The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I think without this knowledge that you and Stat posted that his preface is not clear.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everything we've posted is right from the preface.

[RJT]

I am not saying he is trying to promote atheism. I am saying evolution is not mystery to me. Who is he trying to convince? He solves no other mystery is what I am saying. Re-read his preface is all I ask.

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I think without this knowledge that you and Stat posted that his preface is not clear.

[/ QUOTE ]
Everything we've posted is right from the preface.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok I will re-read it then.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
I am not saying he is trying to promote atheism. I am saying evolution is not mystery to me. Who is he trying to convince? He solves no other mystery is what I am saying. Re-read his preface is all I ask.

[/ QUOTE ]
The preface describes William Paley's argument from design (the "watchmaker argument") and then explains why, in light of Darwin's and Wallace's discoveries, it is no longer compelling.

I don't see how that's misleading.

[RJT]

Stat and maurile,

Ok, I got all that you two said. My only contention comes down now to his first sentence. Really his use of the word “mystery”. Did he solve any mystery for you guys? I read too much into his use of the word mystery is what happened. This threw me off as I then anticipated more than a book only about evolution.

I guess I am one of those who was “unaware that there was a problem in the first place”.

Thanks for your patience.

RJT

[Aytumious]

[ QUOTE ]
Stat and maurile,

Ok, I got all that you two said. My only contention comes down now to his first sentence. Really his use of the word “mystery”. Did he solve any mystery for you guys? I read too much into his use of the word mystery is what happened. This threw me off as I then anticipated more than a book only about evolution.

I guess I am one of those who was “unaware that there was a problem in the first place”.

Thanks for your patience.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]

RJT, the irony here is that you are saying you don't see the need for the book when this thread itself is a perfect example of why the book was written.

[maurile]

[ QUOTE ]
Did he solve any mystery for you guys?

[/ QUOTE ]

[Lestat]

[ QUOTE ]



[/ QUOTE ]

I LOVE IT!!!

[RJT]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Did he solve any mystery for you guys?

[/ QUOTE ]


[/ QUOTE ]


LMAO. I have more interest in knowing how you did that head banging thing, then details of evolution. Good work.

[ QUOTE ]
The preface describes William Paley's argument from design (the "watchmaker argument") and then explains why, in light of Darwin's and Wallace's discoveries, it is no longer compelling.

[/ QUOTE ]

What, did you guys need convincing that Paley’s argument is no longer compelling? Of course not. I didn’t. Like I said I didn’t even know there was a problem to begin with. What am I missing? Who is Dawkins trying to convince?

What Arty? I buy into the evolution thing. You guys study it and tell me all the details I need to know to live my life. Seriously, I don’t get your point - unless it is not directed at me, rather to the OP?

RJT

[Lestat]

RJT-

I think you may be misunderstaning what Dawkins meant by mystery. He did not mean the mystery of God, the universe, or what it all means.

Before Darwin, there was a lot that was very much a mystery!

So if you buy into the whole evolution thing, but are looking for him to solve other mysteries such as the creation of the universe, this isn't what the book is about.

If I've understood you correctly, evolution has little to do with your theistic beliefs anyway. As I remember it, the whole premise with you eminates from questions such as how the universe started or whether it was always there. This book will do nothing to dispell those beliefs. It is a very interesting read nonetheless.