WHAT DOES THE AGNOSTIC STATEMENT, postulated by Dawkins:
„GOD ALMOST CERTAINLY DOES NOT EXIST”,
actually imply?
- Is this statement in line with logic and reason or represent Dawkins' individual view as to the existence of god to flatter both believers and non-believers?
- Is this agnostic statement correct, just because it has many followers, among whom there are even well-known scientists?
- Anyway, is it appropriate for a scientist like Richard Dawkins, nota bene from OXFORD – the ˌworld renowned university, to declare himself a religious agnostic?
Answering this questions based on argumentum ad rem, you"ll come to the right answer.
_________________________________________
* More detailed info in my video lecture on YouTube:
>THE FICTION OF AGNOSTICISM: CANI vs HUXLEY. TIME FOR NEW DEFINITIONS!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-HqS7dSXlLQ&t=799s
> INTERMEDIALISM vs AGNOSTICISM: CANI'S COMPLEX PLANE OF RELIGIOSITY vs DAWKINS’ LINEAR SCALE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JBrOH2T8kx0&t=897s
Arhum Tajammal
Well he holds a really good question.
About God's own existence,
God always was, is and will be.
Dawkins questions how is this possible that someone is infiniyely lifefull
0 votes
0 thanks
More Jean-Marc Kania's questions See All
Similar questions and discussions