Deep Sight:

Of course I have. I summarized your wild and excitable contradictions on the matter for the sake of posterity before leaving that thread. So you can go back and read them, I will not waste my energy restating them here. Or re arguing them.

Was your summary accurate? Did I agree with your summary of what I said? Were you even able to actually point out these "wild and excitable contradictions"? You're welcome to address my responses on that thread that I'm sure you ran from. You're welcome to post a link to the particular discussion you have in mind for others to decide for themselves.

Deep Sight:
You see, this reminds me of a certain respected poster here years ago who had the habit of making me explain everything at least ten times before he would grasp it. I have already explained to you previously that as far as theistic - atheistic discourses on the existence of God go, the common denominator is that God is said to be an eternal being that caused the universe to come into existence. Not one theistic position or rendition of God holds otherwise. As such, stalling the discussion by pandering to the details of Islamic or Christian or other further notions about the nature of the said deity is at best pedantic, on the average, pathetic, and at worst intellectually dubious.

That you think it is pedantic doesn't mean others think it is so. If you postulate one God and others postulate 5 is that just a minor point? If you postulate an indifferent God and others postulate a God that cares about a chosen tribe, is that a minor point? I know you think it is a minor point, I and other religious believers don't agree that it is a minor point so you speak for your God and let others defend theirs.

Deep Sight:
The question, as far as thee discussions are concerned, is whether and eternal being caused the universe. Period.

You cannot seriously canvass as a point, disputes on whether that being prefers amala to pounded yam.

That is part of the question but can we answer the question without knowing something about this being? And something about how things work? Or are we to just take the introduction of this magical being on your words?

thehomer:

What exact same reason are you talking about?

For the exact same reasons that there is a good and bad political strategist even though two political analysts may disagree on strongly on which strategy is right. Also even as 'expressive' as theater art is, the difference between good and bad art is almost always obvious to trained practitioners.

thehomer:
That is part of the question but can we answer the question without knowing something about this being? And something about how things work? Or are we to just take the introduction of this magical being on your words?

That is just as bad as saying that upon coming across a murder, we cannot conclude that a someone is responsible if we don't know if the person is blonde or brunete

Deep Sight:

Thou wicked and slothful servant, thou playful minion of thy master, thou proddest thy master into teaching you what thou ought to know?

Thy master is patient, benevolent indeed.

It is good that master Deep Sight is patient.

Deep Sight:
Now, lesson 1 - Answer thy master this -

1. What is the common denominator between (a) evolution (b) the growth of a plant (c) the growth of a child?

I don't understand the question.

Deep Sight:
2. Which of these three processes explains the origin of living things?

None of them.

Deep Sight:
3. Does Dawkins not argue, that on account of the process of evolution, "God just isn't necessary"?

Yes he does and the vast majority of evolutionary biologists agree with him. Do you agree or disagree? And why?

Deep Sight:
When you are done with this lesson I shall take you to lesson 2 on Physics vs Biology.

Run along now little Peter, will you, and catch the school bus. Don't forget your sandwiches.

Please master answer my questions and I can't wait to see the lessons you have on physics vs biology.

Thank you master Deep Sight.

Mr_Anony:
Of course every disagreement with your master just has to be a lie....

You lied that Dawkins has little or no knowledge of theology/philosophy. Simple. Something you'd never be able to prove if even it were true.
I gave many examples to show that at least Dawkins has a basic understanding of both pilosophy and theology.............

Mr_Anony:
Yeah and every bookmakers ledger starts with numbers therefore book makers are expert mathematicians

An every bookmaker's ledger engages in some form of addition, subtraction and multiplication of gambling odds

See how you engage in strawmen and Anonyism? Expert mathematicians? Did I say Dawkins was an expert philosopher? Mtchew

The point was to show that Dawkins has a fundamental understanding of philosophy, especially with an academic background, much more than a bookmker has a practical basic understanding of maths.

Mr_Anony:
Singing on a stage doesn't make you a vocalist, it is the quality of your voice that counts. In the same way, Arguing with people on a raised platform doesn't make you smart, it is the quality of your argument that counts.

Dawkins made excellent points in many debates and is said to have won some. For instance, here is Dawkins taking on your dadd, william craig.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dRmKA5zUYBI

Mr_Anony:
Yeah and I acted drama in primary school...therefore I must be a theatre arts genius. I also correctly predicted who will be voted class captain in secondary school. I must be a political analyst

What does this have to do with Dawkins understanding theology enough to convert christians to atheists with his writing and debates? Mtchew. You want to play to fool. Keep up

Mr_Anony:
Lawyers argue all day in law courts concerning the same constitution, There is therefore no right or wrong law.

Again, another reetarded argument. Law has precedents which religion doesnt have. Maybe you should think about that. What lawyers argue is the interpretation of the law or the facts of the case not the law in itself. The precedent (past rulings) shape the interpretation.

Compared to religion, no precedence and whatever interpretation you take has no real life consequences.

Mr_Anony:
For the exact same reasons that there is a good and bad political strategist even though two political analysts may disagree on strongly on which strategy is right. Also even as 'expressive' as theater art is, the difference between good and bad art is almost always obvious to trained practitioners.

Political science is quite different from political strategy and political science has a lot to do with political philosophy and political history. I'm quite sure that even though I didn't study theater art, I can notice the difference between good and bad acting or presentation even if not as well as trained practitioners can.

But is Islamic theology bad theology or just factually incorrect? How about Catholic theology and Aztec theology? Are they just bad theology or factually incorrect? How do you know?

Mr_Anony:

That is just as bad as saying that upon coming across a murder, we cannot conclude that a someone is responsible if we don't know if the person is blonde or brunete

This is a false analogy. When we conclude that an incident was a murder, it means that we know something about the entity that caused it. It means that we've decided that the cause was a human.

But when we're asking about the origin of the universe, what are we postulating about the entity that did it? You need to have some idea of the being to say that it could even do what you're claiming it did don't you?

thehomer:

This is a false analogy. When we conclude that an incident was a murder, it means that we know something about the entity that caused it. It means that we've decided that the cause was a human.

But when we're asking about the origin of the universe, what are we postulating about the entity that did it? You need to have some idea of the being to say that it could even do what you're claiming it did don't you?

Anony thrives on false analogies

MacDaddy01:

Anony thrives on false analogies

Maybe or maybe it was just an honest error.

thehomer:

Maybe or maybe it was just an honest error.

Here is Anony's analogy used to rebutt my argument that Dawkins understands basic philosophy (note that I never said that Dawkins was a master philosopher)

Mr_Anony:



Yeah and every bookmakers ledger starts with numbers therefore book makers are expert mathematicians

False analogy anonyism

@deepsight; organic evolution explains origin of life. the experiment was made and living molecules spontaneously formed without help from any scientist. google stanley- urey experiment.

thehomer:

It is good that master Deep Sight is patient.

Wise and patient indeed, is thy master; the compassionate, the merciful.

I don't understand the question.

Come now, and practice the sincerity I have drilled into you since you were a child, but for which I and your guardians forever remain exasperated not to ever see in you.

That question was written in English, and very simple English to boot. You give me to believe that you are terrified of the calamity that answering the question must necessary bestow upon the head of Dawkins, and I verily suspect that you already see clearly exactly why he is a philosophical dunce within that very light and simple question alone.

Gird thy loins: do not be paralyzed by fear my son.

The question again - What is the common denominator between these: (a) evolution (b) the growth of a child (c) the growth of a plant

Now answer me, or the rod awaiteth thy back (Proverbs 26:3).

None of them.

END OF DISCUSSION.

This answer singularly teaches you why Dawkins is a Philosophical dunce.

When you say that Evolution does not explain the origin of life, how can you then not see the flawed reasoning in Dawkins holding up evolution as that which renders a cause of life such as God, unnecessary? It surely cannot be that which renders such a cause unnecessary, if it is, as you say, no explanation for the cause of life!

Yes he does and the vast majority of evolutionary biologists agree with him. Do you agree or disagree? And why?

And with this my dear Homer returns to his long history of vicious and wildly contradictory notions.

- - -He says in response to me above that NONE of (a) evolution (b) the growth of a child (c) the growth of a plant - explains the origin of life

- - -He then says that indeed "Dawkins and the vast majority of Evolutionary Biologists" believe that evolution renders God unnecessary - in spite of the fact that thehomer acknowledges that evolution DOES NOT explain the origin of life.

As such, it is either that theHomer does not agree with "Dawkins and the vast majority of Evolutionary Biologists" - - - or else, as usual, he is wildly confused.

And finally, if "Dawkins and the vast majority of Evolutionary Biologists" believe such a thing, they must be mad, because the theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of first life.

Student, Capisce??

Need thy master say more? Stop embarrassing me. Do not let people know that my years of tutelage have been wasted, son.

wiegraf:

I have no problem with looking like a child, silly you. Also, other than toying with you, what makes you think I care about what you in particular think? World is centered around me anonysm. And where did I throw out an insult? That's some more stoopid right there.





A silly post deserves as silly riposte, no? And y'all flocked together, 3 stoogies style, around some (as usual) silly arguments. Therefore I used xtian, not just sn00, as it seems you all believe in this bit of nonsense. See?

By the way, the whole world domination quote is from a memorable sweetnecta post. It's good, no?

Lol...you and your attitude. You seem to always want to turn a forum to a 'fight room'. I was addressing a Christian not you; otherwise, the approach would have been different.

Deep Sight:
END OF DISCUSSION.

This answer singularly teaches you why Dawkins is a Philosophical dunce.

When you say that Evolution does not explain the origin of life, how can you then not see the flawed reasoning in Dawkins holding up evolution as that which renders a cause of life such as God, unnecessary? It surely cannot be that which renders such a cause unnecessary, if it is, as you say, no explanation for the cause of life!



And with this my dear Homer returns to his long history of vicious and wildly contradictory notions.

- - -He says in response to me above that NONE of (a) evolution (b) the growth of a child (c) the growth of a plant - explains the origin of life

- - -He then says that indeed "Dawkins and the vast majority of Evolutionary Biologists" believe that evolution renders God unnecessary - in spite of the fact that thehomer acknowledges that evolution DOES NOT explain the origin of life.

As such, it is either that theHomer does not agree with "Dawkins and the vast majority of Evolutionary Biologists" - - - or else, as usual, he is wildly confused.

And finally, if "Dawkins and the vast majority of Evolutionary Biologists" believe such a thing, they must be mad, because the theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of first life.

And with this comment, we can see the liar that Deep Sight is. So, your statement that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce is based on something Dawkins didnt say?

I would like to know where Dawkins made the argument that evolution makes God unnecessary in the CAUSE of FIRST life.


I suspect that Dawkins probably said one of the following arguments which you misintepreted

-God is not necessary for the origins of the human species since we know that we evolved from apes. That process of evolution works fine without the involvement of a God.

-The beginning of the universe can be explained without God. God isnt necessary in the big bang.
-Evolution is explained without god

Deep Sight:

Wise and patient indeed, is thy master; the compassionate, the merciful.

Ooh. Deep Sight the merciful.

Deep Sight:
Come now, and practice the sincerity I have drilled into you since you were a child, but for which I and your parents forever remain exaperated not to ever see in you.

That question was written in English, and very simple English to boot. You give me to believe that you are terrified of the calamity that answering the question must necessary bestow upon the head of Dawkins, and I verily suspect that you already see clearly exactly why he is a philosophical dunce within that very light and simple question alone.

Gird thy loins: do not be paralyzed by fear my son.

The question again - What is the common denominator between these: (a) evolution (b) the growth of a child (c) the growth of a plant

Now answer me, or the rod awaiteth thy back.

Repeating the question won't make it clearer. What you need to do is to either rephrase the question or let me know what answer you're looking for because I don't see any common denominator other than something as trivial as saying that they're all described by humans. In the same way that speaking slowly in a language foreign to someone won't make them understand you any better.

Deep Sight:
END OF DISCUSSION.

This answer singularly teaches you why Dawkins is a Philosophical dunce.

When you say that Evolution does not explain the origin of life, how can you then not see the flawed reasoning in Dawkins holding up evolution as that which renders a cause of life such as God, unnecessary? It surely cannot be that which renders such a cause unnecessary, if it is, as you say, no explanation for the cause of life!

Actually, what you're showing is that you are deficient in your knowledge of biology. The theory of evolution isn't supposed to explain the origin of life. And in developing the theory of evolution, God hasn't been necessary.

Deep Sight:
And with this my dear Homer returns to his long history of vicious and wildly contradictory notions.

- - -He says in response to me above that NONE of (a) evolution (b) the growth of a child (c) the growth of a plant - explains the origin of life

- - -He then says that indeed "Dawkins and the vast majority of Evolutionary Biologists" believe that evolution renders God unnecessary - in spite of the fact that thehomer acknowledges that evolution DOES NOT explain the origin of life.

As such, it is either that theHomer does not agree with "Dawkins and the vast majority of Evolutionary Biologists" - - - or else, as usual, he is wildly confused.

What exactly is the contradiction you're trying to demonstrate? How does anything I've said contradict the other?

Deep Sight:
And finally, if "Dawkins and the vast majority of Evolutionary Biologists" believe such a thing, they must be mad, because the theory of evolution says nothing about the origin of first life.

Once again, you're just confused. Evolutionary biologists do believe that and say so all the time so Professor Deep Sight has declared them all insane. Wow. Haven't you seen your confusion yet?

You agree that evolution says nothing about the origin of life. Biologists say that God isn't needed to explain what the theory does explain so what is the contradiction?

My advice to you is that if you find yourself going against the experts in a field when you're not an expert in the field, you should be very careful so you don't just embarrass yourself.

Deep Sight:
Student, Capisce??

Need thy master say more? Stop embarrassing me. Do not let people know that my years of tutelage have been wasted, son.

I'm sorry but it looks as if you're one of those teachers teaching nonsense, professor.

SNCOQ3:

Lol...you and your attitude. You seem to always want to turn a forum to a 'fight room'. I was addressing a Christian not you; otherwise, the approach would have been different.

And then?

If you call people diabolique, or whatever nonsense you put up there, what do you expect? Really? I hope you're not b1tching as that would be silly, no? Say something stoopid, get a stoopid reply, where's the problem? I expect the same from others, it's only fair.

And you do realize I left it at that but anony persisted because he wants to make me look stoopid, yes? Who do you think was looking for a fight? Wow

-edit-

Amplified version:
...and i think its a catastrophic mistake to have someone like Dawkins to address himself to profound issues of theology, the existence God, the nature of life, he hasn't committed himself to disciplined study in any relevant area of inquiry, he is a crom... philosopher, he doesn't have the rudimentary skills to meticulously assess his own argument.
- David Berlinski

Condensed version:
Dawkins is a philosophical dunce.

ooman: @deepsight; organic evolution explains origin of life. the experiment was made and living molecules spontaneously formed without help from any scientist. google stanley- urey experiment.

You see, this is why it is said that a little learning is a terrible thing indeed. This is one of the foolish posts I have ever read on this forum. Kindly go back and read again about the experiment you referred me to.

It does not in anyway prove or show the origin of life. It shows the formation of amino acids, proteins, organic compounds. All that is within the realm of lifeless chemistry. None of these is a single living thing.

"A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the back of the fool" - Proverbs 26:3.

wiegraf:

And then?

If you call people diabolique, or whatever nonsense you put up there, what do you expect? Really? I hope you're not b1tching as that would be silly, no? Say something stoopid, get a stoopid reply, where's the problem? I expect the same from others, it's only fair.

And you do realize I left it at that but anony persisted because he wants to make me look stoopid, yes? Who do you think was looking for a fight? Wow

Are you Atheism? What my post suggest is: an Atheist is just a victim of a diabolic philosophical movement.

Deep Sight:

You see, this is why it is said that a little learning is a terrible thing indeed. This is one of the foolish posts I have ever read on this forum. Kindly go back and read again about the experiment you referred me to.

It does not in anyway prove or show the origin of life. It shows the formation of amino acids, proteins, organic compounds. All that is within the realm of lifeless chemistry. None of these is a single living thing.

"A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the back of the fool" - Proverbs 26:3.

this shows your own little comprehension if the experiment. no one says the experiment made life but LIFE MOLECULES. its shows that life molecules can arise without help from your silly god.

you are the fool here, you lack basic understanding of what you argue against

ooman:

this shows your own little comprehension if the experiment. no one says the experiment made life but LIFE MOLECULES. its shows that life molecules can arise without help from your silly god.

you are the fool here, you lack basic understanding of what you argue against

Lol, stop resorting to outright lies.

Here is your exact statement below -

ooman: @deepsight; organic evolution explains origin of life. the experiment was made and living molecules spontaneously formed without help from any scientist. google stanley- urey experiment.

The bold show your frantic attempt to deny your own mis-apprehension of the experiment.

You said "Organic evolution explains the origin of life" - Fact is - it does not.

You said "Living Molecules" appeared.

What? ? ? Are you ok? Where did you see "living molecules"? ? ?

Now you attempt to re-phrase your statement, even so, falsely and disastrously.

"A whip for the horse, a halter for the donkey, and a rod for the back of the fool" - Proverbs 26:3.

SNCOQ3: -edit-

Amplified version:
...and i think its a catastrophic mistake to have someone like Dawkins to address himself to profound issues of theology, the existence God, the nature of life, he hasn't committed himself to disciplined study in any relevant area of inquiry, he is a crom... philosopher, he doesn't have the rudimentary skills to meticulously assess his own argument.
- David Berlinski

Condensed version:
Dawkins is a philosophical dunce.

So one now needs some degree in philosophy or theology to talk about the existence of God?


I am seeing the foolish reasons why Anony and co believe that Dawkins is a dunce.


You peeps are talking BS

MacDaddy01:


So one now needs some degree in philosophy or theology to talk about the existence of God?


I am seeing the foolish reasons why Anony and co believe that Dawkins is a dunce.


You peeps are talking BS

Lol once again the strawman: No one said degree in theology is a pre-requisite in order to talk about the existence of God. What we are saying is that when Dawkins talks about the existence of God, he does a piss poor job.

thehomer:

Ooh. Deep Sight the merciful.

Compassionate, patient, merciful and kindly to his wards indeed is thy tutor. Master of the school of the deluded, to thy master alone you look for help, he will guide you to the straight path, and not the path of those who have gone astray.

This logic is not to be doubted. It is a guide for the deluded, who must now have faith in logic.

Repeating the question won't make it clearer. What you need to do is to either rephrase the question or let me know what answer you're looking for because I don't see any common denominator other than something as trivial as saying that they're all described by humans. In the same way that speaking slowly in a language foreign to someone won't make them understand you any better.

Do you seriously mean to assert to me that you know of nothing, no concept, no idea, no common denominator whatsoever that these three have in common? Not even the fact that they are all processes of development? Not even the fact that - as you already said - none of them is an initiative phenomenon? Not even the fact that they are all represent the change of living things over periods of time? Not any other thing?

It can only be concluded by any sane observer that you dishonestly refused to see any common denominator. And it is useless engaging in a debate where parties willfully make such lamentable pretensions.

Must I painfully break down every thing for you? Please don't give me deja vu.

Actually, what you're showing is that you are deficient in your knowledge of biology. The theory of evolution isn't supposed to explain the origin of life. And in developing the theory of evolution, God hasn't been necessary.

Lol, you really do bring a smile to my face all the time. A wry one though.

You and I are very well acquainted with the fact that the theory of evolution does not touch on the origin of life. THAT is exactly the point - namely that since evolution has nothing to do with the origin of life, then it cannot be a reference point for dismissing that which is referred to as the origin of life! Simples!

In fact, I elaborated on this in the thread I referred logicboy to - the thread which his quaking fear and congenital epilepsy has frigtened him from reading up till now. It is in fact not just the origin of life at issue. It is the origin of the entire universe at issue.

Because the cosmological question of God's existence centres around the existence of the entire universe. And the cause for that. It is therefore starkly unimaginable that one would state that the evolution of species on a speck of a planet - obviates the need for God! - When that need, arises from a question about the existence of anything at all - as opposed to nothing!

It thus beats belief entirely, that as we very well know, the TOE does not address either the origin of life or the origin of the universe - and was never meant to - and yet it is held up as sufficient reason to obviate the questions that it was never meant to address! - - - and does NOT address.

Amazing, my son, amazing! I hope you can clearly see the illogicality here.

And no - the argument is not that which you have tried to rephrase it as - namely that God is not necessary for evolution to take place or continue. God may very well not be necessary for that (not my position though), just as Bill Gates may not be needed in your bedroom for your computer to make automatic updates. That is neither here nor there; for the question of God's existence has never been about how things work, but about from whence they started to exist and work in the first place. And thus, to the extent that evolution is not about that, then it is philosophically dumb to hold it up as a factor that obviates God's existence.

And this is exactly why I have said he is effectively arguing that demonstrating how photosynthesis works or how a child grows means that neither the tree nor the child needed a cause.

Haba, thehomer, did I really need to spell all this down word for word for you?

What exactly is the contradiction you're trying to demonstrate? How does anything I've said contradict the other?

As above.

I'm sorry but it looks as if you're one of those teachers teaching nonsense, professor.

Now now, you best be careful for I have purchased a new and excellent whip specifically for you and your ilk. You don't want your family asking you where those scars on your back came from, do you? They just might conclude that you are into kinky stuff. Your arguments are certainly kinky enough.

Mr_Anony:
Lol once again the strawman: No one said degree in theology is a pre-requisite in order to talk about the existence of God. What we are saying is that when Dawkins talks about the existence of God, he does a piss poor job.

Did you read the comment that I was replying to? The comment was talking about having studied theology......


As for the existence of God, you are yet to provide one false argument Dawkins has made about God? Anony, you havent put forward any piss poor argument of Dawkins concerning the existence of God.

So, in other words, you are no different from an empty barrel.

MacDaddy01:



And with this comment, we can see the liar that Deep Sight is. So, your statement that Dawkins is a philosophical dunce is based on something Dawkins didnt say?

I would like to know where Dawkins made the argument that evolution makes God unnecessary in the CAUSE of FIRST life.


I suspect that Dawkins probably said one of the following arguments which you misintepreted

-God is not necessary for the origins of the human species since we know that we evolved from apes. That process of evolution works fine without the involvement of a God.

-The beginning of the universe can be explained without God. God isnt necessary in the big bang.
-Evolution is explained without god

Empty rhetoric! No evidence!

Epic fail. You have been debunked.

Try again.

Deep Sight:

Empty rhetoric! No evidence!

Epic fail. You have been debunked.

Try again.

I love you men.....I have been laughing stright for 5 minutes. You knew you were debunked and so, you start trolling


Anyways, did anyone tell you that imitation is the best form of flattery?

MacDaddy01:




I love you men.....I have been laughing stright for 5 minutes. You knew you were debunked and so, you start trolling


Anyways, did anyone tell you that imitation is the best form of flattery?

Yawn.

More empty rhetoric. . . shows you have nothing to say! Maybe you should read thru mine to thehomer. . . but as proven, you do not read anyway, so that's a vain hope.

You have been debunked.

Try again.

Deep Sight:

Yawn.

More empty rhetoric. . . shows you have nothing to say! Maybe you should read thru mine to thehomer. . . but as proven, you do not read anyway, so that's a vain hope.

You have been debunked.

Try again.

Lol....keep this up.

The more you do this the more you look like an empty barrel

MacDaddy01:



Lol....keep this up.

The more you do this the more you look like an empty barrel

Yawn. More empty rhetoric.

You have been debunked, keep trying again.

Deep Sight:

Yawn. More empty rhetoric.

You have been debunked, keep trying again.

Do you know that you havent put any false argument that Dawkins has made about God?

MacDaddy01:





Do you know that you havent put any false argument that Dawkins has made about God?

Do you know that you have not read the link I gave you?

You have been debunked.

Keep trying again.