Originally Posted by Enterprise Captain
[color=black]No one has 100% scientific proof that God exists or doesn't exist so what does that leave us with? That leaves us with nothing so then technically the debate should be over but it's not, why? Because we have evidence of Gods existence with in the holly books. For the sake of this discussion lets use the Bible because that is what we are both more familiar with as we were both raised as Christians. The Bible tells us about God, Jesus etc. and events that took place in the past Noah's Ark etc. Does the Bible claim those people and events took place in a fictional universe or in the real world, our universe? Obviously it's the latter or else the debate would be over at that point. So if the Bible is making claims about our universe then it is only fair that it is subject to the laws of our universe therefore science comes in to play. This is where the whole science vs. religion debate comes from.
What Dawkins has done is weighed the evidence presented by both sides and come to a conclusion. He presents his conclusion and how he came to it in his book "The God Delusion." It's up to the reader to then look at Dawkins argument and evidence vs. Religions argument and evidence and then come to their own conclusion based on which argument is more plausible in respect to the evidence. If we knew with 100% certainty God exists or he/she/it doesn't then there would be no debate.
So if, as we both agree, that there is no scientific proof for God, then in what way is Dawkins any different to Billy Graham. Both are trying to convince people to have faith in something with is completely unprovable. Dawkins is trying to use the scientific method to prove something that does not exist. His conclusion commits one of the simplest philosophical fallacies (one that my 16 year old pupils understand). That fallacy is known as the Appeal to Ignorance - http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html
As I said. We also have no proof that there is life on other planets and certainly not intelligent life. Some people have hypothesised - given the water on the moon and the size of the universe etc - that there must be other planets that could support intelligent life but that is all it is - hypothesis. .
Some parts of the Bible are metaphorical. For instance the whole pre-diluvian period from Genesis 1-11 is generally believed to be metaphorical. There are some Christians who believe that the universe was created in 6 days, as we count days, however, I would take issue with their viewpoint also. It may have reflected the best thinking of the time but science has discovered things which are irrefutable, such as dinosaurs and evolution. From some of the articles I have read by Dawkins his main argument is... Darwin was right therefore God does not exist.
Why do we have to have Science versus Religion? Why can science not be the pursuit of knowledge of the material world and religion be the pursuit of supernatural knowledge?
Maybe you should read something by the physicist Paul Davies. He has a much more balanced view than Dawkins. His book the Mind of God is excellent and he is not a believer in God in the slightest.