The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
His methodology does not eliminate a god at the end of the tunnel.

[/ QUOTE ]
Right. He doesn't refute the idea that Bush's tax cuts were wise, either. That's not the point.

As I said in my last post, he refutes the watchmaker argument -- i.e., the idea that since the eye looks designed, therefore God must exist.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maurile,

Yeah, that‘s fine.

I really am concerned (now that we are on the same page with the other stuff) with his opening statement.

[ QUOTE ]
This book is written in the conviction that our own existence once presented the greatest of all mysteries, but that it is a mystery no longer because it is solved.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don’t see him fulfilling the promise his all.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
He does fulfill it. You're just reading it wrong. You seem to be reading it as if he's promising to prove that God doesn't exist. That's not what he's promising, and it's not what he does. What he does is show how evolution can ape conscious design by increasing complexity over succeeding generations. It can make stuff like mammalian eyes that appear to have been designed. In doing so, he refutes the idea that just because the eye looks designed, God must exist.