# A response to Richard Dawkins' argument against the existence of God. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [October 21, 2009, 12:51am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544 "2009-10-21T00:51:00Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 11
**Author:** ![Gustav](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/919ad9/32.png) [@Gustav](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gustav)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 8:41am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/201 "2009-10-30T08:41:25Z")
Wow, how often do you see a post with more paragraphs than actual sentences? ---
**Author:** ![Der\_Trihs](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/der_trihs/32/233_2.png) [@Der\_Trihs](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Der_Trihs)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 9:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/202 "2009-10-30T09:26:29Z")
> [@Chakra Nadmara](#): > > wtf was that **lurking guest** generally posts like that; [here](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=537365), for example. ---
**Author:** ![Hallucinex](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/ba9def/32.png) [@Hallucinex](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hallucinex)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 10:02am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/203 "2009-10-30T10:02:33Z")
> [@Chakra Nadmara](#): > > wtf was that I’m picturing it performed as a beat poem, with a light jazz backing. ---
**Author:** ![Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/8edcca/32.png) [@Hentor\_the\_Barbarian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Hentor_the_Barbarian)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 11:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/204 "2009-10-30T11:27:55Z")
We might need more lurking and less guest. The hamsters won’t be able to support the crushing weight of all those carriage returns. ---
**Author:** ![CurtC](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ce73a5/32.png) [@CurtC](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/CurtC)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 1:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/205 "2009-10-30T13:54:23Z")
> [@Hallucinex](#): > > I’m picturing it performed as a beat poem, with a light jazz backing. I was reading it in the slurred speech of someone who’s had way too much to drink. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 2:12pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/206 "2009-10-30T14:12:11Z")
I did used to post sometimes at the Pizza Parlor, but haven’t in years. ---
**Author:** ![Latro](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/a87d85/32.png) [@Latro](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Latro)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 2:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/207 "2009-10-30T14:21:06Z")
> [@CurtC](#): > > I was reading it in the slurred speech of someone who’s had way too much to drink. I kept reading it as if he had something to say. I just couldn’t find out what exactly.. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/208 "2009-10-30T16:34:53Z")
> [@Latro](#): > > I kept reading it as if he had something to say. > > I just couldn’t find out what exactly.. I think all the blank space accurately reflects the value of the post. But perhaps he is composing his post on an adding machine paper roll. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 8:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/209 "2009-10-30T20:05:07Z")
> [@SentientMeat](#): > > I’ll have to explicitly ask you again then: Would you call _my_ experiences _as an atheist_ religious? Either my profound meditative experiences, my deep introspective experiences, or my everyday feelings of secure happiness, inner peace and awesome wonder that I am able to experience life at all? That would be rather confusing language to use, IMO. But the crucial issue is whether an _external, divine entity_ is **necessary** to explain such experiences. I still cannot ascertain whether this is your position or not. I have asked the question every way I can, yet I feel you are avoiding a straight answer – please help. I think I have answered it, merely not delivering the type of answer that you wish. Why do I believe in my mother? Because all of the experience that I have had in my entire life, over an enormous spectrum of times, places, and types of experiences, leads me straightforwardly me to believe that my mother exists, and none does not. Why do I believe in God? Same reason. I cannot whittle down the entirety of my conscious learning about of the world to one specific experience and declare that this one specific experience is the one which I find necessary to invoke God to explain. Similarly, I could not do the same thing for my mother, nor for cows or Australia or anything else that I and most of the people I know classify as real simply by common sense. > [@](#): > > I have already agreed with this many times. But that is only evidence of their _belief_ in an external divinity. To propose that this constitutes evidence _of_ said entity is an _ad populum_ fallacy, agreed? No more than citing the fact that most people can see cows in a debate about the existence of cows would be using the _ad populum_ fallacy. > [@](#): > > Again, if this research is correct (which I’ll provisionally accept for argument’s sake), this is evidence only of mental health in believers, not evidence of _the entity they believe in_. Unless you are proposing that ‘mental health’ is the phenomenon which cannot be explained without an external divinity, how is it not a _non sequitur_? As long as many people, including Richard Dawkins, continue to try invoking insanity to explain religious experiences, it seems perfectly relevant to me. > [@](#): > > Right, so we’re _not_ talking about the instances in which [poor mental health](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=537025) leads to experience of personal communication with God. I trust you would agree that the source of _these_ experiences were the person’s _own mind_, yes? I’ve no way of knowing what was the cause of any of those experiences. I certainly would not rule out the possibility that some demonic or other sort of otherworldy being was involved. In any case, rattling off a list of negative experiences tells us nothing about positive experiences, just as listing ENRON as an example of fraudulent business does not imply that all businesses are fraudulent. > [@](#): > > Oh, what the heck. [This](http://www.amazon.com/gp/offer-listing/0465006965/ref=dp_olp_used?ie=UTF8&condition=used) is literally one of the most interesting books I’ve ever read. I’ll order it and read it when I get the chance. ---
**Author:** ![begbert2](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/begbert2/32/3357_2.png) [@begbert2](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/begbert2)\ **Post date:** [October 30, 2009, 9:30pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/210 "2009-10-30T21:30:44Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I think I have answered it, merely not delivering the type of answer that you wish. Why do I believe in my mother? Because all of the experience that I have had in my entire life, over an enormous spectrum of times, places, and types of experiences, leads me straightforwardly me to believe that my mother exists, and none does not. Why do I believe in God? Same reason. I cannot whittle down the entirety of my conscious learning about of the world to one specific experience and declare that this one specific experience is the one which I find necessary to invoke God to explain. Similarly, I could not do the same thing for my mother, nor for cows or Australia or anything else that I and most of the people I know classify as real simply by common sense. The difference is the type and quality of those experiences. Which is the entire point. Experiences of god can be modeled _entirely_ as mental experiences, be they dreams, gilded memories, meditation, confirmation bias or hallucination. Your experiences with your mother cannot be. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > No more than citing the fact that most people can see cows in a debate about the existence of cows would be using the _ad populum_ fallacy. Different goalpost - it wasn’t “seeing”, it was “believing”. And while seeing is believing, believing is only seeing to a theist. > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > I’ve no way of knowing what was the cause of any of those experiences. I certainly would not rule out the possibility that some demonic or other sort of otherworldy being was involved. In any case, rattling off a list of negative experiences tells us nothing about positive experiences, just as listing ENRON as an example of fraudulent business does not imply that all businesses are fraudulent. Do you rule out _non_-supernatural explanations for the bad things? If so or if not, why? ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 1:00am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/211 "2009-10-31T01:00:00Z")
I actually must agree with \*\*ITR Champion \*\*that God does indeed exist, in a matter of speaking. I am serious about this. Here is my proof: Let **P** = any individual human being Let **X** = God Let **X** be defined by **P** in any way that **P** sees fit It is a given that\*\* P\*\* exists. It is a given that **P** always has and always will possess the ability to define **X** as he/she sees fit. [I say it is a “given” because we have billions of instances where different values of \*\*P\*\* (different individuals) have expressed in some fashion their personal value of \*\*X\*\*.] Because at least some of those values of **X** can be proven empirically to exist (e.g.: geese, automobiles, rocks, the sun, the Universe) we must conclude that at least some values of **X** (or God) do in fact exist. The problem is that many _other_ values of **X** can _not_ be proven to exist (with any meaningful probability) and therefore can only be said to exist as a belief within an individual’s mind. Few would argue that “beliefs” exist, but the exist only in the abstract. And the question of whether God exists _as a concept_ is almost never argued–certainly not here on the Dope. My conclusion: Yes. God exists and it can be proven. But the HUGE caveat is that the concept of God ( **X** ) is a variable; different to every single individual even if they belong to the same religion (after all, religion does not equal God). As long as I am free to define God as a sparrow or a window, or Sally Field, etc., _ **it is impossible to refute God’s existence.** _\* \*But there must always be an asterisk next to this phrase a million times as big as the one on Barry Bond’s home-run record baseball. ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 2:06am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/212 "2009-10-31T02:06:26Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > … I can perform all kinds of risky activities in which I have little or no information on the the outcome will be and still have zero faith. Having faith would entail believing things were going to happen a certain way although I had no evidence for it. That sort of belief is not necessary to be a risk taker. But then again, it couldn’t hurt. It probably makes it more likely. And now you’re now contradicting yourself. You said faith is “belief in something which has insufficient evidence.” If you have no idea what the outcome is of something that you are about to do, how is that an informed decision? It is uninformed. And if you will do something, even dangerous or ill advised, having no f’ing idea of a possible result, how do you then move forward boldly upon disbelief in that choice? Here, one has no idea how many unfavorable results may occur and _also_ has no faith or confidence in the choice they are about to make, but they go right ahead and do so? Evidently doing so often, if they always avoid faith at all costs? That is a common happenstance? I’ll give it to you in rare instances, but not in general practice. Even animals will try to give themselves the best odds possible and not defer to the least good choice. I’ll do so even if it may be in choosing a candy bar. But sometimes we make the choice though we just don’t frickin’ know! It’s not as if that momentary, vanilla, I-don’t-know-what-the-answer-is kind of faith will give you the rickets or something. I’m saying that people rarely go by for a day without having to operate with less than good information. Yes, one can keep a reliance of faith down to an absolute minimum and a number people do it pretty well. But no one has perfect certainty because no one sees the future and we all know that. A confident choice with less-than-good certainty happens daily. Most of those events are so small you probably haven’t been thinking about them. But statistically, they have to happen to everyone. The kind of faith whereby someone starts building their entire view of reality on it is where faith takes on a frightening wobble. We even all do that to some extent though some try harder to specifically live with that as a purpose in mind. But with the exception of people who realize they have a fictional overlay on their worldview, true faith in manipulatable non-realities can be destabilizing for the believers and society as well. But a lifetime of not knowing + while consistently doing so very reluctantly would be just as destabilizing. Not knowing much, but having some certainty that you stack your odds well is doing something on faith. > [@Fantome](#): > > …anyone who lives with faith thinks they have answers fully realizing there’s no good reason to. I have zero faith and I certainly don’t think I have all the answers. I don’t know why you believe that. I see your point how some of the faithful think they have all the answers. And yes, realizing one doesn’t have all the answers is more realistic and gets away from faith. As I said before, that lack of information will effect how one reacts, either boldly or reluctantly. With or without belief in their choice. > [@Fantome](#): > > I enjoy playing blackjack even though I know the odds are with the house. I don’t need faith to play and I have none. Eh… you count cards? Seriously though, blackjack is otherwise a faith-a-thon! You are consistently believing that your skills will help you beat the house that day. Your bank account gives you the true result of that confidence in your abilities. If it averages in your favor over time indeed you are operating on less faith, in that instance, than most of us. If not, so what? Have fun! ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 2:22am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/213 "2009-10-31T02:22:29Z")
> [@Snag](#): > > But then again, it couldn’t hurt. It probably makes it more likely. Huh? > [@](#): > > And now you’re now contradicting yourself. You said faith is “belief in something which has insufficient evidence.”; If you have no idea what the outcome is of something that you are about to do, how is that an informed decision? It is uninformed. I never said I don’t have _any_ idea. I said I have evidence that driving is a fairly safe mode of transportation. That doesn’t mean completely safe or that I know I will get from point A to point B without harm. I am willing to take the risk. This takes no faith. I didn’t contradicted myself in the least. > [@](#): > > And if you will do something, even dangerous or ill advised, having no f’ing idea of a possible result, how do you then move forward boldly upon disbelief in that choice? I have no f’ing idea of a possible result? Move forward boldly upon disbelief in that choice? What on Earth are you talking about? > [@](#): > > I see your point how some of the faithful think they have all the answers. And yes, realizing one doesn’t have all the answers is more realistic and gets away from faith. What you said was, “Anyone who lives without any faith thinks the have all the answers.” That’s bullshit! > [@](#): > > Eh… you count cards? Obviously not. I said I am aware the odds are with the house. > [@](#): > > Seriously though, blackjack is otherwise a faith-a-thon! You are consistently believing that your skills will help you beat the house that day. You’re speaking for me now? I believe no such thing. I play for the thrill of it and this takes **zero** faith in anything! Why would you think I consistently believe I can beat the house when I already told you I am aware the odds are in their favor? > [@](#): > > Your bank account gives you the true result of that confidence in your abilities. What? ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/214 "2009-10-31T02:30:03Z")
> [@Snag](#): > > The kind of faith whereby someone starts building their entire view of reality on it is where faith takes on a frightening wobble. We even all do that to some extent though some try harder to specifically live with that as a purpose in mind. But with the exception of people who realize they have a fictional overlay on their worldview, true faith in manipulatable non-realities can be destabilizing for the believers and society as well. > > … Not knowing much, but having some certainty that you stack your odds well is doing something on faith. Bringing this back around to the OP, I think the filament that **ITR’s** argument is built on is a good example of confidence whereby they stack their odds with less than good information: > [@ITR\_champion](#): > > The best refutation to this argument is written in Genesis 1:1. “In the beginning, God created the Heavens and the Earth”. In other words, God existed before the opening event; God has always existed. Hence trying to insist that God can’t exist because He couldn’t start existing is an inane category mistake, like saying that cars can’t exist because there’s no way for a care to hatch from an egg. In his only attempt to deal with this, Dawkins claims that the statement of God being eternal is “vague” and “pseudo-philosophical”. It is neither. So there is no reason that God shouldn’t have always existed, but not so the universe? Since the universe is definitely here, in some instance it probably always did. And I can show you millions of examples that the universe exists, but I’ve never seen just one good example that proves to me and 98% of all people who don’t share your faith that your God, or any other, exists in the first place. Do that first, show us a God that is something like the stars and eggs and cars - or at least a consistent, statistically viable bending of the laws of nature - then build an argument. ---
**Author:** ![Snag](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/94ad74/32.png) [@Snag](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Snag)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 4:47am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/215 "2009-10-31T04:47:32Z")
> [@Fantome](#): > > Huh? You said :_Having faith would entail believing things were going to happen a certain way although I had no evidence for it. That sort of belief is not necessary to be a risk taker._ I responded was that it would help a risk taker to believe that things would happen a certain way without evidence for it. Otherwise they might take fewer risks. A bit of snark and truth. The less one knows and the more confidently they act, it’s a belief in inadequate information. > [@Fantome](#): > > I never said I don’t have _any_ idea. I said I have evidence that driving is a fairly safe mode of transportation. That doesn’t mean completely safe or that I know I will get from point A to point B without harm. I am willing to take the risk. This takes no faith. I didn’t contradicted myself in the least. I’m talking about many more things than just driving and blackjack. We make hundreds of little decisions in a day. Some of them are confidently made with some notable degree of insufficient evidence. > [@Fantome](#): > > What you said was, “Anyone who lives without any faith thinks the have all the answers.” That’s bullshit! Don’t start building a strawman. I did not say that. There are some people who think they have all the answers. Some with faith, some without. Anyone who realizes that they have incomplete knowledge understands that they don’t know it all. I think you are missing my point entirely. I don’t know how much clearer I can make myself. We both say no one has all the answers. Thus we all sometimes operate on less than adequate information, sometimes a little less, sometimes with next to none. I say that a confident decision with inadequate information is an act of faith. Otherwise a person acts with indecision or doesn’t act at all because of inadequate information. You may think that you operate with zero faith. I say that if you had zero faith in your choices or your skills you’d likely do little of anything without a high degree of certainty of a good outcome. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 4:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/216 "2009-10-31T04:58:27Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > Why do I believe in my mother? Because all of the experience that I have had in my entire life, over an enormous spectrum of times, places, and types of experiences, leads me straightforwardly me to believe that my mother exists, and none does not. Why do I believe in God? Same reason. What you earnestly believe to be God (and I do think your belief is earnest) is more usefully defined as **X** because the concept of God is almost infinitely variable. _(Before I proceed, here is a quick Key to the formulae offered in my previous post. In this post I will be adding subscripts to the main variables.)_ \***X = God P = any individual human being** The value of **X \*\* is defined uniquely by every different value of** P\*\* \* So then… Let us say that **Your Idea of God = X(ITR)**\* and, let say that **Your Mother = M(ITR)** Similarly, **My Idea of God = X(ILM)** and, **My Mother = M(ILM)**. **M(ITR)** can be proven to exist, and, **M(ILM)** can be proven to exist. So far, so good. But **X** is a bit more tricky to deal with. For example, let’s say hypothetically that: **X(ITR) = FSM (The Flying Spaghetti Monster).** **X(ILM) = the Planet Earth** (I know that is not your contention, but I use the **FSM** here because there is the same amount of _empirical_ evidence for the existence of the FSM as there is for your actual notion of God. Further, it is also not _my_ contention that the Planet Earth is _my_ actual notion of God. I am again simply employing the value as a useful hypothetical.) Now then… \*\*X(ILM) \*\*can be empirically proven to exist. **X(ITR)** can _ **not** _ be empirically proven to exist. This is an important difference, IMO, when discussing the existence of God. Since **X** has a value that varies greatly depending on how any given value of **P** defines it we can infer that not all **X’s** are equal. Yet, (according to my modeling/theory/description of “The Existence of God Problem”) **X = God** \* no matter what\* **X’s** value is, and no matter _which_ value of **P** it was defined by. Still, defining God as the Earth, or the Hope Diamond, or Alan Alda, etc., presents a bit of a problem. For while those three examples of \*\*X \*\* can be proven to exist, they are at the same time much less satisfying than when **X = the proverbial omniscient, benevolent, Creator with a white beard**. To many people, the former values of **X** aren’t nearly as effective at soothing profound existential angst as the latter. In sum: every one of us who believes in a God also chooses his or her own concept _of_ that God (i.e. one’s own value for **X** ). Of course, some choose not to consider God a useful concept at all; hence concluding that, for them, **X = The Empty Set**. But God logically and provably _does_ exist for any individual who chooses to define **X** as something already proven to exist (e.g. one’s spouse). For those (like\*\* ITR champion\*\*) whose conception of \*\*X \*\*is intrinsically non-provable (at least currently) you might come to realize that your God is _also_ very real, but as an abstract thought; and only to you. However, that in no way negates the intense power, influence, and meaning that X may have on a believer’s life. For better or for worse. \*I would’ve liked to make the “ITR” here a subscript but I am not up on my ASCII codes. So I have notated all my subscripts in the same manner. ---
**Author:** ![Fantome](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/e9c0ed/32.png) [@Fantome](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Fantome)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 3:06pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/217 "2009-10-31T15:06:03Z")
> [@Snag](#): > > You said :_Having faith would entail believing things were going to happen a certain way although I had no evidence for it. That sort of belief is not necessary to be a risk taker._ I responded was that it would help a risk taker to believe that things would happen a certain way without evidence for it. Otherwise they might take fewer risks. A bit of snark and truth. The less one knows and the more confidently they act, it’s a belief in inadequate information. It helps no one to have faith. Risk takers usually enjoy the thrill of the unknown. If a risk taker had faith something would turn out a certain way, the thrill would be gone. > [@](#): > > I’m talking about many more things than just driving and blackjack. We make hundreds of little decisions in a day. Some of them are confidently made with some notable degree of insufficient evidence. You need to stop speaking for me. **We** do no such thing. > [@](#): > > Don’t start building a strawman. I did not say that. Yeah, you did. > [@](#): > > Anyone who realizes that they have incomplete knowledge understands that they don’t know it all. > > I think you are missing my point entirely. No, I’m not. You’re forgetting what point you made since you accused me of inaccurately quoting you. I’m pretty sure my copy and paste isn’t broken. > [@](#): > > I don’t know how much clearer I can make myself. Clarity isn’t the issue- inaccurate statements are. Such as you telling me I need faith to play blackjack and drive. > [@](#): > > I say that if you had zero faith in your choices or your skills you’d likely do little of anything without a high degree of certainty of a good outcome. I don’t need a high degree of certainty for everything I do. I’d find a life lived like that so boring it wouldn’t be worth living. I don’t have faith that I will beat the dealer at blackjack (as you claimed I did); I enjoy the thrill of the unknown and the thrill of knowing I just might win. That’s fun. Having faith that I was going to win would leave me broke. In many areas of my life it would leave me dead. ---
**Author:** ![ITR\_champion](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/i/c67d28/32.png) [@ITR\_champion](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ITR_champion)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 8:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/218 "2009-10-31T20:43:01Z")
**I Love Me** : You’ve certainly poured effort into getting all the bolding and capital letters and so forth in those last two posts correct, so I hate to not quote them in full, but I do think that what you’re saying can be boiled down to a few major points. First of all, your argument rests on the existence of “empirical” evidence. Now empirical means “based on experience or experiment” (according to the American Heritage Dictionary) so then I have been arguing through most of this thread _in favor_ of empirical evidence. Those who have lectured me about how fallible personal experience is have been lecturing _against_ empirical evidence, according to the strict definition of the term. However, if we wanted to dissect the issue for carefully, we might point out two types of empirical evidence. First-hand is things that I experience directly. Second-hand is report that I hear or read from other people concerning their direct experience. So then I have first-hand experience of my mother and have God. You have no first-hand experience of either, but you read second-hand experience from me. Hence demanding “empirical evidence” cannot explain any difference in the two. As for your claim that “every one of us who believes in a God also chooses his or her own concept _of_ that God”, I don’t agree with that and I already explained why I don’t agree with that earlier in the thread. My concept of God centers on the person of Jesus Christ, the same as for billions of others past or present, so then I did not make up a personal conception of God for my own liking. As for your dismissing “the proverbial omniscient, benevolent, Creator with a white beard”, so such concept has ever existed outside the imagination of atheists. ---
**Author:** ![Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e99b99/32.png) [@Diogenes\_the\_Cynic](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Diogenes_the_Cynic)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 9:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/219 "2009-10-31T21:21:55Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > First of all, your argument rests on the existence of “empirical” evidence. Now empirical means “based on experience or experiment” (according to the American Heritage Dictionary) so then I have been arguing through most of this thread _in favor_ of empirical evidence. Those who have lectured me about how fallible personal experience is have been lecturing _against_ empirical evidence, according to the strict definition of the term. That’s not what “empirical” means. Empirical evidence is evidence which is observable by the senses. Psychotic episodes are, by definition, NONempirical. They are NOT observed by the senses. > [@](#): > > However, if we wanted to dissect the issue for carefully, we might point out two types of empirical evidence. First-hand is things that I experience directly. Second-hand is report that I hear or read from other people concerning their direct experience. So then I have first-hand experience of my mother and have God. You have no first-hand experience of either, but you read second-hand experience from me. Hence demanding “empirical evidence” cannot explain any difference in the two. “second hand” experience is not empirical, and as I’ve already explained, you do not have empirical experience of God. > [@](#): > > As for your claim that “every one of us who believes in a God also chooses his or her own concept _of_ that God”, I don’t agree with that and I already explained why I don’t agree with that earlier in the thread. My concept of God centers on the person of Jesus Christ, the same as for billions of others past or present, so then I did not make up a personal conception of God for my own liking. As for your dismissing “the proverbial omniscient, benevolent, Creator with a white beard”, so such concept has ever existed outside the imagination of atheists. Everybody’s intepretation of Jesus Christ is different. It’s not like that particular deity has only one, uniform, unvarying defintion that everyone agree on. Everybody molds Jesus to fit what they already want to believe. ---
**Author:** ![I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/i_love_me_vol.i/32/521_2.png) [@I\_Love\_Me\_Vol.I](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/I_Love_Me_Vol.I)\ **Post date:** [October 31, 2009, 10:57pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544/220 "2009-10-31T22:57:27Z")
> [@ITR\_champion](#): > > **I Love Me** : You’ve certainly poured effort into getting all the bolding and capital letters and so forth in those last two posts correct, so I hate to not quote them in full, but I do think that what you’re saying can be boiled down to a few major points. > > First of all, your argument rests on the existence of “empirical” evidence. Now empirical means “based on experience or experiment” (according to the American Heritage Dictionary) so then I have been arguing through most of this thread _in favor_ of empirical evidence. Those who have lectured me about how fallible personal experience is have been lecturing _against_ empirical evidence, according to the strict definition of the term. > > However, if we wanted to dissect the issue for carefully, we might point out two types of empirical evidence. First-hand is things that I experience directly. Second-hand is report that I hear or read from other people concerning their direct experience. So then I have first-hand experience of my mother and have God. You have no first-hand experience of either, but you read second-hand experience from me. Hence demanding “empirical evidence” cannot explain any difference in the two. > > As for your claim that “every one of us who believes in a God also chooses his or her own concept _of_ that God”, I don’t agree with that and I already explained why I don’t agree with that earlier in the thread. My concept of God centers on the person of Jesus Christ, the same as for billions of others past or present, so then I did not make up a personal conception of God for my own liking. As for your dismissing “the proverbial omniscient, benevolent, Creator with a white beard”, so such concept has ever existed outside the imagination of atheists. A couple comments– I have no first-hand knowledge of your mother, but I am not depending on second-hand “hearsay” when I assert that she can be proven to exist. We needn’t take your word for it that she exists. A crack team of scientists could be dispatched to do careful experiments and then publish a fascinating paper showing that she indeed exists. That doesn’t seem to be the case with your concept of God. Your personal concept of god as Jesus Christ is definitely different from every single other person who also professes his/her concept of God to be Jesus Christ. It has to be because your mind is unique. Different from every other Christian. Or, to keep it simple, one merely has to think of the differences between Catholics, Methodists, Branch-Davidians, etc. You didn’t create your concept of God from whole-cloth, you probably were infused with many of the basic ingredients throughout your life. But you–and only you–have your precise, unique concept of God. That is why “Existence of God” threads go on for so many pages. Because no one can provide a precise definition of God. Very handle, because then this nebulous “God” can never be dis proven or even effective dismissed (at least effectively dismissed to most theists satisfaction. That is why I propose that it is far more useful to think of God as a nearly infinite variable-- or, X. As for my use of the term “empirical” I admit that there is probably a better way to express what I am trying to say; but I can’t think of any way to do it that wouldn’t involve a 6 or 7 word phrase and I don’t want to type that every time. I suppose what I mean is “independently verifiable empirical evidence”. Maybe I use the term improperly, but in the context of these sorts of discussions I don’t consider someone’s contention that they saw a ghost or talked with a vampire to be empirical evidence. To me, neither you nor anyone else has any empirical evidence of the existence of a God (that is, God in the ‘traditional’ sense\*). But again, I may be using the word incorrectly. \*In a NON-traditional sense however, (e.g. God is my left hand) there can be airtight proof of the existence of God. I cover all that it my other posts. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544.md?page=10) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/a-response-to-richard-dawkins-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/514544.md?page=12)