Richard Dawkins' The God Delusion Part XI

Trying to poke holes in established science using mere philosophy is dishonest and misleading.

The burden of proof rests upon the individual making the claims. So if your faith based worldview is truly the correct one, perhaps you would like to explain why a supreme being would create a universe in such a way as to mislead us into adapting the scientific laws we have discovered?

Or why when a tsunami rips thru Indonesia and 300,000 people wash away - without warning - men, women and children - WHY should we believe in a loving personal God? I ask , Where is YOUR evidence?

If your child became ill, would you pray for a cure, or take them to a Doctor? Surely in your opinion your supreme being is greater than the Doctor.. And yet medicine - discovered and refined by science - is still their best chance for wellness. That's just not my opinion, thats what the evidence shows!

Science is reproduceable and reliable - or it not science.

However, God actions, favor, wrath, etc is inconsistent and waxes and wanes. Just look how you have to employ all these "apologists" to interpret why the "real" evidence isn't really evidence to keep your arguments consistent.


I never hear literal bible scholars remark about how the bible calls us to stone misbehaving children. If you REALLY believe the bible, you cannot pick and choose which parts of Gods "truth" you follow - you have to do as it says.


But of course our ability to even debate this subject - via computer technology - is also made possible by the application of science.

Wesley,

You confuse pointing out the clear errors of atheism with poking holes in science. I have no problem with science. What I have a problem with is the philosophical/religious views of atheism, masquerading as science.

I don’t see science as misleading us. My comments here deal with the errors and leaps of faith Dawkins makes in the guise of science. Whether or not I have evidence for my position, or even if my position is correct or false, says nothing at all about the error I pointed out in Dawkins. Attacking me does not defend Dawkins. As for the evidence in favor of my view it is, or at least some of it is, presented in my two books.

As for the rest of your questions, I believe that the problem of evil is the greatest problem theists face. I think there are some good partial answers in free will, but there are no complete answers, nor could I do the partial answers justice in a comment. As to why I would still believe in spite of this problem, I believe all systems, including Christianity and atheism have pros and cons. Nobody has all the answers. I happen to think that when the pros and cons of both Christianity and atheism are compared, Christianity come out way ahead.

When my child were ill, I did pray and take them to the doctor, as would most Christians. You seem to have either a greatly distorted view of Gods, Christians or both. As for stoning children, I assume you are referring to the OT law saying that parents must take their children to the elders to judge. I see that as a big step forward from the norm of the time which said that parent had the right of life and death over their children, a rule that still exists in some cultures with honor killings.