Pentru Hobbes sursa este ,,Leviathan or The Matter, Forme and Power of a Common Wealth Ecclesiasticall and Civil".Mortmier cred ca a publicat aceea opinie intr-un ziar.Pentru Sf.Teofan Zavoratul aici. Dawkins nu a ajuns la nici o concluzie referitor la Dumnezeu.Are supozitii derivate din domeniul lui de cercetare.Daca ai fi citit cu atentie ce am postat in engleza ai fi observat fraza asta(cu trimitere la Dawkins)

,,To conclude, the transcendental argument for the existence of God argues that atheism is self-refuting because the atheist must presuppose the opposite of what he is attempting to prove in order to prove anything. It argues that rationality and logic make sense only within a Christian theistic framework. Atheists have access to the laws of logic, but they have no foundation upon which to base their deductive reason within their own paradigm."

Am mai scris asta: ,,Ştiinţa, pe scurt, are ca scop cunoaşterea. Se ocupă cu studierea a ceea ce ştim şi caută să cunoaştem cât mai multe. De aceea, orice studiu ştiinţific trebuie să se bazeze pe existenţa unor realităţi obiective în lume. Fără existenţa unei realităţi, ce ar putea ştiinţa să studieze? Cum poate cineva să ştie că ceea ce a descoperit este real? De fapt, tocmai legile ştiinţei trebuie să se bazeze pe siguranţa existenţei adevărului absolut."

Acum este mai clar la ce ma refer cand vorbesc de Dawkins?Si mai clar exprimat(il supraestimati pe Dawkins,serios)

,,Devotees of evolutionary dogma face a problem as it’s widely accepted neither the time the universe has existed (let’s just use 15 billion years) nor the amount of matter in the universe allow for random mutations to produce what surrounds us. So what’s a disciple of evolution to do? Declare the non-randomness of evolution, as atheist Richard Dawkins does — only one teeny tiny problem, which we’ll get to after the quote.

,,You often find people who say, well, evolution is a theory of chance, in the absence of a designer. If it really were a theory of chance, of course they would be right to dismiss it as nonsense. No chance process could give rise to the prodigy of organized complexity that is the living world. But it’s not random chance. Natural selection is the exact opposite of a chance process"(Dawkins)

Dawkins states evolution isn’t a random, chance process — in other words it contains information. And information is non-random and (gasp!) designed. For example, if a computer programmer only bangs on the keyboard randomly, no program would ever exist. But by non-random inputs of information, the programmer creates computer software.

But in Dawkins’ alternate universe, he wants the non-random input created by … nothing — since in Dawkins’ worldview he boldly proclaims no God exists (an absurd and illogical premise by itself, for the atheist can’t say no God exists unless he has all knowledge — atheism being illogical and trapped in its own absurdity).

Either evolution follows random chance occurrences (in which case Dawkins admits it’s absurd), or it’s non-random which implies a designer — some outside force pushing it along. You can call it god, the “force”, or whatever you want, but Richard Dawkins admits something designed life. You can’t have it both ways, Mr. Dawkins. Either evolution is random (and thus absurd), or it’s not and some “god” designed and guided it. Which is it?We don’t think Dawkins meant to admit the existence of God in his interview, but he did."