Deep Sight:

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

You have been debunked.

Keep trying again.

I give up

I raise my hands in defeat!


Can we make a new thread discussing your link?


(if you agree to the new thread, pls post the link in your next comment)

Deep Sight:

Empty rhetoric! No evidence!

Epic fail. You have been debunked.

Try again.

Perfect answer

MacDaddy01:

I give up

I raise my hands in defeat!


Can we make a new thread discussing your link?


(if you agree to the new thread, pls post the link in your next comment)

Lololol, I hope you do realize that what Deepsight did there is exactly the way you argue.

SNCOQ3:

I fear that those who deny the Lord Jesus for 'logic' may end up bowing down to the 'Counterfeit-Jesus'. Atheism will give way for magic, mysticism, spiritism when he who restrains is taken out of the way ....Atheism is just a diabolic means to a diabolic end.

This is your post brah, it's still remarkably foo.lish. Among other things, it clearly states that atheism entails one ends up diabolic, or with a 'diabolic end'. Do you want to continue remixing your meaning? Perhaps one can subscribe to a diabolic "philosophy" without being diabolic? Interesting.

A stoopid post getting a stoopid reply. Again, I hope you're not complaining.

Mr_Anony:
Lololol, I hope you do realize that what Deepsight did there is exactly the way you argue.

So predictable.....I exoected such comment.


You must have ignored all the lenghty replies i have written on this thread defending Dawkins.


Yet, with all your lies, you think you are someone to talk about morality

MacDaddy01:

I give up

I raise my hands in defeat!

Can we make a new thread discussing your link?

(If you agree to the new thread please post the link in your next comment)

Your Lord is most merciful, gracious, patient, compassionate.

Can we make a new thread discussing your link?

Thou wicked and slothful servant, thy Lord will indulge thee: upon the conditions of his angels as follows -

1. Thou will be the one to open such a thread

2. Thou will be the one to go to that link and fetch those quotes and paste them there in your OP

3. Thou will respond to the points there as part of your OP before we commence

4. There will be a FIRM RULE in the thread, that posts will be limited to Points and Counter-Points. In other words you cannot react to a point by merely writing something like "debunked" or "epic fail" or "empty rhetoric". Every Point must be specifically addressed by a counter point which lucidly proves and shows clearly why the point in question is wrong or flawed.

Every single point raised must be so addressed.

Deep Sight:

Your Lord is most merciful, gracious, patient, compassionate.



Thou wicked and slothful servant, thy Lord will indulge thee: upon the conditions of his angels as follows -

1. Thou will be the one to open such a thread

2. Thou will be the one to go to that link and fetch those quotes and paste them there in your OP

3. Thou will respond to the points there as part of your OP before we commence

4. There will be a FIRM RULE in the thread, that posts will be limited to Points and Counter-Points. In other words you cannot react to a point by merely writing something like "debunked" or "epic fail" or "empty rhetoric". Every Point must be specifically addressed by a counter point which lucidly proves and shows clearly why the point in question is wrong or flawed.

Every single point raised must be so addressed.

but....but.....according to Anony, I cant debate without shouting "debunked" or "epic fail".....dont take these privileges away from me



No problem deepsight. Give me some few minutes let me prepare the thread. Oh, you're so gonna get your azz handed to you.

MacDaddy01:


So predictable.....I exoected such comment.


You must have ignored all the lenghty replies i have written on this thread defending Dawkins.


Yet, with all your lies, you think you are someone to talk about morality

...and how does this comment change the fact that Deep Sight mimicked your argument style accurately?

Mr_Anony:
...and how does this comment change the fact that Deep Sight mimicked your argument style accurately?

He mimicked my "mocking style" accurately.

Deep Sight:

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.

Hmm.

Deep Sight:
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.

I cannot read your mind. If that is what you wanted to say, why didn't you say it in the first place? How does what you've said added to the conversation?

Deep Sight:
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?

Wow. You really love being verbose but you've not said anything cogent. Did anyone say that the theory of evolution disproves God? Earlier, you claimed to be quoting Dawkins but you're yet to provide the quote. Why?

Deep Sight:
As above.

You didn't show any contradiction. You just threw up a lot of words as a smokescreen or a strawman. I never said or implied that the theory of evolution disproves God. What I said was that God isn't needed in formulating the theory. I also said that biologists agree with me but you've somehow gotten yourself confused about what I said. Please go back and read it then please show my contradictions by quoting me.

Deep Sight:
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.

It looks as if you're going to be whipping yourself again Professor Deep Sight. Just let me know when you're done whipping yourself so that the hospital will be ready to receive you.

^^^ I see you have failed to read anything that I wrote. Worse, you have now surreptituosly retreated to defending yourself whereas the discussion and the thread was about the views and statements of Dawkins - which you defended - and now eminently shown to be reetarded. Later boy.

Deep Sight:
^^^ I see you have failed to read anything that I wrote. Worse, you have now surreptituosly retreated to defending yourself whereas the discussion and the thread was about the views and statements of Dawkins - which you defended - and now eminently shown to be reetarded. Later boy.

This is the sort of dishonesty that I find really frustrating. You just throw out assertions like a religious fellow and when asked to back them up, you run away. This is a pattern of behaviour with you and it is terrible.

Why don't you show how I've "surreptitiously retreated" by quoting me? I know what the thread is about but you're yet to actually show me doing anything you're accusing me of by quoting me on this thread.

You've not shown me to contradict myself, you've not shown me to be retreating here and you've not shown the problem with Dawkins' statements. And the article you cited as being damning to Dawkins, doesn't appear to be so since you're unable to actually show the quote that you think is problematic.

I usually expect better from you but you're regularly putting up a very disappointing show.

Deep Sight:

Your Lord is most merciful, gracious, patient, compassionate.



Thou wicked and slothful servant, thy Lord will indulge thee: upon the conditions of his angels as follows -

1. Thou will be the one to open such a thread

2. Thou will be the one to go to that link and fetch those quotes and paste them there in your OP

3. Thou will respond to the points there as part of your OP before we commence

4. There will be a FIRM RULE in the thread, that posts will be limited to Points and Counter-Points. In other words you cannot react to a point by merely writing something like "debunked" or "epic fail" or "empty rhetoric". Every Point must be specifically addressed by a counter point which lucidly proves and shows clearly why the point in question is wrong or flawed.

Every single point raised must be so addressed.

https://www.nairaland.com/1196280/dawkins-vs-deepsight


I did my best. Your comment was disjointed and needed proper editing for a rebuttal (quoting and bolding)

After reading your comments, I have come to the conclusion that you are full of elitist shyt. Nothing you wrote there proves that Dawkins is a dunce. Rather, you have a hatred for him.

Interesting

thehomer:

This is the sort of dishonesty that I find really frustrating. You just throw out assertions like a religious fellow and when asked to back them up, you run away. This is a pattern of behaviour with you and it is terrible.

Why don't you show how I've "surreptitiously retreated" by quoting me? I know what the thread is about but you're yet to actually show me doing anything you're accusing me of by quoting me on this thread.

You've not shown me to contradict myself, you've not shown me to be retreating here and you've not shown the problem with Dawkins' statements. And the article you cited as being damning to Dawkins, doesn't appear to be so since you're unable to actually show the quote that you think is problematic.

I usually expect better from you but you're regularly putting up a very disappointing show.

I wrote it all up there. If you refuse to reason, and more particularly, refuse to be sincere, that is your kettle of fish. I cannot spend all day repeating myself.

thehomer:

This is the sort of dishonesty that I find really frustrating. You just throw out assertions like a religious fellow and when asked to back them up, you run away. This is a pattern of behaviour with you and it is terrible.

Why don't you show how I've "surreptitiously retreated" by quoting me? I know what the thread is about but you're yet to actually show me doing anything you're accusing me of by quoting me on this thread.

You've not shown me to contradict myself, you've not shown me to be retreating here and you've not shown the problem with Dawkins' statements. And the article you cited as being damning to Dawkins, doesn't appear to be so since you're unable to actually show the quote that you think is problematic.

I usually expect better from you but you're regularly putting up a very disappointing show.

He has been cornered into a claim without proof. He is trying every escape route.



Speaking of claims, please address this claim I made about you;

The Homer; This guy doesnt know but I truly HATE the kind of atheist he is. He is more into addressing the philosophical issues with Deep Sigh and Anony rather than the social issues. To me, he sounds like an elitist douchebag. Atheists like him are very reserved in condemning religion.

The best way to put it is an example with hitler. Many politicians and scientists knew that Hitler was dangerous but they didnt care because hitler couldnt hurt them as some of their services were necessary to the nation. Some of these guys left germany because they were smart. Now the question is that, if you know something is wrong, why avoid it or run away? Explain yourself, Homer. I will change my views about you.

https://www.nairaland.com/1194798/logicboys-successes-failures-nairaland

Deep Sight:

I wrote it all up there. If you refuse to reason, and more particularly, refuse to be sincere, that is your kettle of fish. I cannot spend all day repeating myself.

Your dishonesty knows no bounds. I'm asking you to quote me. Show me the contradictions using my own words right on this thread. Don't just sit back, type a lot of words and lie.

classic "oversight "
@deepsight have you tried scientology Bruv?
The oneness of infinity

MacDaddy01:


He has been cornered into a claim without proof. He is trying every escape route.



Speaking of claims, please address this claim I made about you;



https://www.nairaland.com/1194798/logicboys-successes-failures-nairaland

That was a curious assertion that I didn't see. I'll address it on that thread.

thehomer:

Your dishonesty knows no bounds. I'm asking you to quote me. Show me the contradictions using my own words right on this thread. Don't just sit back, type a lot of words and lie.

I did quote you. I quoted the answers you gave to the questions I asked. I asked you if any of three options has any bearing on the origin of life. You answered saying none of them did - including evolution. I then went on on explain why that answer shows Dawkins arguments to be philosophical tomfoolery. I also showed that you could not possibly agree with those arguments going by your own words. Here is what I wrote -

Deep Sight:

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.

So my friend, I really don't know what is unclear to you. As expected, and as usual, you want ten explanations before you see the very simple points made. I don't have the strength for such nonsense please.

Oh, and yes, Dawkins has severally held up evolution as a factor that obviates the requirement for God.

Chrisbenogor: classic "oversight "
@deepsight have you tried scientology Bruv?
The oneness of infinity

No i don't want to worship Xenu and co.

How you dey na? Looooooooongest time!

Deep Sight:

I did quote you. I quoted the answers you gave to the questions I asked. I asked you if any of three options has any bearing on the origin of life. You answered saying none of them did - including evolution. I then went on on explain why that answer shows Dawkins arguments to be philosophical tomfoolery. I also showed that you could not possibly agree with those arguments going by your own words. Here is what I wrote -

Surely the English language isn't difficult for you based on how much verbiage you enjoy generating. I asked you to show me the contradictions using my own words. You didn't show any contradiction there. Let me try direct questions.

What is the contradiction in someone accepting the theory of evolution and accepting that the theory of evolution doesn't need God as an explanation for what it (the theory) explains?

You didn't show Dawkins making the claim you said he made. I've asked you several times already to actually quote him saying it in the article he wrote to which you referred. So far, you've been unable to do it and a word search shows that you just made things up.

Deep Sight:
So my friend, I really don't know what is unclear to you. As expected, and as usual, you want ten explanations before you see the very simple points made. I don't have the strength for such nonsense please.

Sheesh. I ask you to show me my contradictions by quoting me and what do you do? You go ahead and quote yourself generating a lot of words. How hard is it for you to actually catch me in a contradiction? Or don't you know how to show that someone is being self contradictory? All you've shown is that you either have no idea of what you're saying or you're just deliberately being dishonest.

Deep Sight:
Oh, and yes, Dawkins has severally held up evolution as a factor that obviates the requirement for God.

What is wrong with you? I told you before that biologists agree that the theory of evolution doesn't need a God for its explanations to work and you're repeating it back to me?

What you're supposed to show is Dawkins saying that the theory of evolution disproves God not that it doesn't need a God. Don't start dancing and vomiting lots of words, just demonstrate your claim for once.

thehomer:

What you're supposed to show is Dawkins saying that the theory of evolution disproves God not that it doesn't need a God. Don't start dancing and vomiting lots of words, just demonstrate your claim for once.

Let me lay this matter to rest: and in doing so I certainly will not permit you to change the pith of the discourse. I really do not know what fancy gymnastics you think you are deploying when you state that we are to show Dawkins saying that the theory of evolution disproves God and not that it doesn't need God. In the first place there is minimal difference between both statements. In the second and more important case, the second statement is that which I advanced as his position: which is definitely the case as quotes below shall show. Nevertheless I must highlight the fact that the one statement implies the other, especially given the overall gamut of his arguments.

Now please for the last time settle down and understand the sequence of this matter properly. Dawkins' works under reference have been directed at disproving the existence of God. Now in so doing, he devolves into the theory of evolution for large parts of the article under reference to show that God is not needed for living things as we know them to exist. He goes so far as to adduce proof and arguments for the theory. In the first place, I might ask straightway what he was doing that for if not to disprove the existence of God - his stated mission anyway?

CLEAR POINT NUMBER ONE: God's existence is a question that arises from the philosophical conundrum: why something instead of nothing. It thus is a question that faces the very existence of the universe itself, and the commencement of life. Given that the theory of Evolution does not address either of these questions, then it follows that the theory of evolution cannot be held up as a reference point for disproving the existence of God in the first place. Simple.

Now the question which I will now put to rest is whether Dawkins does in fact hold up the theory of Evolution in disproof of the existence of God. I believe that this is the question that you have repeated here ad infinitum, ad nauseum, and which logicboy has asked as well. I have ignored the question because it seems to me that it could only be asked by persons who have not read the article under question, and particularly have not followed the overall gamut of Dawkin's arguments in all his works. The emphatic answer to that question is Yes, he does indeed hold up the theory of Evolution in disproof of the existence of God.

And as I have shown you above, and in my penultimate post, it is rationally and clearly philosophically mis-footed, to even set out the theory of evolution in disproof of the existence of God. But Richard Dawkins does this.

And here is the quote you have been waiting for:

Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God.

Yes, the foregoing is Dawkins-speak, straight from the same article I referred you to, but which you sir, have been too blind to read. And in the event that there is any doubt about his meaning, he launches immediately after that statement into long passages seeking to prove and substantiate evolution (hardly necessary in light of the core questions). At all events, by this statement it is apparent that he says that the theory of evolution effectively dispenses with the requirement for a creator. And the painful point that you yet fail to appreciate is simply as I said earlier: the theory of evolution does not, has never, and was not meant to ever touch on the questions apposite to the existence of God - namely the commencement of the universe and the commencement of life. It is thus benumbing for the good professor to argue it as a factor that shows that evolution is doing the job that "once upon a time was the prerogative of God."

The prerogative of God rather has always been argued as the factor that caused things to come to exist. Evolution does not address how things came to exist. It addresses how things grow and change. As such it is completely irrelevant in the question of the existence of God.

This is why I have set out that which I have set out to you; and it is simple and self evident to see.

POINT NUMBER TWO: Now I should go further to state that when people start out on such a badly mis-footed line of reasoning as I have shown above, they inevitably end up in deeply twisted contradictory conundrums. For that is exactly what happens to le professeur in his article: as he is forced to immediately acknowledge that evolution could not have commenced from nothing. He is forced to recognize that which I argue to you is and always has been the real root of the matter - namely how anything came to exist in the first place. In doing this, le professeur begins to trace backwards the existence of things and ends up with a plaintive plea that he is not a physicist but a biologist, and as such is not concerned with the core of the matter - the beginnings of the universe!

Now this is just a simple way of saying and admitting exactly what I have argued: namely - that evolution does not and cannot disprove the existence of God (whereas Dawkins wrote that "Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God" ) - and then turns around to effectively admit that his area of expertise, biology, cannot address the question - but that the question must be addressed by physicists!

Hear him in the same article -

The details of the early phase of the universe belong to the realm of physics, whereas I am a biologist, more concerned with the later phases of the evolution of complexity. For me, the important point is that, even if the physicist needs to postulate an irreducible minimum that had to be present in the beginning, in order for the universe to get started, that irreducible minimum is certainly extremely simple.

Of course the foregoing to the the nuanced mind clearly elucidates everything that I am saying in this respect: namely that whereas Dawkins has advanced Evolution as a factor that dispenses with the existence of God, he, at the conclusion, is forced to admit that his arguments in fact have no place whatsoever with respect to the God question. That in fact, it is the physicists cosmological question that properly addresses the argument. For which the fellow says this is not his area of expertise! What the f/uck then, was he busy writing epistles on evolution about, for which he concludes that the functions of God are therewith "theoretically" obviated?

I can only end this little intervention with one of his last lines where he states that if there is a cause, it will have to be irreducibly simple. My friend, God is not argued to be complex. God is actually that very irreducibly simple element that is the core of all existence.

Double post.

Deep Sight:

Let me lay this matter to rest: and in doing so I certainly will not permit you to change the pith of the discourse. I really do not know what fancy gymnastics you think you are deploying when you state that we are to show Dawkins saying that the theory of evolution disproves God and not that it doesn't need God. In the first place there is minimal difference between both statements. In the second and more important case, the second statement is that which I advanced as his position: which is definitely the case as quotes below shall show. Nevertheless I must highlight the fact that the one statement implies the other, especially given the overall gamut of his arguments.

There is a huge difference between those two statements. The first can be compared to saying that the theory of gravity doesn't need God and the second to saying that the theory of gravity disproves God. Now you wish to run from your previous claim that Dawkins said the theory of evolution disproves God but this is what you said here.

Deep Sight:
Explaining photosynthesis and thereby concluding that Trees are self existent. Or explaining how nutrition helps babies grow and thereby concluding that they weren't born.

That's what makes someone a philosophical dunce.

You said that was the meaning of Dawkins' statements but as I showed you before, it isn't.

Deep Sight:
Now please for the last time settle down and understand the sequence of this matter properly. Dawkins' works under reference have been directed at disproving the existence of God. Now in so doing, he devolves into the theory of evolution for large parts of the article under reference to show that God is not needed for living things as we know them to exist. He goes so far as to adduce proof and arguments for the theory. In the first place, I might ask straightway what he was doing that for if not to disprove the existence of God - his stated mission anyway?

Your mind seems fixated in the idea that whenever Dawkins critiques the idea of a God, the conclusion he must be drawing is that he doesn't exist but that isn't what he was doing at that point. How many scientific theories lead us to the conclusion that God doesn't exist? How many say that God isn't needed as an explanation of the phenomenon under consideration?

Deep Sight:
CLEAR POINT NUMBER ONE: God's existence is a question that arises from the philosophical conundrum: why something instead of nothing. It thus is a question that faces the very existence of the universe itself, and the commencement of life. Given that the theory of Evolution does not address either of these questions, then it follows that the theory of evolution cannot be held up as a reference point for disproving the existence of God in the first place. Simple.

The theory of evolution wasn't developed to address them but you have decided to saddle it with those questions.

Deep Sight:
Now the question which I will now put to rest is whether Dawkins does in fact hold up the theory of Evolution in disproof of the existence of God. I believe that this is the question that you have repeated here ad infinitum, ad nauseum, and which logicboy has asked as well. I have ignored the question because it seems to me that it could only be asked by persons who have not read the article under question, and particularly have not followed the overall gamut of Dawkin's arguments in all his works. The emphatic answer to that question is Yes, he does indeed hold up the theory of Evolution in disproof of the existence of God.

And as I have shown you above, and in my penultimate post, it is rationally and clearly philosophically mis-footed, to even set out the theory of evolution in disproof of the existence of God. But Richard Dawkins does this.

And here is the quote you have been waiting for:


Yes, the foregoing is Dawkins-speak, straight from the same article I referred you to, but which you sir, have been too blind to read. And in the event that there is any doubt about his meaning, he launches immediately after that statement into long passages seeking to prove and substantiate evolution (hardly necessary in light of the core questions). At all events, by this statement it is apparent that he says that the theory of evolution effectively dispenses with the requirement for a creator. And the painful point that you yet fail to appreciate is simply as I said earlier: the theory of evolution does not, has never, and was not meant to ever touch on the questions apposite to the existence of God - namely the commencement of the universe and the commencement of life. It is thus benumbing for the good professor to argue it as a factor that shows that evolution is doing the job that "once upon a time was the prerogative of God."

The prerogative of God rather has always been argued as the factor that caused things to come to exist. Evolution does not address how things came to exist. It addresses how things grow and change. As such it is completely irrelevant in the question of the existence of God.

Sorry but this is either you just being dishonest or failing to understand what the quote you posted above there was referring to and that would be an example of quote-mining.

The paragraphs preceding that quote clearly show what that statement was referring to which is how different species appear to clearly fit in with their environment. It then follows that what he was referring to as "the prerogative of God" is the apparent existence of design in living creatures and not the existence of the universe. How on earth could you have made such an error?

You've read what Dawkins was referring to in that article, then you decide that God's real prerogative is in the existence of the universe and conclude that evolution hasn't been used to show that God doesn't exist when that isn't what it was being used for in the first place. This is just embarrassing.

Deep Sight:
This is why I have set out that which I have set out to you; and it is simple and self evident to see.

POINT NUMBER TWO: Now I should go further to state that when people start out on such a badly mis-footed line of reasoning as I have shown above, they inevitably end up in deeply twisted contradictory conundrums. For that is exactly what happens to le professeur in his article: as he is forced to immediately acknowledge that evolution could not have commenced from nothing. He is forced to recognize that which I argue to you is and always has been the real root of the matter - namely how anything came to exist in the first place. In doing this, le professeur begins to trace backwards the existence of things and ends up with a plaintive plea that he is not a physicist but a biologist, and as such is not concerned with the core of the matter - the beginnings of the universe!

Can nothing actually exist? Merely saying that God did it isn't an explanation. Wait so Dawkins himself said he isn't concerned about the beginning of the universe yet you think that the point of his article was to address it?

Deep Sight:
Now this is just a simple way of saying and admitting exactly what I have argued: namely - that evolution does not and cannot disprove the existence of God (whereas Dawkins wrote that "Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God" ) - and then turns around to effectively admit that his area of expertise, biology, cannot address the question - but that the question must be addressed by physicists!

I'm sorry but how could you have failed to understand that article to this extent? What do you think is the "prerogative of God" that Dawkins was referring to? Not what you think it is but what he was referring to in that article?

Deep Sight:
Hear him in the same article -



Of course the foregoing to the the nuanced mind clearly elucidates everything that I am saying in this respect: namely that whereas Dawkins has advanced Evolution as a factor that dispenses with the existence of God, he, at the conclusion, is forced to admit that his arguments in fact have no place whatsoever with respect to the God question. That in fact, it is the physicists cosmological question that properly addresses the argument. For which the fellow says this is not his area of expertise! What the f/uck then, was he busy writing epistles on evolution about, for which he concludes that the functions of God are therewith "theoretically" obviated?

If you don't understand what he was saying then obviously, you cannot argue against it because all you've done here is to either construct strawmen or show your failure to understand what he wrote. You clearly haven't heard about the argument from design that is held up as evidence for God. Please take the time to look at it. That argument was destroyed by the theory of evolution.

Deep Sight:
I can only end this little intervention with one of his last lines where he states that if there is a cause, it will have to be irreducibly simple. My friend, God is not argued to be complex. God is actually that very irreducibly simple element that is the core of all existence.

God is simple? Is your mind simple? How many simple minds do you know of?

MacDaddy01:


https://www.nairaland.com/1196280/dawkins-vs-deepsight


[s]I did my best. Your comment was disjointed and needed proper editing for a rebuttal (quoting and bolding)

After reading your comments, I have come to the conclusion that you are full of elitist shyt. Nothing you wrote there proves that Dawkins is a dunce. [/s]Rather, you have a hatred for him.

I need to come in at this point.

DeepSight, that you have a "hatred" as LB put it for Dawkins seems obvious to me and Ive mentioned that before. That hatred leads you to chase shadows.

See here, I will repeat my post to you

jayriginal: Deep Sight, I'm surprised at your bile. First of all Richard Dawkins is a very intelligent man and his credentials and credibility are superior to yours (for now at least). That is not to say that you are unintelligent in anyway but to go around bashing him in such a manner is unworthy of you.

From some of your posts, I have been led to believe that you are a man of science (I may be mistaken). You are not wrong for holding contrary views (indeed it is healthy) but your manner of expression in this post leaves a lot to be desired.
I read the article from Dawkins and I didn't get any of the impressions you got. This may be partially due to the fact that I am not a man of science, but its also largely due to the fact that a lot of your rebuttals come from errors of logic and semantic misconstruction (whether deliberate or not).

As KAG pointed out Dawkins may not be the best Philosopher. You made a point somewhere

1. It is well known that the theory of evolution addresses the development of living things and says nothing about the development of the universe and support systems for such living things.


2. The question therefore remains the source or cause of the entire super-system.

These are not quite rebuttals. Dawkins never claimed to have all the answers. If you read the article properly, you would have met this

The details of the early phase of the universe belong to the realm of physics, whereas I am a biologist, more concerned with the later phases of the evolution of complexity

Your post is filled with many instances of this, rebutting or seeming to rebut claims that weren't made.

I'd prefer a more robust debate. We can all learn more from it.
https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9187779

Now everybody has a point to make. If I recall rightly, Enigma says that hearing from Dawkins on theology is like hearing from a lion on vegetables. On your own part, you say he is not addressing the "koko" which is to say, he is not talking about the very beginning but he starts from an existing process and concludes "there is no god" without addressing where that process commences from.

Its all fine and dandy but as I believe I've mentioned before or hinted specifically to Enigma (since he has a tendency to take things very literally), "tender your theology degree". And for the rest, tender your philosophy degree. Every man with thought is a philosopher. A fart could be said to be a product of philosophy (I dare anyone to argue the point).

Bottom line, in my opinion, it was the title of his book that won him this many enemies such that he has been so castigated.

I remember our discussion on the "theoretical" possibility of an eye from "bare skin". You seized upon that, ignoring what Dawkins later said regarding that matter (to my disappointment).

All in all, like I said on the "Darwins Day" thread (I think), your argument is different from that of the theists. Arguing god will not bring it into existence if it is neither will it take god out of existence if it isnt.

A theist says my god did it. You say "a" god did it . That leads to different arguments. In that case then, you ought to hold your own separately because its not the same thing.

Back to Dawkins, he does not conclude that based on evolution there is no god. In fact his article isnt even titled "The Impossibility of God" its titled "The Improbability of God". That says a lot. Dawkins does not assert that there is no god, he just thinks it unlikely. A fine point misunderstood by theists and which had them hooting that he couldnt say there was no god.

Hate him if you will, but dont let that lead you to misunderstand him.

Deep Sight:



And here is the quote you have been waiting for:

Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God.

You are sorely and surely mistaken here my good friend. This then is why I point out to you that your arguments for god and the theists arguments for god are quite different. It probably also explains why thehomer as a matter of principle will usually ask for a definition of "god".

In general and without explanation, the word god is generally understood to be the one of the popular religions. That is not your kind of god. You however come rushing in trying to amalgamate the two and impose your own definition. Not so Sir.

Now concerning the quote above, namely that "Evolution, then, is theoretically capable of doing the job that, once upon a time, seemed to be the prerogative of God.", god here is understood mainly to be the Abrahamic one. The one that created man whole in his image and rested. In other words, no evolution as Dr David argues here. It is that kind of god that excludes evolution that Dawkins is arguing about. You are on record as holding on to the theory of evolution. Your position is that evolution and intelligent design are not mutually exclusive (correct me if I am wrong).

This "god" Dawkins is arguing against isnt your type of god. I am pretty certain he can never say that evolution disproves "god" in the widest sense. It can disprove a certain kind of god though, provided the god created everything (in a few days) and "saw that it was good".

I was replying as I went but I see thehomer quite answered your queries

thehomer:

There is a huge difference between those two statements. The first can be compared to saying that the theory of gravity doesn't need God and the second to saying that the theory of gravity disproves God. Now you wish to run from your previous claim that Dawkins said the theory of evolution disproves God but this is what you said here.


Your mind seems fixated in the idea that whenever Dawkins critiques the idea of a God, the conclusion he must be drawing is that he doesn't exist but that isn't what he was doing at that point.


The paragraphs preceding that quote clearly show what that statement was referring to which is how different species appear to clearly fit in with their environment. It then follows that what he was referring to as "the prerogative of God" is the apparent existence of design in living creatures and not the existence of the universe. How on earth could you have made such an error?


Can nothing actually exist? Merely saying that God did it isn't an explanation. Wait so Dawkins himself said he isn't concerned about the beginning of the universe yet you think that the point of his article was to address it?


If you don't understand what he was saying then obviously, you cannot argue against it because all you've done here is to either construct strawmen or show your failure to understand what he wrote. You clearly haven't heard about the argument from design that is held up as evidence for God. Please take the time to look at it. That argument was destroyed by the theory of evolution.

He is quite right you know?

An observation on the thread "The Improbability of God"

Jenwitemi: I think it is much more apt to change the title of this thread to, "The Improbability of The Jewish/Christian/Islamic God". Because, as i suspect, when atheist make claims that there is no God, they are always meaning the "One True Gods" of the world religions, especially those of the Abrahamic faiths, the 3 middle eastern desert dogmas. Those "Gods" that exist only on the pages of the scriptural texts of these religions. These scriptural Gods can be easily disproved as being responsible for the creation of this reality by the atheists.

https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9200041

Read in line with my earlier comments.

It seems Jayriginal knows how to handle Deepsight best.




DeepSight, your claims about Dawkins are becoming more and more untrue

DeepSight, lol

jayriginal:
Ok, heres the part where I try my hand at amateur psychology.
I get the impression that you have made a deep study of the major religions possibly some occultism as well. I think that the best parts of these religions have made an impression on you and these you have inculcated as well as many ideas original to you. I'm also pretty sure you have studied some atheist material as well. A fine blend of the best of the best, a dose of original thinking, soul searching and meditation and the man is born. We now call him Deep Sight.
https://www.nairaland.com/758572/improbability-god#9223408

jayriginal:

It can disprove a certain kind of god though, provided the god created everything (in a few days) and "saw that it was good".

I sense that this explains Dr David's vehement opposition to evolution. To the point in fact that the good Dr infact asks why (surprisingly so) apes are still around if evolution is true.

. . .

brandy waning

sobriety returning

. . .