Evolution and God

Theology, Religious Studies, religion, god, faith and other topics of a spiritual nature.

Re: Evolution and God

Postby edy420 on June 18th, 2018, 10:41 pm 

As an agnostic, I had two choices when it came to determining our creation.

Dawkins admits that no one knows, but argues God is 99% unlikely.
He has no idea, accept one idea that might be true, which is aliens created us.
He offers no other ideas, so his “most likely” possible answer is aliens.

So for any agnostic wanting to build a formulae for the most likely answer to the question of creation, they can simply compare the statistics of possibility.

Gods creation = 99% unlikely
Aliens = most likely.

The former is Dawkins opinionated assumption based on no facts whatsoever.
His most likely answer which is supposed to trump the idea of God, is based on no facts whatsoever..

The numbers of likelyhood are different for each person.
Dawkins is agnostic which is why he doesn’t say the likelyhood of Gods existence is impossible, he’s 1/99 a believer in God.
Atheists would put numbers like 100% unlikely that God exists and 100% likely that the first cell randomly sponteiniously generated, or 0/100

Last year as an agnostic I was 70/30 on the probability of God.
In light of recent events, I’m now 100% a believer.

In conclusion, it’s up to each individual to decide for themselves what they believe, as there are no solid facts on the beginning of our existence, or existence itself for that matter, according to Dawkins.
User avatar
edy420
Active Member
 
Posts: 1187
Joined: 09 Jul 2010
Location: Fergusson st, Tokoroa, NZ


Re: Evolution and God

Postby mitchellmckain on June 18th, 2018, 11:27 pm 

Trying to find some discussion of Dawkins on the topic of abiogenesis (new developments found under the names pre-biotic evolution and metabolism first theories) is rather disappointing. But I think it just goes to show that Dawkins is a geneticist and evolutionary biologist, and thus a bit vague on topics about where that mechanics might have come from in the first place. These are after all fairly new developments. He definitely seems to fall into the old-guard that simply sees everything revolving around the advent of the self-replicating molecule. But more recent directions in research suggest that this may not be the beginning of the story at all, but only an important milestone of a longer process.

So edy420, does that make you a 1 on the Dawkins scale?

Image

I count myself as a 1.5 because I would say the following...

Honesty and mental health requires me to question the existence of God. But I know God exists (as much as I know anything), which only means that I live my life accordingly. It is certainly an act of faith for I choose to live my life that way and be that sort of person. But I suppose I am an agnostic with respect to the objective knowledge of the existence of God, because I don't believe objective knowledge of God's existence is possible. This pretty much means that I don't think proof is possible and that is why I can also defend atheism as a rational alternative.
User avatar
mitchellmckain
Active Member
 
Posts: 1279
Joined: 27 Oct 2016


Previous

Return to Religion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests