Originally posted by Psychic Missile
View Post
I don't think that's appropriate.
I'm not sure I understand why not. From my reading, quite a bit of philosophy is written with assumed or hypothetical premises. Do you mean that it is inappropriate here? I'm sorry, but I'm probably just not understanding because I'm tired.
Quite a bit of chapter two is comprised of Dawkins arguing against the idea of non-overlapping magisteria. He thinks that religious questions should be solved with scientific answers. So why should his argument against the first cause be responded to with a scientifically dubious conclusion?
fwiw,
guacamole
Comment