark like that! Kinda' like believing that you really can have your cake & eat it too! Kinda' like "getting or not getting" what you prayed for but never-the-less insisting that GOD did answer your prayer!"
Two examples will suffice, hopefully. Some modern people quote the "six days of creation" in Genesis to voice their opposition. The same people will ignore that Genesis states that life came out of the sea. Okay? Some ancient people (who were happy with the idea of a creation God) no doubt FOCUSED upon the Genesis verse about the sea bringing forth life to demonstrate the absurdity of the bible
Some Jews focused upon verses saying that Jesus must come from Bethlehem to "prove" that He wasn't the Messiah. There's no record that Jesus explained he only grew up in Nazareth. Nor did He explain that the bible also says "he shall be called a Nazarene." I believe one reason these prophecies were written,like the Genesis ones, was to offend those who didn't care to look into the matter.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 22:42:08 GMT -5
Quote - "Well, YES, I WAS referring to the lack scientific evidence for a dead body being resurrected & flying off into the clouds. But isn't that also part of the story of Jesus? Don't you believe in the resurrection, bert?"
There's absolutely no evidence, nor proof, that Jesus was resurrected. Seriously, to believe that God would have power to do that you must first experience the power of the Gospel. IMO. But as for the rest of the story of Israel, from Abraham through to Jesus, I have no doubt, nor do most historians. But again, Israel or no Israel, Jesus or no Jesus, it makes little difference to the issue - is there a God?
|
|
|
Post by dmmichgood on Nov 25, 2014 22:56:44 GMT -5
Quote - "Do you realize how ridiculous that last statement sounds? How it only shows that you would claim anything, -up in down, black is white, anything, -just in order to try to convince yourself that something is true? You just destroy all your credibility with a remark like that! Kinda' like believing that you really can have your cake & eat it too! Kinda' like "getting or not getting" what you prayed for but never-the-less insisting that GOD did answer your prayer!" Two examples will suffice, hopefully. Some modern people quote the "six days of creation" in Genesis to voice their opposition. The same people will ignore that Genesis states that life came out of the sea. Okay? Some ancient people (who were happy with the idea of a creation God) no doubt FOCUSED upon the Genesis verse about the sea bringing forth life to demonstrate the absurdity of the bible
Some Jews focused upon verses saying that Jesus must come from Bethlehem to "prove" that He wasn't the Messiah. There's no record that Jesus explained he only grew up in Nazareth. Nor did He explain that the bible also says "he shall be called a Nazarene." I believe one reason these prophecies were written,like the Genesis ones, was to offend those who didn't care to look into the matter.
Neither one of those work, bert! That doesn't address what you said! You are now talking about how different people interpret the bible
This what you said: "And I believe the bible was deliberately crafted to be "prove" itself to those who wanted to believe, and crafted to "disprove" itself for those who want to disbelieve." That sounds as if you thought the bible, -which are many books, not just one, & were written over many years, were all coordinated (deliberately) "crafted " by all those people purposely so as to cause some people "believe" & some not to "believe."
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 25, 2014 23:39:48 GMT -5
I believe one reason these prophecies were written,like the Genesis ones, was to offend those who didn't care to look into the matter. Saying that the bible was written in a way to obscure the meaning kind of shoots down your claim for simplicity. Looking hard people can read in all the different meanings they need to satisfy their beliefs. On another line - it is not the bible that atheists do not believe in it is the lack of belief in any deity or deities. Asking an atheist about a 'relationship with god' would be like asking if someone has a relationship with the invisible goblin who lives under the bed. Relationships are difficult but to have one with an entity that you do not believe exists adds several levels of complexity. For theists who believe they do have a relationship with god I assume that means two way communication. If anyone cares to answer, how is that communication accomplished? Voices? Dreams? Visions? Feelings?
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 25, 2014 23:48:00 GMT -5
I believe one reason these prophecies were written,like the Genesis ones, was to offend those who didn't care to look into the matter. Saying that the bible was written in a way to obscure the meaning kind of shoots down your claim for simplicity. Looking hard people can read in all the different meanings they need to satisfy their beliefs. On another line - it is not the bible that atheists do not believe in it is the lack of belief in any deity or deities. Asking an atheist about a 'relationship with god' would be like asking if someone has a relationship with the invisible goblin who lives under the bed. Relationships are difficult but to have one with an entity that you do not believe exists adds several levels of complexity. For theists who believe they do have a relationship with god I assume that means two way communication. If anyone cares to answer, how is that communication accomplished? Voices? Dreams? Visions? Feelings? as you say..voices(still small voice) dreams, visions and feelings....i personally have never had a day time vision though but i have had the voice some dreams and some feelings...
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 25, 2014 23:50:45 GMT -5
Saying that the bible was written in a way to obscure the meaning kind of shoots down your claim for simplicity. Looking hard people can read in all the different meanings they need to satisfy their beliefs. On another line - it is not the bible that atheists do not believe in it is the lack of belief in any deity or deities. Asking an atheist about a 'relationship with god' would be like asking if someone has a relationship with the invisible goblin who lives under the bed. Relationships are difficult but to have one with an entity that you do not believe exists adds several levels of complexity. For theists who believe they do have a relationship with god I assume that means two way communication. If anyone cares to answer, how is that communication accomplished? Voices? Dreams? Visions? Feelings? as you say..voices(still small voice) dreams, visions and feelings....i personally have never had a day time vision though but i have had the voice some dreams and some feelings... Thanks, @wally.
|
|
|
Post by rational on Nov 26, 2014 0:02:50 GMT -5
In science there are no "miracles." Everything is cause and effect. You are out of date. This is not the case. There are several theories that explain the big bang. It is true that it is not a known fact. But not everyone feels the need to throw in a god of the gap. No knowing is very different from claiming it is the work of a divine entity. It speaks to the ability for people to propose theories and then modify them as new data/proof are discovered. Remember the phlogiston theory (well at least reading about it)? Of the early theories biogenesis before corrected by Pasteur? Mush better to modify the beliefs to fit the data than to twist the data to support existing beliefs.
|
|
|
Post by Brick on Nov 26, 2014 0:17:17 GMT -5
I never understood the need for an atheist book. The "atheist book" is just the means to an end. The end that I am referring to is that pot of gold at the end of the rainbow. Dawkins MUST use inflammatory statements in his opinions of God and Jesus in order to keep the debate going and himself and his work at the center of it. It's nothing but marketing and self promotion. His cause requires the continued friction that his rhetoric feeds.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 26, 2014 2:46:33 GMT -5
This story is most likely apocryphal, but if it was true it would remind me of Dawkins.en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonhard_EulerThere is a famous legend inspired by Euler's arguments with secular philosophers over religion, which is set during Euler's second stint at the St. Petersburg academy. The French philosopher Denis Diderot was visiting Russia on Catherine the Great's invitation. However, the Empress was alarmed that the philosopher's arguments for atheism were influencing members of her court, and so Euler was asked to confront the Frenchman. Diderot was informed that a learned mathematician had produced a proof of the existence of God: he agreed to view the proof as it was presented in court. Euler appeared, advanced toward Diderot, and in a tone of perfect conviction announced this non-sequitur: "Sir, (a+b^n)/n = x, hence God exists—reply!" Diderot, to whom (says the story) all mathematics was gibberish, stood dumbstruck as peals of laughter erupted from the court. Embarrassed, he asked to leave Russia, a request that was graciously granted by the Empress. However amusing the anecdote may be, it is apocryphal, given that Diderot himself did research in mathematicsRichard Dawkins supreme argument is his rejection of the "Non-Overlapping Magisterium" (NOMA) This is to say he has dispensed with NOMA (to his own satisfaction) and has place god/gods firmly in this world. Here god/gods are subject to the laws of physics and mathematics. Here god/gods conform to rules of logic. And in particular, Dawkins logic.
|
|