It's this. For a long time Taylor, seems to understand that Dawkins was arguing for believing in things on the basis of evidence. Then it all goes horribly wrong. From my essay:pic.twitter.com/JdBybQVmSS
You can add location information to your Tweets, such as your city or precise location, from the web and via third-party applications. You always have the option to delete your Tweet location history. Learn more
It's this. For a long time Taylor, seems to understand that Dawkins was arguing for believing in things on the basis of evidence. Then it all goes horribly wrong. From my essay:pic.twitter.com/JdBybQVmSS
I could just as easily say 'The longstanding theological assumption that God is a perfect & so necessary being who is consequently self-existent & ontologically independent flies in the face of the rationalist idea that this is all a load of meaningless bollocks.” What now?
But if Dawkins is talking about God as if he were *a* being rather than Being, then he's not even talking about God, at least not the one Christians believe in. He's talking about something totally different, maybe some kind of god like Zeus. It's not a matter of "assumptions."
God is an assumption and so is 'being' but Dawkins was looking at the scientific claims made by Christianity.
Sorry, I took that tweet you quoted about Dawkins and being/Being at face value. Thought that was the issue you were arguing about.
Dawkins doesn't address theology, no.
...sounds like orc mischief* to me. *special pleading
o dam .O.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.