Richard Dawkins Calls O'Reilly Dumbass.

[Skeletor]

The simple answer is this: Creationism claims that complex natural life forms can only be created by a supernatural creator. But, if that is the case, Creationism is outside the realm of science, since science doesn't deal with the supernatural. Therefore, creationism, by definition, isn't a scientific theory.

The same argument holds for the "more scientific" variant of Creationism, called "Intelligent Design":

Intelligent Design claims that complex natural life forms can only be created by something it terms a designing intelligence. OK... so, let's contemplate that for a bit.

If we allow the creating intelligence to be natural, by our original premise, it too must have a creating intelligence that created it, and so on. We're left with an infinite regress. So, how to go about breaking it? Well, maybe we could posit a supernatural creating intelligence. But, if we take that option we instantly take Intelligent Design outside the realm of science, and thus automatically forfeit equal status to scientific theories. So, that's no good.

The other option, is to accept that the designing intelligence can arise solely out of natural processes, which clearly contradicts the original premise of Intelligent Design, so that's out the door too.

Dang it. No matter what we do,  Intelligent Design ends up being either self-contradictory or non-scientific. It's out too.

I hope this helps.  

Solid post.

[SF1900]

I'm not saying anything either way. Like you say "Who knows".

BUT .. it sounds like you know that God is definitely out. Is that true?

Not even Dawkins says God is DEFINITELY out. Dawkins has been saying that he can't prove for a 100% fact that God doesnt exist, but he is certain with, say, a 99.9% chance that a God doesn't exist. For Dawkins, and for most atheists, those are pretty good odds. But no one can know for certain and that isnt really a valid argument.

[OneMoreRep]

It doesn't take a genius like Dawkins to own the shit out of O'Reilly.  There have been talented high school students who have had but mere 3 minute interviews with him on his show who have actually owned him into oblivion via facts and by using O'Reilly's book to show incongruency with his present-day statements.

If you ever want to see O'Reilly struggling to find logic while pretending to argue, look up any clips of him debating matters of faith with Bill Maher.

"1"

[asbrus]

  It is amazing how this Bein Stein idiot misconstrued everything that Dawkins said to make it seem like Dawkins was advocating intelligent design, when nothing could be further from the truth. Epic self-ownage by "Coach" who is just as dumb as Bein Stein.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

L0L BEN STEIN IS THE BIGGEST FUCKING M0R0N 0N T.V. THERE IS. THIS IS THEY GUY THAT SAID THE BANKS ARE D0ING GREAT A WEEK BEF0RE THE C0LLAPSE. IN THIS INTERVIEW N0 WHERE D0ES DAWKINS SAY HE BELIEVES IN A CREAT0R. HE SAYS IT'S P0SSIBLE THAT AN0THER CIVILIZATI0N CREATED US BUT IT D0SEN'T MEAN THAT CIVILIZATI0N CREATED EVERYTHING IN THE UNIVERSE. FUCK BEN STEIN IS AS DUMB AS THE PE0PLE IN THIS F0RUM.

BEN ALS0 C0NTRADICTS HIMSELF BY SAYING WELL WH0 CREATED US? WELL BEN THEN WH0 CREATED G0D?

[NarcissisticDeity]

I'm not saying anything either way. Like you say "Who knows".

BUT .. it sounds like you know that God is definitely out. Is that true?

To claim is God is definitely out is to claim to have knowledge of everything ( ironically religion unabashedly claims this ) but we do know and can prove there was a singularity and that it expanded , of someone says God was the reason , they leave the scientific method and enter theology which doesn't need to prove it's position just merely have faith it's true.

Any theological claims can't be applied to the scientific method , you say God caused the inflation , I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it , you can't prove me wrong and I can't prove you wrong , Hell Zeus may have caused the inflation for all we know , as long as anyone believes it , it them becomes possible with ' faith ' or belief

[RadOncDoc]

Solid post.

Not sure how this is a solid post. Creation science is dismissed by a clever definition, not because it can't provide an explanation for observable events in nature. That's just an easy cop out that atheistic evolutionists use because they don't believe in God in the first place. It reminds me of the old Aquinas argument for the existence of God...namely, that God by definition is the greatest possible conceivable being. To be the greatest possible being, you must exist. Therefore, God exists. Huh?

[CigaretteMan]

 This is not even the issue. Science doesen't need to be able to prove everything for we to reject logically implausible hypothesis. But science can prove most observational phenomena. What science cannot prove are things that belong to the realm of abstraction. For instance, mathematics can define the laws that govern physical reality quite accurately, but what explains mathematics at the conceptual level and why it can explain reality? What is the concept of a quantity(the number 1) intrinsically? What is the number zero(nothingness) intrinsically? We can define matter as all property that has mass and identify it's components as particles, but what is mass in itself? What is anything in itself - what Kant called the thing in itself? We cannot know what happened before the Big Bang because it is a question that belongs purely to the realm of abstraction. Time can only exist where there is mass(something) and it cannot exist without it. How can time pass where there is nothing? So for us to answer these questions we need to know how concepts relate to our physical reality. It is more something that belongs to philosophy rather than physics...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

  This seriously d best post ive read on getbig period....the best in all the years i have been here......

[NarcissisticDeity]

Not sure how this is a solid post. Creation science is dismissed by a clever definition, not because it can't provide an explanation for observable events in nature. That's just an easy cop out that atheistic evolutionists use because they don't believe in God in the first place. It reminds me of the old Aquinas argument for the existence of God...namely, that God by definition is the greatest possible conceivable being. To be the greatest possible being, you must exist. Therefore, God exists. Huh?

Creationism and Intelligent design have had their day in court and failed , it's not science even though it claims to be , it's pseudoscience , it's junk and fails on so many levels.

[Radical Plato]

  "The scientist's quest is a tragic one: to climb the highest peaks, until the highest of them all, only to find the religious mystic at the top of it."

  I read this quote from some famous scientist. I will try to discover from who it is.

SUCKMYMUSCLE

Well, I would just push that religious Mystic Nut right off the Mountain just to prove gravity works.

[RadOncDoc]

Creationism and Intelligent design have had their day in court and failed , it's not science even though it claims to be , it's pseudoscience , it's junk and fails on so many levels.

Cool, now's your chance to show us how! I'll give ya' 30 minutes to write it up. No cut and paste . (and please no pictues of Dorian).

[Parker]

What I'm saying is science, CAN prove everything.  We don't have an understanding of the science yet.  It's just waiting to be found or unearthed...You are correct.  It's no different then thousands of years ago when the unexplained would be attributed to a supernatural power...That hasn't stopped science from progressing IMO although I see more for profit vs. in the name of science today.

Thousands of hrs ago, things were still explained by science and Math, Algebra, Pythagorus (sp), etc.
Pyramids and Statues had to built somehow. They just had "The Gods" to explain morality, and things that are out of their control, "If the Gods will it."

[NarcissisticDeity]

Well, I would just push that religious Mystic Nut right off the Mountain just to prove gravity works.

lmfao 

[avxo]

We cannot know what happened before the Big Bang because it is a question that belongs purely to the realm of abstraction.

Actually, that's not entirely accurate. It's not really an issue of abstraction per se. First of all, it's not even sensible to speak in terms of "what happened before the Big Bang" since time, temporal ordering and causality are intrinsic properties of the Universe we live in, which came into existence with the Big Bang. The concept of "before" is meaningless when there is no time.

This points to the larger issue of talking about what happened "before" the Big Bang, even if we do come up with some "sensible" definition of before for the purposes of this discussion.

[suckmymuscle]

Well, I would just push that religious Mystic Nut right off the Mountain just to prove gravity works.

  

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Radical Plato]

Creationism and Intelligent design have had their day in court and failed , it's not science even though it claims to be , it's pseudoscience , it's junk and fails on so many levels.

I agree, religion is childish nonsense for the simple minded, when will people think for themselves or even pick up a decent book. The concept of God is just a childish longing for Father.  Answer: S = 9, E = 5, N = 6, D = 7, M = 1, O = 0, R = 8, Y = 2

Grow Up God Botherers, Nobody Intelligent wants to hear your make believe Nonsense.

[daddy8ball]

To claim is God is definitely out is to claim to have knowledge of everything ( ironically religion unabashedly claims this ) but we do know and can prove there was a singularity and that it expanded , of someone says God was the reason , they leave the scientific method and enter theology which doesn't need to prove it's position just merely have faith it's true.

Any theological claims can't be applied to the scientific method , you say God caused the inflation , I say the Flying Spaghetti Monster did it , you can't prove me wrong and I can't prove you wrong , Hell Zeus may have caused the inflation for all we know , as long as anyone believes it , it them becomes possible with ' faith ' or belief

god, batman, spaghetti monster, urkle, gumby...whatever..let's just call it "intelligent entity"

and, science can "prove" a singularity expanded? then why are they constantly revising the relatively trivial issue of "dark matter"? just a thought. and what's up w/ those faster than light particles? all bullshit?

bottom line: if a human could PROVE...PROVE god existed, or didn't then he/she would be the most famous person in all of history.

does that person exist among getbiggers? i would not be surprised!

[avxo]

To claim is God is definitely out is to claim to have knowledge of everything

Nonsense. I know a square circle is definitely out, and I don't need knowledge of everything to claim it. The problem with the statement you attack is that the term "God" is nebulous and meaningless. For a given concrete definition of God, it is definitely possible to say "God, as defined here, is out" with absolute certainty. Just like it's possible to say that square circles don't exist with absolute certainty.

[tbombz]

the construct of the universe is such that finding an answer to its origins is impossible. but it is fact that if such an answer does exist, that answer is god. it may very well be that there is no answer.. if the universe is an eternal entity, self sustaining, with no creator.. then asking about its origins is non-sensical. but, and this is an important point, if there is an answer, that answer is god. this is undebatable. it doesnt prove anything, but its fact.

[avxo]

Not sure how this is a solid post. Creation science is dismissed by a clever definition, not because it can't provide an explanation for observable events in nature. That's just an easy cop out that atheistic evolutionists use because they don't believe in God in the first place. It reminds me of the old Aquinas argument for the existence of God...namely, that God by definition is the greatest possible conceivable being. To be the greatest possible being, you must exist. Therefore, God exists. Huh?

That's not the same thing at all. The fact is that the supernatural is beyond the realm of science. If Creationism involves a supernatural creator -- as it does -- it's outside the realm of science. And if Intelligent design claims that an intelligent designer is a necessary prerequisite and that what we observe cannot simply have evolved, then, it's legitimate to ask how ID explains the existence of the intelligent designer himself. The answer ends up being that ID is either inconsistent or unscientific. It's simple logic. No "clever definitions" or cheap parlor tricks.

[NarcissisticDeity]

Cool, now's your chance to show us how! I'll give ya' 30 minutes to write it up. No cut and paste . (and please no pictues of Dorian).

I already have  intelligent design leads back to a creator , which leaves the scientific method and becomes theology , science deals with the natural world not the unnatural or supernatural world

intelligent design proponents tried to use science to prove God was ultimately responsible and it failed the scientific method , you don't want no CCP  to prove my point? then I don't know what to tell you , I don't have to show you anything , you're making a claim to the contrary if you think you can prove science wrong then submit your thesis for peer review and claim your Nobel prize and collect your fame & riches

I don't entertain creationists , they had their shot and got beat down and then returned with intelligent design and took another beating , a laugh at creationists and their beliefs

[suckmymuscle]

Actually, that's not entirely accurate. It's not really an issue of abstraction per se. First of all, it's not even sensible to speak in terms of "what happened before the Big Bang" since time, temporal ordering and causality are intrinsic properties of the Universe we live in, which came into existence with the Big Bang. The concept of "before" is meaningless when there is no time.

This points to the larger issue of talking about what happened "before" the Big Bang, even if we do come up with some "sensible" definition of before for the purposes of this discussion.

  Yes, it is a problem of semantics, the nature of logic and what exactly is the relation between concepts and reality. Maybe the deeper we dig into the intrinsic properties of reality, the closer and closer it becomes to abstract concepts until at the end we find that the ultimate substrate of reality has no property besides being a pure concept(a thought). So reality is at least partially perceptual. But the reason why I brought up time is because many people assume that something must explain the first cause of the Universe. The folly in this reasoning is that if something must explain the first cause, then it is not the first cause because the first cause by definition has no cause. Time is a function of causality which is a function of matter(something). Time originates with the first cause and the first cause does not require time to exist because it does not require any cause(what creates time). This is an axiomatic and tautological truth...

SUCKMYMUSCLE

[Radical Plato]

Nonsense. I know a square circle is definitely out, and I don't need knowledge of everything to claim it. The problem with the statement you attack is that the term "God" is nebulous and meaningless. For a given concrete definition of God, it is definitely possible to say "God, as defined here, is out" with absolute certainty. Just like it's possible to say that square circles don't exist with absolute certainty.

Here is a Square Circle 

[avxo]

the construct of the universe is such that finding an answer to its origins is impossible. but it is fact that if such an answer does exist, that answer is god.

Not true. At the very least you need to provide a concrete definition of the term god. What are the properties of this 'god' that you claim is the answer (if the answer exists).

if the universe is an eternal entity, self sustaining, with no creator

It's meaningless to use terms such as 'eternal' when referring to the Universe. Time, as we define it, is a property of the Universe and doesn't exist outside of and separate from the Universe.

but, and this is an important point, if there is an answer, that answer is god. this is undebatable. it doesnt prove anything, but its fact.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. How it is undebatable that, if there is an answer, then 'god is the answer? What is 'god' in this context? What does the term mean?

[avxo]

Here is a Square Circle 

I BELIEVE! OH GREAT CIRCLE-SQUARE! PLEASE BRING ME RICHES, 24" BICEPS AND STRIATED GLUTES! *BOWS*

[tbombz]

That's not the same thing at all. The fact is that the supernatural is beyond the realm of science. If Creationism involves a supernatural creator -- as it does -- it's outside the realm of science. And if Intelligent design claims that an intelligent designer is a necessary prerequisite and that what we observe cannot simply have evolved, then, it's legitimate to ask how ID explains the existence of the intelligent designer himself. The answer ends up being that ID is either inconsistent or unscientific. It's simple logic. No "clever definitions" or cheap parlor tricks.

if something is supernatural it doesnt have to be logical, jackass.  

Not true. At the very least you need to provide a concrete definition of the term god. What are the properties of this 'god' that you claim is the answer (if the answer exists).

It's meaningless to use terms such as 'eternal' when referring to the Universe. Time, as we define it, is a property of the Universe and doesn't exist outside of and separate from the Universe.

Objection. Assumes facts not in evidence. How it is undebatable that, if there is an answer, then 'god is the answer? What is 'god' in this context? What does the term mean?

god is, and this is pretty much universally accepted by all who believe, incomprehensible. trying to define god, outside of "the creator", is a fruitless endeavor.  god may or may not exist. but if god does exist, god is the supernatural creator of all things and you can  not understand his existence. by definition anytihng supernatural is going to be incomprehensible to those of us in the natural world.


how is it undebatable? well there are two options. either everything was created, or everything is eternal. so you have one scenario with a creator (god), and one scenario with no answer for existence.  there are no other options. i beg you, if you disagree, think of one.


your being extremely obtuse.