Again, you are attacking an argument I didn't make and that Dawkins didn't make.
Haha, well, yes, I do have a habit of that. But I think that the argument is implicit because most of the phraseology was geared towards the non-existence of God, not towards the non-existence of supporting evidence of God.
I can conceive of a god. I simply don't think it is a concept likely to be true - and one for which there certainly is no evidence.
Tsk tsk, how utterly biased. "No evidence"? There's tons of evidence -- it just happens to be all circumstantial. Aside from the great leaping shiteloads of circumstantial evidence, hearsay and eye witness testimony, there is also the historical model that nothing else can be shown to have no creator... which, while not empirically reliable evidence either, supports the circumstantial evidence.
Why would you allow yourself to dismiss the circumstantial evidence of a woman seeing God in a burrito in Tijuana, perhaps as a pychological manifestation of her desire to see God in her burrito; and yet no psychological scrutiny is applied to your own willingness to accept a model of the universe with no physical precedent? Because, try as I might, I can see no distinction at all -- they both look like wings & prayers to me.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
dancing_serpent
Re: DNA, God and SCK
Date: 2007-02-26 06:01 am (UTC)Haha, well, yes, I do have a habit of that. But I think that the argument is implicit because most of the phraseology was geared towards the non-existence of God, not towards the non-existence of supporting evidence of God.
I can conceive of a god. I simply don't think it is a concept likely to be true - and one for which there certainly is no evidence.
Tsk tsk, how utterly biased. "No evidence"? There's tons of evidence -- it just happens to be all circumstantial. Aside from the great leaping shiteloads of circumstantial evidence, hearsay and eye witness testimony, there is also the historical model that nothing else can be shown to have no creator... which, while not empirically reliable evidence either, supports the circumstantial evidence.
Why would you allow yourself to dismiss the circumstantial evidence of a woman seeing God in a burrito in Tijuana, perhaps as a pychological manifestation of her desire to see God in her burrito; and yet no psychological scrutiny is applied to your own willingness to accept a model of the universe with no physical precedent? Because, try as I might, I can see no distinction at all -- they both look like wings & prayers to me.