Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In his book, he lists 6 main points in his well selling book . I thought we should all know what they entail : Richard Dawkins
Why are you in this forum? You're a rabid fundie, and we know it. We also know that you're not one of the "nice" Christians who actually likes a good debate (not accusations or argument like you), who genuinely enjoys sharing ideas with us, and that doesn't preach at us when they come in here.
These posts of yours smell very trollish. I call christer shenanigans.
In his book, he lists 6 main points in his well selling book . I thought we should all know what they entail : Richard Dawkins
Second time with an hour or so that you have used a site without any creditability as your proof. And they you wonder why no one takes your serious and might even consider you a mis-guided mis-informed and closed minded.
Why are you in this forum? You're a rabid fundie, and we know it. We also know that you're not one of the "nice" Christians who actually likes a good debate (not accusations or argument like you), who genuinely enjoys sharing ideas with us, and that doesn't preach at us when they come in here.
These posts of yours smell very trollish. I call christer shenanigans.
Be nice, they are taught hated and intolerance, and since they have their cult meetings tomorrow, he's just warming up for his dose of kool-aid and hatred tomorrow.
Be nice, they are taught hated and intolerance, and since they have their cult meetings tomorrow, he's just warming up for his dose of kool-aid and hatred tomorrow.
Well, if he TRULY took the bible as literal law, he'd be in his church today. After all, the ten commandments tell them to rest on the 7th day of the week.
I actually read the article. I find bad apologetics entertaining. Dawkins' argument is basically a detailed variant of "who created God?", so the article attempted to defend "no-one created god". Using this gem:
Quote:
Who made God - What are our alternatives?
The question that then bears asking is, ‘Just what has always existed?’ We have only two options: the material universe comprised of space, time, matter and energy, or an eternal and spiritual God, who exists separately from the material universe. Given that well-respected quantum cosmologists, such as Alexander Vilenkin, believe that science unequivocally shows the universe must have had a beginning at the big bang, that leaves only one other option, God. Since something must be eternally self-existent (not self-caused), and the universe itself does not qualify, the only logical conclusion open to us is that a spiritual, self-sustaining God exists and has existed eternally.
If I had a dollar every time an apologetic used a false dichotomy...
The problem with your thread is that if ANYONE has read Dawkins, then they can expose you and your reference for what they are. All it takes is one reply to make you look silly(I chose this word charitably).
1One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect, over the centuries, has been to explain how the complex, improbable appearance of design in the universe arises.
Objection (Few people, regardless of their religious views, would oppose Dawkins’ first premise. Explaining the appearance of design in the universe is unquestionably challenging)
Arq's objection to the objection. [Fallacy A. Sorry. This is assuming the appearance of design in the Universe - that is, design implying a designer. that is something that ID'ers have tried unsuccessfully to demonstrate]
2The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself. In the case of a man-made artifact such as a watch, the designer really was an intelligent engineer. It is tempting to apply the same logic to an eye or a wing, a spider or a person.
Objection .(His second premise, that we have a "natural" temptation to attribute the appearance of design to a designer is debatable, but let’s let it stand.)
Arq comment. [on the contrary, there is evidence for the attribution of lightning, for instance, to the actions of gods. Let it stand indeed]
3The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable.
Objection (With his third premise, he introduces his first logical fallacy. He begins premise three by simply declaring the temptation in premise two as false. Yet, he offers no substantial support for this contention)
Arq objection to the objection. [I am quite sure that his entire book does that, but a quotemining excercise wouldn't demonstrate that of course. The fact is that Science, physics, palaeontology, astronomy, nuclear physics, natural selection, and historical research have all served to provide alternatives - evidence - based alternatives - to 'Goddunnit'.
The proposal of an unproven entity as an explanation where we don't know what causes something (the gaps for god fallacy) when we have adequate explanations is worse than a fallacy - it is Faith - based - stupidity.
That should effectively put this suggestion that Dawkins is being illogical to bed. Even if he had NO evidence (he does) it would not be logical to say 'It must be a god'.]
4Darwinian evolution by natural selection offers the greatest, most powerful explanatory scope so far discovered in the biological sciences. Darwin and his successors have shown how living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design, have evolved by slow, gradual degrees from simple beginnings. We can now safely say that the illusion of design in living creatures is just that -- an illusion.
5We don’t yet have an equivalent well-grounded, explanatory model for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.
6We should not give up the hope of a well-grounded explanatory model arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology. But even in the absence of a strongly satisfying model to match the biological one, the relatively weak models we have at present are, when abetted by the anthropic principle, self-evidently better than the self-defeating God hypothesis of an intelligent designer.
77If the argument of this chapter (book) is accepted, the factual premise of religion -- the God hypothesis – is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist. This is the main conclusion of the book so far
Objector's conclusion (after the Ad Hom. sideswipe)
"While the conclusion, "God almost certainly does not exist," may appeal to Richard Dawkins’ followers, it is not logically inferred from his first six premises. It is a non sequitur. Let’s look at each premise a little closer.
(Arq. - I put his objections below the relevant points above and showed where they were false)
"In effect, he begs the question by assuming that since God doesn’t exist, the design hypothesis must be false."
Arq. remarq.
In effect, this is a strawman - a misrepresentation of the actual argument. A misrepresentation that is easy to knock down and then pretend that the REAL argument has been knocked down. The constant built - in dishonesty of theist apologetics.
The real argument is that design is an understandable conclusion to jump to if one is not familar with the way that nature and physics produces remarkably ordered results by natural means. There is no logical reason to propose design (fallacy A above) and therefore no reason to adduce a designer.
It would be a fallacy and illogical to propose that the universe cannot be designed because a designer does not exist. But that is surely not Dawkins' argument. If it was then his argument would indeed be fallacious but from all I have heard of Dawkins, he does not argue this back - to - front misrepresentation of the naturalist argument.
Objector's comment "The closest he comes to supporting his contention is his statement, "the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer." While perhaps a legitimate question, it neither provides support for the claim that the design hypothesis is false nor provides a refutation of the God hypothesis."
Arq. concluding refutation. This is the closest this objection comes to the logic. Where one does not know one way or the other, it provides neither support nor disproof. However, where one does not know one should not, logically believe in what one does not know. Agnosticism is the knowledge position and atheism is the only logical belief - position deriving therefrom.
However, one does know. Not everything, of course, but Dawkin's argument - and mine - is that, science has been able to explain a lot of what previously was ascribed to God. The argument from design is understandable but illusory and wrong. Where we still don't know or can only make informed suggestions or have no idea at all, the natural causes should surely have earned some credit.
Even if one won't allow that, 'God' can logically be no better than a possible explanation. Gaps for god are no more than pockets of possiblity. They cannot logically serve as any kind of evidence for 'god'.
That is not even to address the question of 'which god?'.
Unsurprising conclusion. This person's' logic is illogic. The non -sequitur only applies to his Strawman misrepresentation of the argument, not the argument itself.
In fact, thinking about it, this bod adds dishonesty to illogic because the very argument he falsely ascribes to Dawkins - there is no designer therefore there is no design, is a mirror image of exactly the argument he and the ither ID'ers use - There is a designer, therefore there must be design. It is doubly dishonest since, though that is, essentially their argument, it is not admitted. Instead they pretend that it is the evidences of design that makes them postulate a designer. The question has been raised in court and it became clear that ID was simply Bible - literalist Creationism dressed up as science.
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 10-12-2009 at 07:26 AM..
Reason: A bit of clarification - and a final thought.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
