Letter to Richard Dawkins

[Evo-Creationist]

I have posted this letter to continue to stimulate debate.

I have learned a lot from just a few days on this forum. I would particularly like to thank 'madnak', 'notready' and 'John21' for stepping above my delivery to attempt to address my point.

The following is the actual letter I sent to Dawkins. I noticed the semantic difference and wonder what context it might frame a continuing debate.

Finally, in clarification of some points that arose in my previous thread, I am not debating 'God vs. Evolution'. Further, it was stated that the Big Bang and Evolution have nothing to do with each other. I found that idea stunning only because I suddenly realized that my crystal view of the connection between these two was not shared by any others I have found yet.

If this thread 'goes anywhere', perhaps I should write down why I see the connection and see what happens. Again, thanks for the exciting welcome to the forum -- pretty cool place ya got around here. (Oh, I also play B&M NL for half my income and live in Vegas)


Mr. Dawkins,

I have just read a thought provoking article in which Mr. Dawkins responded to questions from readers.

I have only just recently become aware of Mr. Dawkins work and I find it fascinating how well he handles questions about his beliefs.

However, in the question "If you died and arrived at the gates of Heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism?", Mr. Dawkins literally dodges the real point.

In quoting Bertrand Russell, "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence.", he opens a wonderfully poignant issue. He then goes on to say, "But why is God assumed to care so much about whether you believe in him? Maybe he wants you to be generous, kind, loving, and honest - and never mind what you believe." This is quite trite and beneath his goals of intellectual debate over the issues.

From Mr. Dawkins use of Russell I have this to offer as an important and sincere question. Using Occam's Razor, what is the simplest evidence required to join all reasonable scientists to conclude beyond a doubt that the universe was created by a higher being?

I look forward to a response or reference to this answer should it have been covered properly in other works.

Thank you for your consideration,

XXXXXXXXXXX (told him but can't do it here guys)

[ojc02]

I'd say: "God, you gave me senses and a brain with which to aggregate these senses into concepts and think logically. What would you have concluded in my place?"

[Evo-Creationist]

WOW!

I like your answer I LOT better than Dawkins. Bravo!

I would imagine that God might mention that you a little voice inside you suspected He night exist all along, but it was that brain that kept convincing you otherwise. And then, something like, "No SOUP FOR YOU!" (big trap door opens to hell)

[Evo-Creationist]

On another angle, you must not have kids. If you did, would you let your child(ren) say to you, "C'mon Dad (?), I'm a kid and you made me. What would you do at my age?" Would that fly? For how long?

Just a thought....

[tolbiny]

[ QUOTE ]
On another angle, you must not have kids. If you did, would you let your child(ren) say to you, "C'mon Dad (?), I'm a kid and you made me. What would you do at my age?" Would that fly? For how long?

Just a thought....

[/ QUOTE ]

Basically your not going to be able to out think god. If you die and show up at the pearly gates basically the only thing you can do is admit that you were wrong. do you really have any other options? If god wants to have a spirited (pun intended) debate with you about his existance after you die, you certainly oblige him but in the end all you can say is, I was wrong.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
WOW!

I like your answer I LOT better than Dawkins. Bravo!

I would imagine that God might mention that you a little voice inside you suspected He night exist all along, but it was that brain that kept convincing you otherwise. And then, something like, "No SOUP FOR YOU!" (big trap door opens to hell)

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping he might say: "Y'know, that's a good point... What the heck, come on in, Elvis is having a party in a few minutes."

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
"If you died and arrived at the gates of Heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism?"

[/ QUOTE ]

"Why did you damn me to eternity in hell by not making me a dumb ass? Oh, and since I'm on my way to hell, I might as tell you what a douche you are."

[JayTee]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
WOW!

I like your answer I LOT better than Dawkins. Bravo!

I would imagine that God might mention that you a little voice inside you suspected He night exist all along, but it was that brain that kept convincing you otherwise. And then, something like, "No SOUP FOR YOU!" (big trap door opens to hell)

[/ QUOTE ]

I was hoping he might say: "Y'know, that's a good point... What the heck, come on in, Elvis is having a meth party w/ Ted Haggard in a few minutes."

[/ QUOTE ]

fyp

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
From Mr. Dawkins use of Russell I have this to offer as an important and sincere question. Using Occam's Razor, what is the simplest evidence required to join all reasonable scientists to conclude beyond a doubt that the universe was created by a higher being?

[/ QUOTE ]

To address this point: Science can not (and doesn't try to) prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. Science works by having prevailing theories that are backed by a certain amount of evidence. Those theories are improved upon and more evidence gathered. To prove anything without a doubt would require an infinite amount of evidence.

For god to become accepted as a prevailing theory, there would have to be a great deal of testable evidence, and right now, there's none.

The problem (as has been mentioned before) is that God (like the FSM) is not falsifiable, and so must be disregarded.

[Skidoo]

"I created my own theory of the universe, and I saw that it was good."

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]

For god to become accepted as a prevailing theory, there would have to be a great deal of testable evidence, and right now, there's none.

The problem (as has been mentioned before) is that God (like the FSM) is not falsifiable, and so must be disregarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's actually much "worse" than that. There is no coherent, non-contradictory *definition* of "god." Therefore, there exists no evidence of god because no such evidence can possibly exist. The statement "god exists" is neither true nor false; rather it is an arbitrary, meaningless claim.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
There is no coherent, non-contradictory *definition* of "god."

[/ QUOTE ]

God is the creator of the universe.

[revots33]

[ QUOTE ]

I would imagine that God might mention that you a little voice inside you suspected He night exist all along, but it was that brain that kept convincing you otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]

Damn, I KNEW that time I hit a 1-outer on the river, it was god looking out for me! But my brain talked me out of it. It would be so much easier to believe without a brain.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no coherent, non-contradictory *definition* of "god."

[/ QUOTE ]

God is the creator of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a definition. If I asked you what is the definition of a "wheel" it would not suffice to answer "a wheel enables a car to travel." It's not a definition even though the statement is (in this example) true.

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
Mr. Dawkins,

I have just read a thought provoking article in which Mr. Dawkins responded to questions from readers.

I have only just recently become aware of Mr. Dawkins work and I find it fascinating how well he handles questions about his beliefs.

However, in the question "If you died and arrived at the gates of Heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism?", Mr. Dawkins literally dodges the real point.

In quoting Bertrand Russell, "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence.", he opens a wonderfully poignant issue. He then goes on to say, "But why is God assumed to care so much about whether you believe in him? Maybe he wants you to be generous, kind, loving, and honest - and never mind what you believe." This is quite trite and beneath his goals of intellectual debate over the issues.

From Mr. Dawkins use of Russell I have this to offer as an important and sincere question. Using Occam's Razor, what is the simplest evidence required to join all reasonable scientists to conclude beyond a doubt that the universe was created by a higher being?

I look forward to a response or reference to this answer should it have been covered properly in other works.

Thank you for your consideration,

[/ QUOTE ]

Did you really write a letter to Dawkins that refers to him in the third person?

[Silent A]

[ QUOTE ]
In quoting Bertrand Russell, "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence.", he opens a wonderfully poignant issue. He then goes on to say, "But why is God assumed to care so much about whether you believe in him? Maybe he wants you to be generous, kind, loving, and honest - and never mind what you believe." This is quite trite and beneath his goals of intellectual debate over the issues.

[/ QUOTE ]

His answer may not have been ideal, but it's prefectly legitimate and far from trite. The idea that the creator of the universe, assumeing it exists, puts value on whether or not we believe in it is a major assumption that theists need to justify first.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
However, in the question "If you died and arrived at the gates of Heaven, what would you say to God to justify your lifelong atheism?", Mr. Dawkins literally dodges the real point.

In quoting Bertrand Russell, "Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence.", he opens a wonderfully poignant issue. He then goes on to say, "But why is God assumed to care so much about whether you believe in him? Maybe he wants you to be generous, kind, loving, and honest - and never mind what you believe." This is quite trite and beneath his goals of intellectual debate over the issues.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would say 'Hello.' What would you say to justify your lifelong aFSMism when the FSM greets you in the afterlife ?

[ QUOTE ]
Using Occam's Razor, what is the simplest evidence required to join all reasonable scientists to conclude beyond a doubt that the universe was created by a higher being?

[/ QUOTE ]
Wow, is that ever ambiguous. Created by a higher being ? Your hypotheses, you propose the testable features of it.

[Praxis101]

Nicely stated question OP,

"Not enough evidence, God, not enough evidence."
The simplest evidence should probably go unnamed, as individuals will each have their own unique sets of evidence that sway their particular perspective on things.

Reasonable scientists will have to pursue this question without the use of scientific method in the classical sense – as there are no experiments that can be done (as far as I can convceive.) However, as individual creatures living on this earth – if we can be very observant of our environment, our own thoughts, and our own urges: we can each come to our own tentative stance on the issue.

From the short time I’ve had here on earth, I can say that nothing points me towards the belief in a higher power – I just do not see the evidence, I do not feel the urge to believe, and I do not find myself feeling the presence of some greater being in this sense - I simply cannot conceive it from what I've been given here on earth. However, my case, my particular journey in life that has caused me to reach this stance, is entirely unique, and I cannot expect anyone to share the same ideas.

There is no concrete evidence, there never will be (my guess) – arguments regarding the existence of God will never pass beyond a reasonable doubt, and each individual will have to listen to himself (or herself /images/graemlins/cool.gif.)

If you ask me, imposing ideas and “evidence” is only an obstacle for each individual’s personal, clear, natural instincts to decide for themselves (which, as discussed, seems to be the only reasonable way of producing a valid thought in this area.)

[Praxis101]

Or I suppose you can skip my whole post, as ojc seems to have summed it up simpler /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

[Hoya]

I don't think believing in something is a choice, so I'd simply tell the truth - there was nothing I could do about it.

[Evo-Creationist]

To Hoya -

Wow, I've never seen that opinion before.

Did you ever believe in Santa - Tooth Fairy - Ghosts - Boogeyman, or that someone loved you - or you loved them?


To Silent A -

DOH! No I didn't. I addressed it to "Dawkins.net team". I can't explain how I made that mistake when I pasted it in the post. (shrug)


To ojc02

[ QUOTE ]
To address this point: Science can not (and doesn't try to) prove anything beyond a shadow of a doubt. Science works by having prevailing theories that are backed by a certain amount of evidence. Those theories are improved upon and more evidence gathered. To prove anything without a doubt would require an infinite amount of evidence.

For god to become accepted as a prevailing theory, there would have to be a great deal of testable evidence, and right now, there's none.

The problem (as has been mentioned before) is that God (like the FSM) is not falsifiable, and so must be disregarded.

[/ QUOTE ]

The point about beyond a doubt is well taken. However, since the semantics are important, I asked 'to join all reasonable scientists beyond a doubt'.

In that regard wouldn't, 'George W. Bush is the President of the United States' also fit the context?

And Bluesbassman---

[ QUOTE ]
It's actually much "worse" than that. There is no coherent, non-contradictory *definition* of "god." Therefore, there exists no evidence of god because no such evidence can possibly exist. The statement "god exists" is neither true nor false; rather it is an arbitrary, meaningless claim.

[/ QUOTE ]

And Bluesbassman--- please note, I posed "Using Occam's Razor, what is the simplest evidence required to join all reasonable scientists to conclude beyond a doubt that the universe was created by a higher being?

There's that pesky 'ole Reticular I wrote about in my previous thread.

[bluesbassman]

[ QUOTE ]
And Bluesbassman--- please note, I posed "Using Occam's Razor, what is the simplest evidence required to join all reasonable scientists to conclude beyond a doubt that the universe was created by a higher being?

There's that pesky 'ole Reticular I wrote about in my previous thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, precisely, do you mean by a "higher being?" Since a "being" is some type of organism, do you mean a really really clever alien that created the universe? But how would some powerful alien create the entire universe, while being a part of it? If you don't define "higher being" to be a powerful organism, then what exactly DO you mean?

The point of all this is that you can't, even in principle, (or even using Occams Razor, a concept you misapply) ask for scientific evidence of an incoherent concept.

[Hoya]

Evo,

Do you think that you choose whether to believe something or not? I heard all the arguments for and against God, and I don't believe he exists. I didn't actively choose that - I'm not exactly sure what determines "belief," but choice suggests something that you can decide to change, or at least try to. I see no way to apply that to a belief.

IMO, it would be similar to saying that I "choose" to prefer the tase of one food over another. In reality, I have no control over the matter.

This is why the necessity of belief always struck me as so foolish. Basing salvation on something that isn't a matter of choice seems absurd. I suppose you could also argue that certain people are inherently more apt to be kind or generous as well. Even that isn't completely a matter of choice.

[ojc02]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is no coherent, non-contradictory *definition* of "god."

[/ QUOTE ]

God is the creator of the universe.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's not a definition. If I asked you what is the definition of a "wheel" it would not suffice to answer "a wheel enables a car to travel." It's not a definition even though the statement is (in this example) true.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's also contradictory. The universe is everything that exists. How can something have existed to create all that exists?

If that's your definition of God then he can not exist because his definition is contradictory.

[Evo-Creationist]

Well Bluesbassman-

If you don't know what context 'higher being' is meant in this question, you don't want to answer it. If you do want to answer it: Something beyond scientific to the supernatural is my definition. That kicks your picture of an 'alien' our higher organism out.

Also, The principle of Occam's Razor exactly applies here as well.

[ QUOTE ]
Occam's razor states that the explanation of any phenomenon should make as few assumptions as possible, eliminating, or "shaving off", those that make no difference in the observable predictions of the explanatory hypothesis or theory. In short, when given two equally valid explanations for a phenomenon, one should embrace the less complicated formulation.

[/ QUOTE ]

The currently held scientific beliefs state there is no supernatural nature to anything because there is no evidence. That is the basis for my question.

Since you disagree, you have a different opinion on the use of the Razor, remove it from your response.

To Hoya-

[ QUOTE ]
Do you think that you choose whether to believe something or not?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes.
[ QUOTE ]
I heard all the arguments for and against God, and I don't believe he exists. I didn't actively choose that - I'm not exactly sure what determines "belief," but choice suggests something that you can decide to change, or at least try to. I see no way to apply that to a belief.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is exactly my point about the danger of the Reticular Activation System (RAS) I posted in the previous thread. You don't see any value in changing your mind, so you don't. You just said that you have seen all the evidence and don't believe. Well, I assume you didn't believe before hand, so why even listen 'to the arguments'?

Listening to the 'arguments' about the spiritual is like reasoning whether you believe in romantic love. If you don't believe love exists, it doesn't for you. Following that, you will reclassify any feelings that others call 'love' and miss out on a large part of joy in life. And even Forrest Gump 'knows what love is.'

[Hoya]

I don't think you are following, Evo. Even if I wanted to believe in God, I couldn't. I didn't believe or not believe in God before I heard arguments one way or the other, since my parents never talked to me much about the issue - although they did at religous school (I'm Jewish, if the av didn't tip you off). But I never chose one way or the other - for whatever reason something clicked in my head saying "not true."

As I said, I'm not sure that belief in God is any more of a choice than taste in music.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
If you don't know what context 'higher being' is meant in this question, you don't want to answer it. If you do want to answer it: Something beyond scientific to the supernatural is my definition.

[/ QUOTE ]
Supernatural (http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/supernatural) (American Heritage Dictionary) - Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

Supernatural (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernatural) - The supernatural (Latin: super- "above" + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are not observable in nature, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement. Though supernatural refers chiefly to the cause of phenomena (an interpretation), if a phenomenon can be demonstrated, it is typically no longer considered to be supernatural.

You are asking what evidence can be shown to demonstrate the existence of something that, by definition, leaves no evidence we can observe ? That's absurd. Or do you have a non-standard definition of supernatural ?

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
Evo,

Do you think that you choose whether to believe something or not? I heard all the arguments for and against God, and I don't believe he exists. I didn't actively choose that - I'm not exactly sure what determines "belief," but choice suggests something that you can decide to change, or at least try to. I see no way to apply that to a belief.

IMO, it would be similar to saying that I "choose" to prefer the tase of one food over another. In reality, I have no control over the matter.

This is why the necessity of belief always struck me as so foolish. Basing salvation on something that isn't a matter of choice seems absurd. I suppose you could also argue that certain people are inherently more apt to be kind or generous as well. Even that isn't completely a matter of choice.

[/ QUOTE ]

That point bugs me even more than it bugs you. On the other hand most religious people disbelieve or are not certain it is true. So why make a big deal about it if the suject is God in general?

[David Sklansky]

[ QUOTE ]
On another angle, you must not have kids. If you did, would you let your child(ren) say to you, "C'mon Dad (?), I'm a kid and you made me. What would you do at my age?" Would that fly? For how long?

Just a thought....

[/ QUOTE ]

If nothing else this forum should teach you to make good analogies. And this is a terrible one. Fathers haven't designed their children. You are using the word "made" in two different ways.

[Evo-Creationist]

[ QUOTE ]
Supernatural (American Heritage Dictionary) - Of or relating to existence outside the natural world.

Supernatural - The supernatural (Latin: super- "above" + nature) refers to forces and phenomena which are not observable in nature, and therefore beyond verifiable measurement. Though supernatural refers chiefly to the cause of phenomena (an interpretation), if a phenomenon can be demonstrated, it is typically no longer considered to be supernatural.

You are asking what evidence can be shown to demonstrate the existence of something that, by definition, leaves no evidence we can observe ? That's absurd. Or do you have a non-standard definition of supernatural ?

[/ QUOTE ]

While they may be beyond verifiable measurement, the value of scientific research of them may still exist. Here are some examples as support:

Time - While it can be measured, it's measurement is relative.

Multiple dimensions - Used in conjunction with quantam mechanics - 'the physics beneath the physical world'

Black Holes - Would they still exist if we could not observe behaviors around them or measure x-rays?

So then, just because we cannot measure something does not mean it does not exist. It means we cannot currently measure it. Which does nothing to negate its potential to the world.

After the concept of what we now call a Black Hole was founded in the late 18th century, nothing happened. Einstein's theory predicted them, nothing happened. In the late 60's, the formal research was begun and we know them today. WHY? Because the 'collective' Reticular was opened.

But you were just 'trolling' my response to a different question. Possibly this forum is just a big pyramid scheme for strawman arguments where David and Mason get paid for anyone who responds to that kind of rhetoric.

[ QUOTE ]
If nothing else this forum should teach you to make good analogies.

[/ QUOTE ]

point taken

[ QUOTE ]
And this is a terrible one. Fathers haven't designed their children. You are using the word "made" in two different ways.

[/ QUOTE ]

David analogies are contextual and subjective. They require the knowledge of the subject matter by the target. It is in the manner that I am correct on both levels.

I made a 'terrible' analogy that made the exact point philosophically. Son is to Father as _______________ is to God.

And of course a Father designs his child - by his DNA. Maybe not in a transitive verb kind of way and with cooperation of the egg. However, we do use DNA testing to determine heritage. If it is not design we recognize in this, what is it, David.

Finally, from the view of the child 'made' is exactly correct. And in the context of Dawkins at the Gates of Heaven, he is son before Father as well.

Does anyone want to answer the question I posed to Dawkins or just parse and troll?

[vhawk01]

None of the things you listed were supernatural. They might be unexplained, or not fully understood, but they aren't supernatural. You enjoy playing the 'mix and match meanings midstream' game.

And several people have answered the question you posed, so stop repeatedly claiming no one is addressing your points. You did it in your other thread, you are doing it now. If you honestly don't think anyone has responded with what they would say to God, then you started this thread with sinister motives.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
Further, it was stated that the Big Bang and Evolution have nothing to do with each other. I found that idea stunning only because I suddenly realized that my crystal view of the connection between these two was not shared by any others I have found yet.

[/ QUOTE ]

This could be an interesting discussion. I would suggest a new thread.

[Skidoo]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone want to answer the question I posed to Dawkins or just parse and troll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful, only someone of the minority opinion can be a troll.

[Evo-Creationist]

I'm coming to realize that the majority of responses just come from out of nowhere with absolutely to context to the thread. (can you tell I'm new?)

[ QUOTE ]

None of the things you listed were supernatural. They might be unexplained, or not fully understood, but they aren't supernatural. You enjoy playing the 'mix and match meanings midstream' game.

And several people have answered the question you posed, so stop repeatedly claiming no one is addressing your points. You did it in your other thread, you are doing it now. If you honestly don't think anyone has responded with what they would say to God, then you started this thread with sinister motives.

[/ QUOTE ]

Your response completely missed my focus on the injected and out of context meaning of the supernatural. Bluebassman injected the definition of the supernatural into this thread.

You go on to accuse me of not knowing what question I asked at the beginning of the thread.

I never posed the question you picked. But there isn't any need to pay attention, because as Disraeli said, 'It's much easier to be critical than it is to be correct.'

[ QUOTE ]
Careful, only someone of the minority opinion can be a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]


Now, if you're serious, that is the scariest evidence for my point about the danger of Reticular generated ignorance. If you're not, I'm correct in trolling implies an intent to harass and pick with no intention of making a point- to 'sucker' me by an implicit collusion that I don't know I'm just being messed with.



[ QUOTE ]
Further, it was stated that the Big Bang and Evolution have nothing to do with each other. I found that idea stunning only because I suddenly realized that my crystal view of the connection between these two was not shared by any others I have found yet.



This could be an interesting discussion. I would suggest a new thread.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks arahant. Though, there doesn't seem to be much discussion room for discussion yet. Too much vain intellectual heckling so far.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone want to answer the question I posed to Dawkins or just parse and troll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful, only someone of the minority opinion can be a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]
While this is probably nearly always true, the vast majority of those with the minority opinion are not trolls. So whats your point?

[Evo-Creationist]

Oh, I almost forgot. Extra dimensions not supernatural? In the context of the heat i'm fading? Where is the eye-roll emoticon?

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone want to answer the question I posed to Dawkins or just parse and troll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful, only someone of the minority opinion can be a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe...I like that. Quite trenchant.

EVO - didn't realize you were putting the question to us.


I THINK that reasonable scientists would demand that you provide a definition of 'higher being'. Until you give this definition, they would be unable to tell you what sort of evidence was required.

If you define the 'higher being' solely as 'the thing which led to the existence of the universe', then there is no evidence that can be presented, because the action of the 'higher being' is completed, and by definition, EVERYTHING that we see came AFTER the creation of the universe.

If you define the 'higher being' as something that not only created the universe, but continues to intercede in the development of things, then falsifiable predictions can be made. The evidence required would depend on the nature of the supposed activities of this being.

And just to clarify your question for the future...there is no such thing as a 'minimum amount of evidence'. Evidence isn't something that exists as discrete particles, where we can say, "I need three evidences to accept X". Scientists would look at 2 competing theories, and compare the relative strength of evidence.

BTW, If the 'higher being' is just responsible for creating the universe, I don't think 'scientists' care. Things that are definitionally outside our ability to know are irrelevant. For that matter, it becomes a question of semantics. The universe began, and you can attach whatever words you want to this.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Oh, I almost forgot. Extra dimensions not supernatural? In the context of the heat i'm fading? Where is the eye-roll emoticon?

[/ QUOTE ]

The only parts of any sort of theory of extra dimensions that science is concerned with are the natural parts. If there is a supernatural element to it, it NOT under scientific investigation. You gave a list of things which you claimed were under the purview of science but could be considered supernatural. The phrase 'extra dimensions' is a pretty encompassing term, but only the parts of it which are NOT supernatural fit in the category you put it in.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone want to answer the question I posed to Dawkins or just parse and troll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Careful, only someone of the minority opinion can be a troll.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hehe...I like that. Quite trenchant.

EVO - didn't realize you were putting the question to us.


I THINK that reasonable scientists would demand that you provide a definition of 'higher being'. Until you give this definition, they would be unable to tell you what sort of evidence was required.

If you define the 'higher being' solely as 'the thing which led to the existence of the universe', then there is no evidence that can be presented, because the action of the 'higher being' is completed, and by definition, EVERYTHING that we see came AFTER the creation of the universe.

If you define the 'higher being' as something that not only created the universe, but continues to intercede in the development of things, then falsifiable predictions can be made. The evidence required would depend on the nature of the supposed activities of this being.

And just to clarify your question for the future...there is no such thing as a 'minimum amount of evidence'. Evidence isn't something that exists as discrete particles, where we can say, "I need three evidences to accept X". Scientists would look at 2 competing theories, and compare the relative strength of evidence.

BTW, If the 'higher being' is just responsible for creating the universe, I don't think 'scientists' care. Things that are definitionally outside our ability to know are irrelevant. For that matter, it becomes a question of semantics. The universe began, and you can attach whatever words you want to this.

[/ QUOTE ]

In other words, if you are going to pose vague questions with multiple legitimate interpretations that smell fishy, and then refuse to define terms and answer queries, and then go on to be surprised that no one is willing to answer a question that they don't exactly understand and may very well not be the actual question being asked....I lost my train of thought but its something to do with this being your fault and not ours.

[benjdm]

[ QUOTE ]
While they may be beyond verifiable measurement, the value of scientific research of them may still exist. Here are some examples as support:

Time - While it can be measured, it's measurement is relative.

[/ QUOTE ]
Time is a feature of the natural universe and is natural. While its passage is relative to the observer, it can very much be measured as well.
[ QUOTE ]
Multiple dimensions - Used in conjunction with quantam mechanics - 'the physics beneath the physical world'

[/ QUOTE ]
Unkown if they exist or not. If they affect the observable universe, they would be natural.

[ QUOTE ]
Black Holes - Would they still exist if we could not observe behaviors around them or measure x-rays?

[/ QUOTE ]
Of course. They affect the observable universe, and are natural. What happens inside the event horizon of a black hole is very unknown.

You are completely missing my point. A completely independent space-time, where Xenutians conduct weapons tests that each individually generate a wholly independent space time as a side-effect, would be a supernatural reality. This would represent a competing hypotheses to a God hypotheses. The hypotheses would be more likely than a God hypotheses because weapons testing is a known phenomena, which is one more known phenomena than is involved in a God hypotheses.

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone want to answer the question I posed to Dawkins or just parse and troll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Your initial question is ambiguous and your clarification renders it unintelligible. Don't blame your audience.

[BPA234]

"This is exactly my point about the danger of the Reticular Activation System (RAS) I posted in the previous thread. You don't see any value in changing your mind, so you don't. You just said that you have seen all the evidence and don't believe. Well, I assume you didn't believe before hand, so why even listen 'to the arguments'?"

RAS, as you define it, cuts both ways. I would also say that you can more safely assume the opposite of what you wrote, most atheists were "believers" who are now "non-believers."

[Evo-Creationist]

BP-

That is the most ridicullous statement I have seen on this board yet. Just think of the math and logic you just pissed on to write that statement.

My question was far from ambiguous.

This forum is a joke and I am the only one who gets it. One thing is certain, I won't be back or missed.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
BP-

That is the most ridicullous statement I have seen on this board yet. Just think of the math and logic you just pissed on to write that statement.

My question was far from ambiguous.

This forum is a joke and I am the only one who gets it. One thing is certain, I won't be back or missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, one of those things are certain.

[Rduke55]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
BP-

That is the most ridicullous statement I have seen on this board yet. Just think of the math and logic you just pissed on to write that statement.

My question was far from ambiguous.

This forum is a joke and I am the only one who gets it. One thing is certain, I won't be back or missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, one of those things are certain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Beat me to it.

[IronUnkind]

[ QUOTE ]
That point bugs me even more than it bugs you. On the other hand most religious people disbelieve or are not certain it is true. So why make a big deal about it if the suject is God in general?

[/ QUOTE ]

David and others:

I will not go so far as to say that an individual can will himself into religious belief, but sometimes conscious action can elicit emotional response. For instance, being happy makes you smile, but it's also true that the act of smiling can make you happy. That this also works for tastebuds belies the above poster's analogy.

[arahant]

[ QUOTE ]
This forum is a joke and I am the only one who gets it. One thing is certain, I won't be back or missed.

[/ QUOTE ]

Boy, that's a shame.

[BPA234]

You: "This is exactly my point about the danger of the Reticular Activation System (RAS) I posted in the previous thread. You don't see any value in changing your mind, so you don't. You just said that you have seen all the evidence and don't believe. Well, I assume you didn't believe before hand, so why even listen 'to the arguments'?"

ME: RAS, as you define it, cuts both ways. I would also say that you can more safely assume the opposite of what you wrote, most atheists were "believers" who are now "non-believers."

You: "BP-

That is the most ridicullous statement I have seen on this board yet. Just think of the math and logic you just pissed on to write that statement.

My question was far from ambiguous.

This forum is a joke and I am the only one who gets it. One thing is certain, I won't be back or missed."

I think you are confused. If not, please explain.

[BPA234]

"Using Occam's Razor, what is the simplest evidence required to join all reasonable scientists to conclude beyond a doubt that the universe was created by a higher being?"

Another example of existence, just like the ours, except with artistic differences and of either lesser or greater quality.

[drudman]

[ QUOTE ]
Does anyone want to answer the question I posed to Dawkins or just parse and troll?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dawkins answer (and mine) is very simple. Currently, Dawkins reason for believing that God is not the simplest explanation for the universe is that the universe is an extremely complex entity - one that requires an extremely good answer to the question, "why does it exist as it does at all?" If the universe is this complex, then any entity intelligent and powerful enough to create it is AT LEAST as complex as the universe itself! Therefore, the "designer" would require an even more pressing an complex answer to the question, "why does the designer exist as it does at all?" Because God is an entity that is defined as being extremely (if not infinitely) complex AND simultaneously "the entity from which all creations flow" (I'm quoting hymnals), it cannot be an adequate answer.

I'm not sure if there are any empirical observations that could be repeatedly verified in controlled environments that would do anything to eliminate this simple problem for "designer" arguments.