nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 11:
Line 11: − + + + + +
→Disprove God?: Valid point.
Debate is pointless here, but what wording do you suggest? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:11, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
Debate is pointless here, but what wording do you suggest? --[[User:Ed Poor|Ed Poor]] <sup>[[User talk:Ed Poor|Talk]]</sup> 17:11, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
"The God Delusion is a book by the atheist Richard Dawkins, in which he attempts to prove that the existence of God is extremely unlikely." As Humblpi suggested up above; you must have overlooked it.--[[User:AtheistJohn|AtheistJohn]] 17:17, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:"The God Delusion is a book by the atheist Richard Dawkins, in which he attempts to prove that the existence of God is extremely unlikely." As Humblpi suggested up above; you must have overlooked it.--[[User:AtheistJohn|AtheistJohn]] 17:17, 23 April 2008 (EDT)
:: No, debate is not pointless. I don't think AtheistJohn and Humblepi have ''proved'' that Dawkins is not ''trying'' to disprove God: he might be trying and failing, or he might be trying to ''informally'' disprove whilst at the same time acknowledging that he can't ''formally'' disprove God's existence.
:: However, if he explicitly states that he offers no proof, then (a) the onus is on his critics to show that he ''is'' trying to disprove, and (b) the wording could at the very least be improved.
:: I'm out of time now, but if I don't forget, I'll come back in a couple of hours and either put Humblpi's wording in or think of something better myself. Unless of course someone has beaten me to it.
:: [[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 03:08, 24 April 2008 (EDT)