March 02, 2013

How Logic Helps to Reveal Spiritual Blindness

Logic is very useful. Some would even call it necessary. Nonetheless, some seem to go out of their way to deny the use of logic and the question of why this is so can be an interesting one. For example, the most widely endorsed book supporting atheism today is a book entitled, The God Delusion by Richard Dawkins. However, there's one little problem with the book: the main and central argument of the book is illogical. The book's conclusion does not logically follow from the six preceding premises. This is an objective fact, not a personal and subjective opinion. Yet, a litany of atheists continue to deny that this is true.

Richard Dawkins won't admit that his argument is illogically framed, and he refuses to debate prominent theists on the main subject of his book. Stephen Law, a professional secular atheist philosopher, presented a 1.5 hour analytical lecture on The God Delusion and did not mention the flawed six-point central argument of the book even once in passing throughout the entire lecture. Atheists who come to comment at my blog have been in a state of continual denial regarding this reality. If you are unfamiliar with the background of this subject, I recommend that you read a previous article, "Remember When WL Craig Refuted The God Delusion?"

The reason why I bring this subject here is to outline how this blatant denial of objective facts helps to underscore the truth of spiritual blindness and lostness outlined in scripture. Jesus is described as the Logos made flesh in John chapter 1. And, in case you didn't notice, Jesus never lost a debate recorded in scripture. Jesus offered wise rebuttals that his adversaries could not refute. The same holds true for the fist Christian martyr recorded in the New Testament, Stephen. It says of Stephen in Acts 6, "But they could not withstand the wisdom and the Spirit with which he was speaking."

Three characteristics of spiritual blindness and lostness

1. A lack of perception.
 
2. A hardened heart. 
 
3. A preference for evil over good.

4. The suppression of truth.
 
Spiritual blindness is a condition that Jesus described on a number of occasions. When Jesus described false teachers, he stated the following:

"Leave them; they are blind guides. If a blind man leads a blind man, both will fall into a pit."[Matthew 15:14 NIV]

Jesus was alluding to the fact that some people simply cannot perceive spiritual truth. It's just not possible for a person at a given moment in time, though things can change in a person's life. One might as well ask a physically blind man to hold his hand in front of his face and ask him to describe it. But there are other characteristics noted about spiritual blindness and lostness as well.

The Bible outlines how people can be stubborn and unwilling to believe spiritual truth. This type of person is on the verge of understanding spiritual truth, but is stubborn and unwilling to admit it. Psalm 95:7 and Hebrews 3.15 encourage this type of person not to be stubborn: 

“Today if you will hear His voice, harden not your heart.” 

A third characteristic is outlined in scripture regarding personal motivation. A person can be relegated to live in spiritual darkness due to a love of evil and sin, whether or not this penchant for evil is conscious:

"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."[John 3.19, NKJV]

Is there any evidence that atheists today walk in spiritual darkness? Many secular atheists won't acknowledge that concepts such as good and evil are valid concepts. However, some secular atheists do believe that there is an objective basis for moral right and wrong. Sam Harris is one such popular example. At my blog, I've noticed that throughout the debate process there is a tendency for secular atheists to begin slandering me with unjustified accusations and with unjustified slams against my character. This is not only immoral, it signifies that there is likely a significant underlying basis for this type of behavior. If these secular atheists were level-headed people with logical and rational thought processes, then there would be no need for unsubstantiated slander against a person defending so-called foolish fairy tales. Yet, this is obviously not the case. Their behavior underscores the fact thatmany atheists retain a deep-seeded animosity towards people who defend the truth of Christ's message.
 
The Bible describes the nature of "the accuser of the brethren" in Revelation 12.10.[KJV] While I John 4.3 and other verses describe how there is an antichrist spirit operating in the world. These types of examples provide logical explanations for the behavior of secular atheists. As noted in the case of Stephen, it was an underlying hatred that caused these people to kill this representative of Christ as they "gnashed their teeth" at him. This type of hatred and animosity is evident today as well as Christians are persecuted and killed around the world. According to a study made by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, 105,000 people are killed every year because of their Christian faith, that's an average of one every 5 minutes. 

The fourth point on the list regards the suppression of truth. Romans 1.18 outlines, "For God’s [holy] wrath and indignation are revealed from heaven against all ungodliness and unrighteousness of men, who in their wickedness repress and hinder the truth and make it inoperative."[AMP] I've already pointed out in another article evidence of how top secular atheist apologists display a tendency of avoiding logic and logical analysis. Logical principles are often used by people to test the truth of ideas. People who avoid logic obviously aren't very interested in testing the truth of ideas.

If you are an atheist who has never given serious thought to the possibility of God's existence, I would recommend that you consider the behavior of "blind guides" such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Law. They are perhaps some of the best object lessons helping to underscore the truth of God's existence, as are the atheists at my blog who feel a need to make false and slanderous claims instead of providing objective and logical explanations. Logic is not a subject that can be so easily dismissed by secular atheists, and neither is the organizing principle of the universe or the moral argument for God's existence, or the manner in which scientific discoveries regarding the nature of health also help to underscore the truth of scripture.

Image: Christ Healing the Blind Man - Eustache Le Sueur. (public domain)

Related 

The Organizing Principle of the Universe: Hierarchy and the Central Truth 

A Moral Argument as Proof of God’s Existence

Why Top Atheist Apologists Avoid Logic Like The Plague

66 comments:

  1. R:However, there's one little problem with the book: the main and central argument of the book is illogical.

    Yep, and it was pointed out to you that the version you use from Craig is a straw man.

    R:Richard Dawkins won't admit that his argument is illogically framed, and he refuses to debate prominent theists on the main subject of his book.

    Liar. He only refused to debate Craig and all the reason Dawkins gave are justified.

    R:Atheists who come to comment at my blog have been in a state of continual denial regarding this reality.

    Funny how you just claimed that your opponents are in denial and refused to engage with their arguments. Ad hominem anyone? 8)

    R:Jesus was alluding to the fact that some people simply cannot perceive spiritual truth.

    And he we go again to the same old objection you refuse to respond to. What makes your interpretention of the bible the right one, Rick?

    R:At my blog, I've noticed that throughout the debate process there is a tendency for secular atheists to begin slandering me with unjustified accusations and with unjustified slams against my character

    I suppose you refer to the accusations of you being a liar. So how many times have you been caught lying, Rick?

    R:If these secular atheists were level-headed people with logical and rational thought processes, then there would be no need for unsubstantiated slander against a person defending so-called foolish fairy tales.

    As I have pointed out before, some people value truth and they are not going to keep silent when you defend your foolish fairy tales that turn you into a moral monster, who is perfectly fine with the idea that their children are going to burn in hell for eternity just because they did not believe in god or were just born gay. Furthermore, you constantly engage in slander against people who simply do not share your theistic viewpoint.

    So no, it is not about "slander against a person defending so-called foolish fairy tales".

    R:Their behavior underscores the fact thatmany atheists retain a deep-seeded animosity towards people who defend the truth of Christ's message.

    Because theism very often leads to evil while that is not the case of atheism. The sole fact that you are ok with genocide of "evil" toddlers or them being tortured in hell for eternity is enough of a proof.

    R:The Bible describes the nature of "the accuser of the brethren" in Revelation 12.10.[KJV] While I John 4.3 and other verses describe how there is an antichrist spirit operating in the world. These types of examples provide logical explanations for the behavior of secular atheists.

    Did you not just insult just every single secular atheist in the world?

    R:According to a study made by the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, 105,000 people are killed every year because of their Christian faith, that's an average of one every 5 minutes.

    Those are the results of religious clashes. Hence, another proof why religion is a source of evil.

    R:I would recommend that you consider the behavior of "blind guides" such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Law. They are perhaps some of the best object lessons helping to underscore the truth of God's existence.

    Here you go, another insult and slander against people.

    R:As are the atheists at my blog who feel a need to make false and slanderous claims instead of providing objective and logical explanations.

    Do point a single accusation for which no objective evidence or logical explanations were provided.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. >Yep, and it was pointed out to you that the version you use from Craig is a straw man.

      Your making a comment and something being demonstrated to be a true and valid comment are two completely separate things.

      Before attempting to wade into the much of your various points, do clarify your beliefs on whether or not Dawkins offered a single "central argument" in his book.

      In the comments from the previous blog article, I corrected you for your misinterpretation of Dawkins' central argument:

      Anonymous,

      >I never denied that Dawkins did summarize his arguments in six points.

      - At first I thought that Anonymous had made a colossal breakthrough, but then I took a closer look at what he wrote. Dawkins didn't summarize "his arguments" (plural) in six listed points, rather, he summarized his "argument" (singular) in a series of six points and a conclusion.

      It seems that Anonymous has misinterpreted Dawkins central argument much the same as Law has. Dawkins clearly refers to his central argument of six points as a singular entity, "it" but secular atheists refuse to acknowledge this fact:

      "This chapter has contained the central argument of my book, and so, at the risk of sounding repetitive, I shall summarize it as a series of six numbered points."

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/02/remember-when-wl-craig-refuted-god.html?showComment=1361966801901#c5124283495440429722

      As of today, not one secular humanist has yet acknowledged at this blog that Richard Dawkins had presented a singular "central argument" in The God Delusion based on six points and a conclusion.

      Will this be a breakthrough day for someone who can acknowledge this fact for starters?

      Delete
    2. R:Your making a comment and something being demonstrated to be a true and valid comment are two completely separate things

      If you do not read my comments and refuse to even consider the arguments from your opponent is your own problem

      R:In the comments from the previous blog article, I corrected you for your misinterpretation of Dawkins' central argument

      I never knew that you did not understand that a single argument can be broken up into several smaller ones. Sorry for having overestimated your cognitive abilities. And yes, I acknowledge the fact that there is a central argument in the God s delusion, no one to my knowledge has ever denied this.

      Delete
    3. >I never knew that you did not understand that a single argument can be broken up into several smaller ones.

      - Is this an oblique means of finally acknowledging that Richard Dawkins did propose a single central argument in The God Delusion? Oh, yes, apparently it is:

      And yes, I acknowledge the fact that there is a central argument in the God s delusion, no one to my knowledge has ever denied this.

      As I've just demonstrated in my my previous comment, the most any secular humanist has acknowledged at my blog up until your comment just now is that Dawkins offered a series of arguments (plural). You are the first one that has acknowledged that Dawkins offered one central argument in his book.

      Are you also willing to acknowledge that "the central argument", as defined by Dawkins, consists of six points that somehow form a conclusion for Dawkins?

      Delete
    4. Again, Rick... Has anyone acknowledged at your blog that gravity exists? The existence of gravity is self-evident just like it is self-evident that Dawkins has presented his central argument in six steps that allow to draw the conclusion that a deity as a creator is highly unlikely to exist.

      Delete
    5. >The existence of gravity is self-evident just like it is self-evident that Dawkins has presented his central argument in six steps that allow to draw the conclusion that a deity as a creator is highly unlikely to exist.

      - Anonymous, If Dawkins' six-point central argument in The God Delusion is "self evident" for all people to see, then please answer the following questions:

      1) Why do you believe Stephen Law addressed only points in the argument and not the central argument itself?

      2) Why didn't Law comment on the fact that the central argument does not offer any logical consequence or valid logical syntax?

      Delete
    6. R:Why do you believe Stephen Law addressed only points in the argument and not the central argument itself?

      I never claimed that Law addressed only points of the argument. Law provided a summary of the argument and addressed it in his lecture.

      R:Why didn't Law comment on the fact that the central argument does not offer any logical consequence or valid logical syntax?

      Law offered his opinion why the argument is flawed in the mentioned lecture. However, from a structural point of view the argument is valid.

      And no. The straw man version from Craig does not cut in.

      Delete
    7. >Law provided a summary of the argument and addressed it in his lecture.

      - Just curious: Where in the Oxford video did Law provide a summary of Dawkins 6 point argument?

      What was the time frame of that? That is, at what time did this supposed summary begin and at what time did it end in the video?

      Delete
    8. Do you need the definition of a summary, Rick? From the Oxford definition:

      Summary - a brief statement or account of the main points of something

      That is exactly what Law has offered at his Oxford lecture you know about. He gives a brief statement on the six-point argument from the book at 00:51 of the lecture.

      You even have the screenshot of the slide where Law does so. You know, the one where he writes: "I now turn to the assement of Dawkins main argument against the God hypothesis"?

      Delete
    9. >He gives a brief statement on the six-point argument from the book at 00:51 of the lecture.

      Funny, I just looked at it again this morning and the six-point summary was not there.

      This is a quote from Stephen Law at the 51 minute mark:

      "So, I'm now going to turn to an assessment of Dawkins' main argument against the God Hypothesis, and, to be honest, I haven't had enough time to think about this myself. So if it appears that I am struggling, it is because I am."

      Law then beings rambling on about the fine-tuned universe at the 54 minute point. Law explains why he agrees with Dawkins that God must be complex and at 54.47, Law states, "That's why God is highly improbable, that's his [Dawkins'] core argument"

      So, Law does not assess Dawkins' central six-point
      argument at all. Law offers an analysis of only one point of six aspects of Dawkins' central argument and then falsely labels it as Dawkins' main argument.

      If you believe this is incorrect, provide some actual quotes from the video demonstrating how Law provided a summary of the six-point argument.

      Delete
    10. R:Funny, I just looked at it again this morning and the six-point summary was not there.

      Do not worry, we all know that you have problems with basic comprehesion.

      R:Law then beings rambling on about the fine-tuned universe at the 54 minute point.

      If you did not know this before, that is basically the central argument against god s existence as a creator from the God s delusion.

      R:Law explains why he agrees with Dawkins that God must be complex and at 54.47, Law states, "That's why God is highly improbable, that's his [Dawkins'] core argument"

      Nope, your comprehesion disability is showing up again. Law does not give the opinion whether god is complex or simple, he just presents the stance of Dawkins on the subject.

      R:So, Law does not assess Dawkins' central six-point argument at all. Law offers an analysis of only one point of six aspects of Dawkins' central argument and then falsely labels it as Dawkins' main argument.

      So what other points there are besides about fine-tuning, i.e. design, in Dawkins central argument?

      Delete
    11. Very interesting. We've gone from this:

      "He gives a brief statement on the six-point argument from the book at 00:51 of the lecture."

      to this:

      "If you did not know this before, that is basically the central argument [a rebuttal to fine tuning] against god s existence as a creator from the God s delusion."

      So, apparently, in your estimation, a six-point central argument is the same as a rebuttal to the fine-tuning argument. As far as I had remembered, you recently stated that the six-point argument was as obvious as gravity:

      "The existence of gravity is self-evident just like it is self-evident that Dawkins has presented his central argument in six steps that allow to draw the conclusion that a deity as a creator is highly unlikely to exist."

      So, apparently, you are dismissing something obvious in an offhand manner, something as obvious as gravity.

      Delete
    12. As always, you are ignoring my questions 8)

      R:So, apparently, in your estimation, a six-point central argument is the same as a rebuttal to the fine-tuning argument.

      Nope, again... Comprehension disability showing up.

      At 00:51 Law has presented a summary of the six-step argument from the God s delusion.

      Later on he offers some criticism by different philosophers, which he shows is rather weak and he shows why it is so.

      In the end he point out Platinga, whose criticism of Dawkins he agrees with.

      R:So, apparently, you are dismissing something obvious in an offhand manner, something as obvious as gravity.

      And what am I dismissing?

      Delete
    13. >At 00:51 Law has presented a summary of the six-step argument from the God s delusion.


      I had just asked for a quote from the video documenting this. You have provided none.

      Delete
    14. R:I had just asked for a quote from the video documenting this. You have provided none.

      Again... Rick, what do you need exactly? What sort of quote are you asking for?

      You even have a screenshot from your previous article of Law outlining the summary of the central argument from the God s delusion. Or is it the again you have trouble understanding it because Law sometimes calls the central argument as "the core argument" or "the main argument"?

      Delete
    15. >Again... Rick, what do you need exactly? What sort of quote are you asking for?

      - Again, all I am asking for is an iota of evidence that Law has addressed the six-point central argument of The God Delusion.

      You have claimed that Law has provided this at the 51 minute mark, and now you offer that the slide image of the previous post outlines this summary of Dawkins' central argument. But the slide image in no way supports your claim. The following is a link to that image:

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/49509398@N02/8497791548/in/photostream

      You have provided no quotes at all from the video outlining where Law supposedly addresses Dawkins' six-point argument, and the image you refer to in no way addresses Dawkins' central six-point argument.

      Thank you for helping to underscore the truth of the premise in the above blog post. This is an excellent object lesson for atheists and skeptics reconsidering their foundational believes. As noted in the above blog post,

      If you are an atheist who has never given serious thought to the possibility of God's existence, I would recommend that you consider the behavior of "blind guides" such as Richard Dawkins and Stephen Law. They are perhaps some of the best object lessons helping to underscore the truth of God's existence, as are the atheists at my blog who feel a need to make false and slanderous claims instead of providing objective and logical explanations.

      Delete
    16. Well, what can I say? I guess that since you do not understand Dawkins argument in the first place, you would not understand a summary of that argument either. Since you do not care about reality and truth from the start, not much can be done anyway.

      Delete
    17. Interesting logic:

      1. Anonymous admits that there is a six-point central argument in the God Delusion.

      2. Anonymous cannot point out any actual quotes, either verbal or written, in an analysis that address Dawkins' six-point central argument.

      3. Anonymous proposes that I do not understand the analysis because i do not understand Dawkins' argument.

      Actually, I was the one who pointed out to Anonymous the fact that a six-point central argument was outlined in the God Delusion.

      For some reason, it seems that Anonymous believes a rebuttal to the fine tuning argument at the 51 minute mark of the analysis is representative of Dawkins' central argument. It is not.

      More evidence of extreme denial in the atheist camp.

      Delete
    18. R:Anonymous cannot point out any actual quotes, either verbal or written, in an analysis that address Dawkins' six-point central argument.

      I pointed out the exact time when the central argument from the god delusion is addressed at 00:51 by Law at Oxford

      R:Anonymous proposes that I do not understand the analysis because i do not understand Dawkins' argument.

      There are plenty of evidence that you do not understand the argument. First of all you clinge to the interpretention from Craig which is a straw as it was explained to you. Secondly, you are unable to understand the summary of the central argument given by Law.

      R:For some reason, it seems that Anonymous believes a rebuttal to the fine tuning argument at the 51 minute mark of the analysis is representative of Dawkins' central argument. It is not.

      So again...What do you think is the central argument from the god s delusion? This time in your own words. What other points besides fine-tuning does Dawkins address in his central argument?

      Delete
    19. >So again...What do you think is the central argument from the god s delusion? This time in your own words.

      - Try Dawkins actual words in the actual six premises he presented. That is Dawkins' argument.

      An acceptable assessment of a logical argument entails the following:

      1) Examine each premise in order to determine whether or not it is true.

      2) Examine the sequence of premises and determine if there is a logical sequence and a sense of logical consequence towards a logical conclusion.

      The following is a link to an image displaying the manner in which Dawkins presented his argument as a list of specific premises.

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/49509398@N02/8533284222/

      Law did not asses each of the premises and did not asses the logical syntax of Dawkins' argument. Instead, Law truncated and blended the premises together into one paragraph using his own words.

      Law's methodology is not an acceptable means for evaluating a logical argument. Law's methodology is mistaken and inadequate. This is not a subjective opinion. It's an objective fact.

      An elementary school student with a basic understanding of logic and philosophy would understand this and be able to explain why each premise needs to be evaluated on its own merit.

      Law's flippant attitude towards logic and logical principles is nothing new. When asked about his own favorite argument, this was his reply:

      "The argument is already out there in various forms, Rick. Engage with them or don't. I could do you your own textbook version, set out as a deductively valid argument, but that would either leave various important stuff out, or else be very complicated in which case I don't have time." (April 19, 2012 11:53 AM)

      http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/2012/09/heavy-dexters-gig-tuesday-night.html

      If Law is familiar with "textbook" requirements for logical arguments, why did he tell me any "various forms" of his argument "out there" would be valid?

      If law could supposedly present a logically valid version of his argument, "a textbook version" why didn't he provide it initially as support for his own argument?

      If Law is familiar with "textbook" requirements for logical arguments, why does he turn Dawkins' own argument into a straw-man prose-style version? The most obvious explanation is that he is avoiding reliable logical evaluations in his own thought processes. Law is apparently quite comfortable in a state of illusion.

      Delete
    20. R:An acceptable assessment of a logical argument entails the following

      So is that THE ONLY WAY to assess an argument?

      R:Law did not asses each of the premises and did not asses the logical syntax of Dawkins' argument. Instead, Law truncated and blended the premises together into one paragraph using his own words.

      So what is the problem with presenting a summary of the argument? What is the most important, the idea itself behind the argument or a formal structure?

      For people, who are interested in truth, it seems that the idea itself and its validity is of primary importance, while for dishonest people like you, Rick, the important thing is to discredit the idea at any cost.

      R:Law's methodology is not an acceptable means for evaluating a logical argument. Law's methodology is mistaken and inadequate. This is not a subjective opinion. It's an objective fact.

      By whose standard? You need to back up those words.

      R:An elementary school student with a basic understanding of logic and philosophy would understand this and be able to explain why each premise needs to be evaluated on its own merit.

      Yet, for some reason, Law has obtained a doctorate in philosophy despite his "flawed" methodology in one of the most prestigious universities in Europe. So on one hand we have an amateur at philosophy and logic, criticizing a professional at philosphy and logic, while on the other we have no one else doubting the capacities of Law... Hm...

      R:Law's flippant attitude towards logic and logical principles is nothing new. When asked about his own favorite argument, this was his reply

      Yep, and you are a lazy ass, Rick, for not bothering to read any of his papers or listen to any of his lectures, where he offers his argument.

      R:If Law is familiar with "textbook" requirements for logical arguments, why did he tell me any "various forms" of his argument "out there" would be valid?

      Well, for starters, not only "textbook" arguments (i.e. syllogisms) are valid...

      R:If law could supposedly present a logically valid version of his argument, "a textbook version" why didn't he provide it initially as support for his own argument?

      Because there is no need for such an argument in the first place. Most people can understand an argument without resorting to syllogisms.

      R:If Law is familiar with "textbook" requirements for logical arguments, why does he turn Dawkins' own argument into a straw-man prose-style version?

      You need to prove it is a straw man. Offering a summary of an argument is not the same as offering a straw man.

      Delete
    21. P.S. And you still did not answer what you understand by Dawkins central argument. I asked you to explain it in your own words, i.e. I asked you for a summary of his argument. Reading the argument from Dawkins word for word, does not enlighten me what is Rick s understanding of it and what he disagrees with in it

      Delete
    22. >What is the most important, the idea itself behind the argument or a formal structure?

      Offering an assessment of an argument without even considering whether or not it offers logical consequence is unacceptable in both formal and informal logic. As noted:

      10. The Components of Informal Logic

      3. an account of logical consequence, which explains when it can be said (and what it means to say) that some claim (or attitude) is a logical consequence of another

      http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/logic-informal/#Com

      Delete
    23. R:Offering an assessment of an argument without even considering whether or not it offers logical consequence is unacceptable in both formal and informal logic.

      So the only way to assess whether or not there are logical consequences in an argument is through a deep analysis of each and every premise? Yep, Rick... keep digging 8)

      Delete
    24. Yep... And as always still no answer to 90% of my questions...

      Delete
    25. The basic definition of a philosophical argument includes propositions and a conclusion:

      "An argument is a connected series of statements or propositions, some of which are intended to provide support, justification or evidence for the truth of another statement or proposition. Arguments consist of one or more premises and a conclusion."

      http://www.iep.utm.edu/argument/

      1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.

      2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.

      3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion.

      4. Stephen Law does not address Dawkins' distinct six premises and Law does not ask whether or not there is any logical consequence between the six premises and the conclusion.

      5. Therefore, Law has clearly failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in the God Delusion as a philosophical argument.

      If Anonymous or anyone else disagrees with these 5 points, it would be helpful to better understand wherein the problem lies.

      Delete
    26. Rick, it is clearly a waste of time trying to make you understand how logic works. You are even unable to point out the premises and the conclusion in a summary of an argument. You also refuse to engage with what most of your opponent is saying. It is not even that fun anymore. If you are unable to understand what Law is saying at his lecture and what the flaws he believes exist in Dawkins central argument, I have no idea what magic should be used for your brain to start working.

      Go on, keep ignoring reality. If you try hard enough it might go away 8)

      Delete
    27. >You are even unable to point out the premises and the conclusion in a summary of an argument

      - You yourself stated that Dawkins' six-point premises are clearly evident, as obvious as gravity:

      "The existence of gravity is self-evident just like it is self-evident that Dawkins has presented his central argument in six steps that allow to draw the conclusion that a deity as a creator is highly unlikely to exist."

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/03/how-logic-reveals-spiritual-blindess.html?showComment=1362278587772#c2996001974780694163

      I have offered a webclip, evidence that these 6 points in Dawkins' own summary were actually published in his book:

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/49509398@N02/8533284222/in/photostream

      So, if Dawkins has already defined his own summary argument in six points and I have documented the published existence of those six points, your statement is incorrect.

      You have helped to underscore the truth of the saying, "the blind leading the blind."

      Neither you nor Law, nor any other atheists who post at his blog or mine, are apparently able to locate where the central problem lies in your perceptions. Thus, spiritual blindness and deep denial seem to be the most logical conclusion. Otherwise, let someone rise up from the ranks and point out the problem:

      1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.

      2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.

      3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion.

      4. Stephen Law does not address Dawkins' distinct six premises and Law does not ask whether or not there is any logical consequence between the six premises and the conclusion.

      5. Therefore, Law has failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.

      Law refuses to answer my question regarding the above 5 points. Ultimately, Law's main excuse for not answering my question seems to be that I am not up to his level of academic stature. This is the same type of excuse Dawkins offers people who refute his arguments.

      http://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=1905686568472747305&postID=3299919369546729724

      How sad that the perceived importance of academic authority is is highest standard of authority for Law and Dawkins, not the ability to use logic and discern truth. So much for "freethinking" atheists. The blind leading the blind.

      Delete
    28. Yep, good job, Rick. At least Craig tried to address the argument, while you just bitch about the fact that supposedly it is "flawed" without offering any explanations why it is so. You have not even tried to show that you understand the argument in the first place.

      R:I have offered a webclip, evidence that these 6 points in Dawkins' own summary were actually published in his book

      Oh our almighty lord Dawkins have offered his summary of the central argument from the god delusion. No other summary of that argument is permited. For offering his own summary, Law shall be send for eternity to the atheistic hell. A place where Rick is going to teach him philosophy and logic.

      R:Neither you nor Law, nor any other atheists who post at his blog or mine, are apparently able to locate where the central problem lies in your perceptions.

      Law s summary of Dawkins argument was pointed out to you. It is written in white and blue on the slide of his presentation at Oxford s lecture. The time was specifically pointed out (00:51).

      On the other hand, you just claim that Law s summary is incomplete and that somehow something else should be added. Unfortunately, you do not say what specifically should be added for the summary to be complete in your opinion.

      R:Thus, spiritual blindness and deep denial seem to be the most logical conclusion. Otherwise, let someone rise up from the ranks and point out the problem:

      Are you talking about yourself? After all, the problem was pointed out to you a long time ago. You just do not listen to your opponent and do not engage in their arguments.

      R:Ultimately, Law's main excuse for not answering my question seems to be that I am not up to his level of academic stature. This is the same type of excuse Dawkins offers people who refute his arguments.

      As always, your reading disability is showing up. I will tell the main reasons why not many people have the patience to deal with you:

      1. You are a pest (spamming on other people blogs)

      2. You are an asshole (slandering and insulting people left and right just because they do not share your religiosity)

      3. Wilfully ignorant and dishonest (you do not care about truth, you just want to push forward religion).

      I doubt you would yourself be willing to interact with a mirror version of yourself.

      R:How sad that the perceived importance of academic authority is is highest standard of authority for Law and Dawkins, not the ability to use logic and discern truth.

      It is not about academic credentials. It is about you and Craig being moral monsters. Inevitably, quite some people will avoid interacting with you once they find that out. Unless you could offer anything for their trouble.

      Delete
    29. >You have not even tried to show that you understand the argument in the first place.

      >you just claim that Law s summary is incomplete and that somehow something else should be added. Unfortunately, you do not say what specifically should be added for the summary to be complete in your opinion.

      - There is not much to understand. Stephen Law somewhat addressed the first three points of Dawkins' six points, but he ignored the rest.

      The remaining three points, quoted as follows from The God Delusion, offer no sound basis of logical syntax:

      "4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection.

      5. We don't have an equivalent crane for physics.

      6. We should not give up the hope of a better crane arising in physics, something as powerful as Darwinism is for biology.

      If the argument of this chapter is accepted... the God hypothesis is untenable. Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist."

      It may be noted that belief in God and belief in natural selection are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In the quintessential edition of Dawwin's Orgins (the 6th edition), Darwin proposes that God initiated life and then macro--evolution took over.

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-dawkins-reinvents-darwin.html

      Dawkins offers no reasons why these points should be considered mutually exclusive, he simply proposes that natural selection is a "powerful explanation" and that this somehow helps to lead to the conclusion, "Therefore, God does not exist." It does not lead to such a conclusion. Dawkins offers no sense of logical consequence in his argument.

      >1. You are a pest (spamming on other people blogs)

      Law deleted my so-called "spam" at his blog so you don't even know what he was actually referring to. Thankfully, I was given the impetus to take screen shots of these comments before Law deleted them. In the deleted comments are two of my logical summary arguments and basic questions that Stephen Law refuses to answer, most likely out of embarrassment. I shall soon publish the screen shot of those deleted comments.

      >It is not about academic credentials. It is about you and Craig being moral monsters.

      - This is nothing more than an ad hom attack. Peter Singer, remember the one you've been attempting to defend, promotes the killing of infants based on a perceived need for future happiness in the family, and you would not label that as immoral or unethical. Interesting standard you have established for yourself:

      “When the death of a disabled infant will lead to the birth of another infant with better prospects of a happy life, the total amount of happiness will be greater if the disabled infant is killed."

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2013/01/peter-singers-infanticide-at-princeton.html

      Delete
    30. R:There is not much to understand. Stephen Law somewhat addressed the first three points of Dawkins' six points, but he ignored the rest.

      With you it is always a mystery how you understand plain facts. Since you do not understand logic well, I am going to be forced to spoon feed you as always.

      All those points, you claim are "ommited", follow up at the explanation why a divine hypothesis for the Universe is unlikely in Law s interpretention of Dawkins central argument.

      The fact is as follows and I am going to use your bellowed capital letters in hope you will understand it:

      ONE CONCEPT CANNOT BE COMPLICATED WITHOUT THE COMPARISION TO ANOTHER CONCEPT. IN LAW S LECTURE THE GOD HYPOTHESIS IS COMPARED BY DEFAULT WITH NATURAL EXPLANATIONS.

      R:Stephen Law somewhat addressed the first three points of Dawkins' six points, but he ignored the rest

      Good job at clinging at the straw that was pointed out to you multiple times. And you wonder why many consider you scum and refuse to interact with you?

      The sixth point is a straw man. The main idea of the point is not that "We should not give up hope", it the amount of evidence and the concept of natural explanations are still BETTER than theistic explanations.

      R:Dawkins offers no reasons why these points should be considered mutually exclusive, he simply proposes that natural selection is a "powerful explanation" and that this somehow helps to lead to the conclusion, "Therefore, God does not exist."

      Rick... Are you really that mentally impaired? Dawkins offers plenty of reasons why the god s hypothesis is unlikely. The main reason is that the existing evidence and Occam s razor make the god s hypothesis unlikely.

      And would you stop conflating evolution and abiogenosis? Darwin had NOTHING to do with abiogenesis.

      R:Law deleted my so-called "spam" at his blog so you don't even know what he was actually referring to.

      I know well enough how you behave, Rick. I came to your blog after you were spamming left and right with your "proof of god s existance". You were posting your "challenge" on completely unrelated to the topic threads. That is the definition of a pest. Did you really change after a few months?

      R:This is nothing more than an ad hom attack.

      No, it is not an ad hom attack. That is a valid reason to refuse to interact with an individual. Why should anyone be forced to interact with a person they find repulsive?

      R:Peter Singer, remember the one you've been attempting to defend, promotes the killing of infants based on a perceived need for future happiness in the family, and you would not label that as immoral or unethical.

      First of all, you did not originally provided a quote where Singer s views on infanticide did follow. You added that quote much later on.

      Secondly, you have a long history of slander against others. Remember how you claimed that PZ s daughter promoted bestiality?

      Thirdly, I never said that infanticide was moral or ethical. So nice character assasination attempt.

      Finally, you still distort Singer s stance on ethics (like with the elderly). It is not as primitive as you make it sound to be.

      Delete
    31. >All those points, you claim are "ommited", follow up at the explanation why a divine hypothesis for the Universe is unlikely in Law s interpretention of Dawkins central argument.


      No, they do not "follow up at the explanation" at all in Dawkins' actual summary argument.

      - You have basically summed up one of the main problems, Anonymous. In his lecture, Law analyzes "Law's interpretention of Dawkins central argument" as you call it. ...not the actual summarized 6-point central argument that Dawkins himself proposed as supposedly valid.

      This was very unprofessional of Law. Perhaps that is the real reason he deleted a certian comment from his blog.

      It's really quite embarrassing that neither you nor Law agree with the conclusion of the following argument but neither of you can seem to point out a premise that is flawed either:

      1. Philosophical arguments (such as whether or not God exists) are defined by specific propositions and a conclusion.

      2. The logical consequence of an argument is evaluated based on comparing the relationship between the specific premises and the conclusion.

      3. Dawkins' central philosophical argument against God's existence includes six distinct propositions and a conclusion.

      4. Stephen Law does not address Dawkins' distinct six premises and Law does not ask whether or not there is any logical consequence between the six premises and the conclusion.

      5. Therefore, Law has failed to adequately evaluate Dawkins' central argument in The God Delusion as a philosophical argument.

      Pointing out Law's state of denial and refusal to face facts is not spam at all considering the title of the article it was posted under:

      "Tricks of the Mind event CFI, March 30th."

      http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/

      Both you and Law are demonstrating your inability to be objective regarding obvious objective facts. No spam, just more atheist living with "tricks of the mind" illusion available for all to see. Remember, you said that Dawkins' six-point argument was as obvious as gravity.

      And now in this post you've acquiesced that Law analyzed "Law's interpretention" of Dawkins own summary six-point argument, not Dawkins' own "obvious" six-point summary argument. This is about as plain a condition of denial as one could hope for.

      Instead of admitting his mistake or even explaining why he disagrees, Law changes the subject to his "I'm the authority" mode. These types of tricks only fool those atheists who have given up their desire for objective reasoning.

      Delete
    32. R:No, they do not "follow up at the explanation" at all in Dawkins' actual summary argument.

      It would help tremendously if you engaged with your opponent and not just said "No they do not". You need to back up your words and not just assert them.

      So do you disagree that the concept of complexity makes sense only with comparison to simplicity? What other explanation there is for the universe besides natural and supernatural ones?

      R:Law analyzes "Law's interpretention of Dawkins central argument" as you call it. ...not the actual summarized 6-point central argument that Dawkins himself proposed as supposedly valid

      Again, since when Dawkins words became dogma? Explain why no other summary of the central argument from the god s delusion is possible.

      R:It's really quite embarrassing that neither you nor Law agree with the conclusion of the following argument but neither of you can seem to point out a premise that is flawed either

      One does not need to address in details every single premise in an argument, Rick. The fact is that those other three premises, you claim were ommited, were addressed by default in Law s lecture. Just saying they were not is not an argument, it is just an empty assertion.

      R:Pointing out Law's state of denial and refusal to face facts is not spam at all considering the title of the article it was posted under "Tricks of the Mind event CFI, March 30th."

      So what common does "Tricks of the mind CFI" have with the discussion of the validity of the central argument from the "God s delusion"? You are posting off-topic, you frequently add links to your blog... In the end you are not much different from those spam bots that are currently plaguing your blog. Yep, you are a spammer by definition.

      R:Both you and Law are demonstrating your inability to be objective regarding obvious objective facts.

      Again, it would help your case if you did address the arguments of your opponent and did not continue with a nonsensical monologue.

      R:And now in this post you've acquiesced that Law analyzed "Law's interpretention" of Dawkins own summary six-point argument, not Dawkins' own "obvious" six-point summary argument.

      Again, since when Dawkins words became dogma and only his summary can be presented? You are also being a hypocrite right now. Craig does not use the exact version of the summary of the central argument, yet you find it ok for some reason (even if the straw man was pointed out to you a dozen times).

      R:Instead of admitting his mistake or even explaining why he disagrees, Law changes the subject to his "I'm the authority" mode

      I did not read your exchange with Law. However, you have zero credibility as a source, Rick. I also do understand Law s point of view. I imagine it was something like that, judging by your behavior pattern and claims on your own blog:

      Some unknown guy, who had no education in philosophy or logic, appears out of nowhere and orders Law to present his argument in the form of a syllogism. Then he says that Law s methodology is faulty and that is clear to even a grade student. After understanding that the guy had no interest in a civilized discussion and that he only is interested in pushing religious propaganda and discrediting at any cost his opponent, Law just banned Rick and deleted those comments.

      Delete
    33. >It would help tremendously if you engaged with your opponent and not just said "No they do not". You need to back up your words and not just assert them.

      - OK, you perhaps could use some visual aids, so I've created a Venn diagram of a logical argument and I've attempted to create a Venn diagram of the God Delusion. However, as much as I would like to display the logical syntax of the God Delusion and display how the ideas overlap in some form towards a conclusion, the premises do not fit together logically.

      See the following link for the example of sound versus unsound and illogical arguments:

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/49509398@N02/8547338521/

      Now, you have a challenge. If you disagree with the presentation then make a sketch showing how Dawkins' central argument offers some type of logical sytax and some type of logical consequence as a logically framed argument.

      Delete
    34. You know, by ignoring 90% of what I said in my previous post, you are just proving my point, do you?

      R:OK, you perhaps could use some visual aids, so I've created a Venn diagram of a logical argument and I've attempted to create a Venn diagram of the God Delusion.

      Facepalm... Rick... You never cease to amaze me. I never imagined you could make that many mistakes in a simple diagram like that

      1. It is not about god being extremely complex. It is about the fact that a deistic explanation is extremely complex because of god s complexe nature.

      2. It is not about natural selection being the best explanation. It is about the fact that naturalistic explanations are the best.

      3. And with your conclusion you reached a failure of epic propotions. Do you understand the difference between "god almost certainly does not exist" and "god does not exist"? Do you see your own straw man here? Do you still claim to understand the central argument from the god s delusion?

      R:If you disagree with the presentation then make a sketch showing how Dawkins' central argument offers some type of logical sytax and some type of logical consequence as a logically framed argument.

      Rick, if words are not enough, no amount of visual info is going to help you.

      Delete
    35. >1. It is not about god being extremely complex. It is about the fact that a deistic explanation is extremely complex because of god s complexe nature.

      - The Venn diagram simply offers a summary of a main point. If you have a better Venn diagram to offer, then by all means offer it. The Venn diagram is based on Dawkins' idea as summarized by Law in Law's video presentation slide:

      "God must have at least as much organized complexity as his creation."

      Go to the visual aids for clarification:

      http://www.flickr.com/photos/49509398@N02/8497791548/in/photostream

      Fail one for anonymous.

      >2. It is not about natural selection being the best explanation. It is about the fact that naturalistic explanations are the best.

      Anonymous, you are conflating the first part of Dawkins' argument with the latter part. Dawkins' actual quotes in the actual premises mean nothing?:

      "4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection."

      Fail 2 for Anonymous.

      >Rick, if words are not enough, no amount of visual info is going to help you.

      Anonymous, you cannot provide a valid Venn sketch for The God Delusion because it is not a logical argument.

      I have provided both the words and the visual aids. You have failed to provide any valid responses. You are in a state of denial.

      When you are able to create a simple Venn diagram demonstrating how basic ideas in actual premises somehow overlap in some type of logical form in The God Delusion, then let us know. No one is holding their breath I am sure.

      Delete
    36. R:The Venn diagram simply offers a summary of a main point.

      Yes and I told you got every single point wrong. I even explained it in details.

      R:If you have a better Venn diagram to offer, then by all means offer it

      I told you before. If you do not understand words no amount of visual data will help you.

      R:The Venn diagram is based on Dawkins' idea as summarized by Law in Law's video presentation slide

      Sigh... How many times must I repeat myself it is not the case? Law is focusing on the main aspect of the argument, i.e. why a deistic explanation is worse than a naturalistic one (because of the complexity of the god s concept).

      R:Anonymous, you are conflating the first part of Dawkins' argument with the latter part. Dawkins' actual quotes in the actual premises mean nothing?

      Rick, again... Since when did the words of Dawkins become dogma? Since when only his summary is allowed? Why is it impossible to express the same idea with different words? Why are you ok with Craig s version of Dawkins argument if you appear to ask for a dogmatic version of it? And why did you choose only 2 minor points of all the 6 points argument in your diagramm? Are you even going to try to answer those questions?

      And yes, quotes taking out of context mean nothing.

      R:Anonymous, you cannot provide a valid Venn sketch for The God Delusion because it is not a logical argument.

      Do explain why it is impossible to discuss the central argument from the god s delusion without a Venn diagram. Only if a Venn diagram is absolutely necessary for the discussion will I make one.

      R:I have provided both the words and the visual aids. You have failed to provide any valid responses. You are in a state of denial.

      Rick, you fail again and again to address the arguments from your opponent. You are engaging in a monologue as always and ignore your opponent s arguments and questions.

      Delete

    37. >Yes and I told you got every single point wrong.

      You did try, didn't you. For example, you offered that your explanation is better than an actual quote by Dawkins:

      >2. It is not about natural selection being the best explanation. It is about the fact that naturalistic explanations are the best.

      Dawkins' actual quote in the actual premise:

      "4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection."

      As noted, Dawkins is referring specifically to evolution in premise 4, not merely "naturalistic explanations" But actual verbatim quotes in front of your face don't count for much, do they?

      It's so sad to see people is such a deep state of denial. Are you on a vodka binge today? Or is this deep state of denial more likely a result of spiritual blindness?

      Delete
    38. R:You did try, didn't you. For example, you offered that your explanation is better than an actual quote by Dawkins

      Nope, your reading disability is showing up again. I was trying to make you understand that your understanding of the argument is wrong and that you are takin the quote out of context.

      R:As noted, Dawkins is referring specifically to evolution in premise 4, not merely "naturalistic explanations" But actual verbatim quotes in front of your face don't count for much, do they?

      Sigh...Rick...That is not the main idea of the argument. Just taking a single quote out of context does not mean that you managed to pint point the main idea of a paragraph.

      Let us try to find the main idea of each paragraph from the 6-step argument of Dawkins:

      1. One of the greatest challenges to the human intellect has been to explain... appearance of design...

      2 The natural temptation is to attribute the appearance of design to actual design itself...

      3. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer...

      4. The most ingenious and powerful crane [for biology] so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection...

      5. We don't yet have an equivalent crane [i.e. explanation] for physics...

      6. But even...the relatively weak cranes [naturalistic explanations] we have at present [for physics] are... self-evidently better than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of an ID

      Hence God almost certainly did not create the Universe, i.e. God almost certainly does not exist.

      I repeat for the mentally impaired... The main idea is that naturalistic explanations for the Universe are either proven to be correct and not needing a god (evolution) or the naturalistic hypothesis (cosmology) turn out to be better explanations than creationism.

      So after explaining to you TWICE in the same point the argument from the God delusion, do you understand it now? Is there anything you still fail to grasp?

      R:It's so sad to see people is such a deep state of denial.

      You are not engaging with the arguments of your opponent as always.

      Delete
    39. >The main idea is that naturalistic explanations for the Universe are either proven to be correct and not needing a god (evolution)

      - First, Dawkins did not state in his premise that evolution is "proven to be correct." You have completely rewritten what he proposed, as noted:

      "4. The most ingenious and powerful explanation is Darwinian evolution by natural selection."

      It seems that you have a very difficult time accepting what Dawkins actually wrote in his own argument. You want to rewrite it, as Law does. But then it is no longer Dawkins' argument.

      Second, even if evolution is accepted as gospel truth, that does not disprove God's existence. I've already explained this to you yesterday:

      "It may be noted that belief in God and belief in natural selection are not necessarily mutually exclusive. In the quintessential edition of Dawwin's Orgins (the 6th edition), Darwin proposes that God initiated life and then macro--evolution took over."

      http://templestream.blogspot.com/2012/02/how-dawkins-reinvents-darwin.html

      Translation: It does not matter if Dawkins considers evolution to be the best explanation for biology. It in no way refutes the possibility of God's existence. Dawkins is not arguing against Creationsim. Do you understand that?

      >or the naturalistic hypothesis (cosmology) turn out to be better explanations than creationism.

      You at least used the future tense (turn out to be), which is a correct interpretation.

      Translation: If somehow there happens to be some new cosmological evidence in the future, then Dawkins' beliefs may be validated.

      You see, that is not really a compelling logical argument. That is merely wishful thinking.

      >So after explaining to you TWICE in the same point the argument from the God delusion, do you understand it now? Is there anything you still fail to grasp?

      - It is quite clear that

      A) You prefer to rewrite other people's premises.

      B) You do not seem to understand what signifies logical consequence in a philosophical argument.

      C) You have yet to demonstrate where there is a sense of valid logical syntax in the six point argument.

      Your final point is nothing but a bald assertion that does not address the many arguments that offer logical support for God's existence and merely assumes that this question must be debated on the grounds of scientific understanding, nothing more that pompous scientism:

      [weak and disjointed scientific theories] are... self-evidently better than the self-defeating skyhook hypothesis of an ID"

      I don't consider science to be the main ground upon which God's existence should be debated, sorry. And neither you, Law nor Dawkins have offered any good reason why it should be. On the contrary, the sloppy logic you all display makes it fairly obvious that Dawkins fawning atheists should probably study less science and more logic if they wish to enter into such debates.

      Delete
    40. R:First, Dawkins did not state in his premise that evolution is "proven to be correct." You have completely rewritten what he proposed, as noted

      Is that so? Let me quote a part of the 6th step from Dawkins argument:

      "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."

      So Rick...Showing something to be true is somehow different than proving it? Interesting world you live in.

      R:It seems that you have a very difficult time accepting what Dawkins actually wrote in his own argument.

      I have used Dawkins own words while describing his central argument.

      You problem is that you are unable to pint point the main idea of a paragraph. I helped you and pointed the main ideas of each of the six steps from Dawkins argument. Do point out what exactly you disagree with my summary of Dawkins argument (your point about evolution not being mentioned as "proven" has been dealt with).

      R:Second, even if evolution is accepted as gospel truth, that does not disprove God's existence.

      Your mental blocking powers are outstanding, Rick... It is not about evolution proving god is unlikely to exist. It is about the fact that naturalistic explanations (which evolution is part of) are BETTER than religious ones. Evolution was offered as a SINGLE example for biology.

      R:Dawkins is not arguing against Creationsim. Do you understand that?

      The problem is that YOU do not understand his argument. For the god hypothesis to be proven unlikely it is sufficient to prove even a single property of god to be unlikely.

      Translation: if creationism is unlikely the whole concept of an almighty intelligent creator is unlikely. Dawkins is precisely arguing against creationism in his central argument.

      R:Translation: If somehow there happens to be some new cosmological evidence in the future, then Dawkins' beliefs may be validated

      Wrong. The point is that EVEN the weak naturalistic hypothesis we have now are still BETTER than religious explanations. Why? Look at Dawkins 3rd step:

      "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."

      i.e. the concept of god is even more statistically improbable than any of the naturalistic hypothesis.

      R:You prefer to rewrite other people's premises.

      You fail to prove that I somehow distorted his argument and you are a hypocrite for accepting Craig s straw man summary, but denying mine.

      R:You do not seem to understand what signifies logical consequence in a philosophical argument.

      I am not the one who blatantly misrepresents the argument from Dawkins and who fails repeatedely to understand their mistake.

      R:You have yet to demonstrate where there is a sense of valid logical syntax in the six point argument.

      I know it is hard for you, but do try to make an effort and read what I wrote to you. Maybe reading those arguments a dozen times will help?

      R:Your final point is nothing but a bald assertion that does not address the many arguments that offer logical support for God's existence and merely assumes that this question must be debated on the grounds of scientific understanding, nothing more that pompous scientism

      1. It is not me that is saying those words, it is Dawkins

      2. It is not a bald assertion. Dawkins shows in details why a naturalistic explanation is always better than a supernatural one with concrete examples.

      3. Every single argument you provided for god s existance have been proven to be flawed. The fact that you ignore criticism is your own problem.

      R:I don't consider science to be the main ground upon which God's existence should be debated, sorry.

      Science is the best tool we have for understanding and investigating reality. We all know that you are not interested in reality, but do not think people will let your willfully ignorant and false comments about reality go unanswered.

      Delete
    41. P.S. Correction: the part where Dawkins is saying that evolution has been demonstrated is quote from the 4th step of his central argument.

      Delete
    42. >I have used Dawkins own words while describing his central argument.

      - Actually, you've just made an excuse for completely rewriting the meaning of one of the premsies in a logical argument.

      >Do point out what exactly you disagree with my summary of Dawkins argument

      A major problem seems to be that you don't understand why point 4 is irrelevant to the argument and therefore illogical as a premise:

      "4. The most ingenious and powerful crane [for biology] so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection..."

      Because theism and evolution are not logically incompatible, this is an irrelevant premise. It ads nothing to the argument.

      Are you willing to acknowledge that many theists believe in evolution and that there is no necessary logical contradiction?

      Visual aids may be helpful. The following visual aid may help you to understand why this is so:


      http://www.flickr.com/photos/49509398@N02/8553407289/in/photostream

      >Science is the best tool we have for understanding and investigating reality.

      Nope, sound logic is more critical than scientific experiments. Without the first you cannot have the second.

      Delete
    43. R:Actually, you've just made an excuse for completely rewriting the meaning of one of the premsies in a logical argument

      Which premise did I rewrite the meaning of, Rick?

      R:A major problem seems to be that you don't understand why point 4 is irrelevant to the argument and therefore illogical as a premise

      "The most ingenious and powerful crane so far discovered is Darwinian evolution by natural selection. 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".

      So it is irrelevant to the issue of creationism to prove that the design in living beings is an illusion? It is irrelevant to prove that the biological structure of living beings is due to adaptation to their surroudings and not design? An eye is not the result of design, it is the result of adaptation and natural selection.

      R:Because theism and evolution are not logically incompatible, this is an irrelevant premise. It ads nothing to the argument.

      If it was just about evolution, then yes. Unfortunately for you, it is not just about evolution, but about naturalistic explanations.

      R:Nope, sound logic is more critical than scientific experiments. Without the first you cannot have the second.

      I have got news for you, Rick. Logic is incorporated into science. But logic alone cannot investigate black holes or the human genome. So no, science is still the best instrument we have for invetigating and understanding reality.

      Delete
  2. Hey there just wanted to give you a brief heads up and let
    you know a few of the pictures aren't loading correctly. I'm
    not sure why but I think its a linking issue. I've tried it in two different browsers and both show the same outcome.

    Feel free to surf to my web site; basal Metabolic rate calculator
    my site :: bmr calculator for women

    ReplyDelete
  3. >Which premise did I rewrite the meaning of, Rick?

    Dawkins did not state in his premise that evolution is "proven to be correct."

    This is what was written by Dawkins:

    "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."

    Did you notice the word "improbability"? Do you know the difference between something being improbable and something that has been proved?

    >So it is irrelevant to the issue of creationism to prove that the design in living beings is an illusion?

    - You still don't seem to get it. Dawkins claimed to argue against God's existence, not creationism.

    Many theists, including Darwin himself, saw no logical problem with evolution taking over after God began life on earth.

    >Unfortunately for you, it is not just about evolution, but about naturalistic explanations.

    - Did I write it was "just" about evolution? No. But isn't evolution the main example Dawkins is attempting to use as a natural explanation in favor of atheism? It seems so.

    You wrote earlier:

    2. It is not about natural selection being the best explanation. It is about the fact that naturalistic explanations are the best.

    So, let's summarize:

    1. Dawkins' argument is basically that naturalistic explanations (for design appearance) are the best.
    2. Evolution is the main (and only) tangible example Dawkins offers.
    3. Dawkins' cosmos example is a pie-in-the-sky future hope that is not tangible today.
    4. Evolution is completely compatible with theism according to Darwin and others.
    5. Therefore, Dawkins has offered no relevant example to support his main point that natural explanations are "better" than theistic ones.

    Pretty much sums it up.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I am still curious, Rick... How do you intend to ivestigate the human genome and black holed with logic alone? 8)

      R:Did you notice the word "improbability"? Do you know the difference between something being improbable and something that has been proved?

      Ah, yes...I keep forgetting about your reading disability... "Statistical improbability" refers to it just being the result of blind force without a designer.

      "...living creatures, with their spectacular statistical improbability and appearance of design..."

      Translation: it is spectacular statistically improbable that complex living beings just came into existance without a designer.

      However, they did not just come into existence as Darwin and other have demonstrated. Their appearance is the result adaptation and natural selection. And that is a fact.

      R:You still don't seem to get it. Dawkins claimed to argue against God's existence, not creationism.

      I guess I need to quote myself again:

      "Translation: if creationism is unlikely the whole concept of an almighty intelligent creator is unlikely. Dawkins is precisely arguing against creationism in his central argument."

      So what is that you do not understand in the statement above? Do you still think that a god would exists if the Universe was NOT created by it?

      R:Did I write it was "just" about evolution? No. But isn't evolution the main example Dawkins is attempting to use as a natural explanation in favor of atheism? It seems so.

      The main idea of Dawkins argument is as follows:

      "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. We need a 'crane', not a 'skyhook', for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity."

      Both evolution and cosmology are "cranes" to explain the Universe. And creationism is a "skyhook".

      R:Pretty much sums it up

      Nope, epic fail again. Let me us start going step by step:

      R:Dawkins' argument is basically that naturalistic explanations (for design appearance) are the best

      Good job. After several months you managed to get the main idea.

      R:Evolution is the main (and only) tangible example Dawkins offers

      It is not exctly so, but for the sake of argument, I will let it slide.

      R:Dawkins' cosmos example is a pie-in-the-sky future hope that is not tangible today.

      That explanation is not proven, but it is still better than the deistic explanation.

      R:Evolution is completely compatible with theism according to Darwin and others.

      No objection here. However, evolution has undermined the main argument for theism, i.e. how could there be the appearance of design without a designer.

      R:Therefore, Dawkins has offered no relevant example to support his main point that natural explanations are "better" than theistic ones.

      And here you have your epic fail, Rick. You completely missed Dawkins explanation why a supernatural explanation is always inferior to a natural one. You have completely ignored the 3rd step:

      "The 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. We need a 'crane', not a 'skyhook', for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity."

      Without invoking the problem "who designed the designer", you have a straw man argument. How many weeks will it take you, Rick, to make a Dawkins argument?

      Delete
    2. Webster's definition of Creationism:

      "a doctrine or theory holding that matter, the various forms of life, and the world were created by God out of nothing and usually in the way described in Genesis"

      http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/creationism

      Notice that creationism is based on creation "...in the way described in Genesis." This is what Dawkins is arguing again by bringing up the subject of evolution, not God's existence.

      Oxford Dictionary:

      "the belief that the universe and living organisms originate from specific acts of divine creation, as in the biblical account, rather than by natural processes such as evolution."

      http://oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/american_english/creationism

      Yup, Creationism is defining life based on the biblical 7-day account. Darwin's theism was based on God merely starting life and letting evolution take over.

      You wrote, "Dawkins is precisely arguing against creationism in his central argument."

      So, thank for refuting Dawkins' central argument in your own words. Much obliged. Dawkins was not even addressing God's existence, he was addressing the biblical account of creation in 7 days.

      Care to dig your hole any deeper?

      Delete
    3. So you will not explain how you are going to investigate black holes and genetics with logic alone? Too bad, but I kinda expected this, though.

      R:Webster's definition of Creationism...

      Great, when corned you turn to dictionary proofs... And even there your reading disability rages.

      R:Notice that creationism is based on creation "...in the way described in Genesis."

      Notice the word "usually". The hindu account for the creation of the world is also creationism even if it is not based on Genesis.

      Let me quote Dawkins again:

      "Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us. This book will advocate an alternative view: any creative intelligence, of sufficient complexity to design anything, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution."

      So let us sum it up for the thousand time:

      1. God is defined as superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it

      2. If one manages to prove even a single attribute of god to be false, the whole concept is false. (i.e. if god did not deliberately create the universe and everything in it, which is understood as "creationism", there is no god)

      Do you agree so far? That is if there was no intelligence that deliberately created the universe, there is no god? Yes or no, Rick. Answer that question, because I am tired of repeating it and it seems that the discussion cannot move on without it.

      Now let us pass to Dawkins:

      1. Dawkins did show that the appearance of design in biology is the result of natural selection and adaptation. That is not the work of deliberate design. An omni being would have no need for such a roundabout way for deliberate creation as evolution. The "flaws" in design in living oraganisms also suggest that it is the result of natural selection and not design.

      2. There is no definite explanation for the existance of the Universe. However, current natural hypothesis do offer an explanation how the universe could appear to be designed and those are the best explanations we have so far.

      3. Dawkins did show that a supernatural explanation is inadequate. Any creative intelligence [we know of], of sufficient complexity, comes into existence only as the end product of an extended process of gradual evolution. But god is not the product of evolution nor design. Hence this concept is incoherent and cannot be used as an explanation for the appearance of design in the universe or biology.

      4. Since there is no deliberate design in the world, god almost certainly does not exist.

      R:Darwin's theism was based on God merely starting life and letting evolution take over.

      Yes and he was wrong in his theism (it would also be honest to of you to add that he became an agnostic later on because of the evidence).

      That is also the reason why Dawkins is saying "Darwin and his SUCCESSORS" and not just "Darwin". The result of the current form of living organisms IS NOT deliberate design. It is the result of natural selection and adaptation.

      Yes, the idea of a deism is not refuted by evolution. But the idea of a deliberate designer is.

      R:Much obliged. Dawkins was not even addressing God's existence, he was addressing the biblical account of creation in 7 days.

      You do know that there are not only biblical accounts of creation? Have you ever heard of any religion besides christianity that also hold myths about the world s creation that are not grounded in genesis? Do you need a list?

      Delete
    4. >Let me quote Dawkins again:

      "Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us.

      - Dawkins is a terribly confused individual and you seem to be as well. What does the conclusion of the God Delusion central argument actually state? Does it state, "Therefore, a biblical Creator does not exist?" No, it states, "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist."

      As noted, his conclusion is not at all defined by particulars about God. It is truly a pathetic argument when premises and conclusions need to be rewritten based on some comments in a book in order to try and salvage a modicum of logic. The fact is, the argument as written is illogical and these poor attempts you are offering only serve to underscore that fact.

      For the sixth edition of Darwin's famous book, the short title was changed to The Origin of Species. In the conclusion of the 6th edition Darwin specifically used the word "creator" to define the one who "breathed" the first breath of life into living beings on Earth: “…having been originally breathed by the creator into a few forms or into one..."[2]

      According to Dawkins' God Hypothesis definition, it seems Dawkins is arguing against Darwin's understanding of God as well. According to Dawkins, Darwin was in a delusion because Darwin believed that a creator breathed life into the first living forms.

      >Yes, the idea of a deism is not refuted by evolution. But the idea of a deliberate designer is.

      - Would you be willing to at least acknowledge that Dawkins did not state in his conclusion:

      "Therefore, a deliberate designer does not exist."

      Would you acknowledge that Dawkins penned a false conclusion to his central argument according to all of these explanations that you are offering?

      His central argument is apparently not against God's existence, but against a "deliberate designer" of sorts.

      Isn't this what you have been proposing? If so, then Dawkins' stated conclusion is wrong.

      Delete
    5. R:Does it state, "Therefore, a biblical Creator does not exist?" No, it states, "Therefore, God almost certainly does not exist."

      It states ANY superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe almost certainly does not exist...

      Yep, we are stuck as long as you ignore my question. As long as you keep ignoring the following fundamental question, we will be getting nowhere. Let me repeat again:

      "1. God is defined as superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it

      2. If one manages to prove even a single attribute of god to be false, the whole concept is false. (i.e. if god did not deliberately create the universe and everything in it, which is understood as "creationism", there is no god)

      Do you agree so far? That is if there was no intelligence that deliberately created the universe, there is no god? Yes or no, Rick. Answer that question, because I am tired of repeating it and it seems that the discussion cannot move on without it."

      Delete
    6. P.S. And creator does not equal deliberate design. Do you need a dictionnary proof? 8)

      Delete
    7. >And creator does not equal deliberate design.

      >Do you agree so far? That is if there was no intelligence that deliberately created the universe, there is no god? Yes or no, Rick

      - You are not clearly defining the issues.

      Deists, for example, believe that a creator god does exist, but that after the motions of the universe were set in place he retreated, having no further interaction with the created universe or the beings within it.

      A deist may believe that God "deliberately designs" life on earth but allows evolution to complete the process. Dawkins does not even seem to comprehend that such people exist with such beliefs.

      Dawkins' central argument is both vague and illogical. It may be that Dawkins is arguing as you state, and his conclusion is not worded correctly. Or, it may be that his premises are off. Which is it? As it stands and as it is written, it doesn't make sense.

      Delete
    8. R:You are not clearly defining the issues

      How can I make it clear to you? What is so difficult to understand?

      All A has the properties of x
      If B has no x properties
      Therefore B is not A

      Do you understand now? Again, do not ignore that question or the discussion cannot continue.

      R:Deists, for example...

      Remember the kind of god Dawkins is arguing against?

      "Instead I shall define the God Hypothesis more defensibly: there exists a superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it, including us."

      Nope, that is not the kind of god who just created things. It is a god, who DELIBERATELY DESIGNED the universe. It is not an argument against Mbombo, who vomited the universe after feeling some stomach ache.

      For deists even a particle could classify as god if it did create the Universe.

      You know the difference between design and creation, do you?

      Delete
    9. P.S.

      And since you did not answer my question, claiming I did not clearly define it, I will repeat it again:

      "1. God is defined as superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it

      2. If one manages to prove even a single attribute of god to be false, the whole concept is false. (i.e. if god did not deliberately create the universe and everything in it, which is understood as "creationism", there is no god)

      Do you agree so far? That is if there was no intelligence that deliberately created the universe, there is no god? Yes or no, Rick. Answer that question, because I am tired of repeating it and it seems that the discussion cannot move on without it."

      Again, if there is something you do not understand, point it out. Do not just say "I do not understand" or "You are not defining clearly the issues".

      Delete
    10. P.P.S.

      R:A deist may believe that God "deliberately designs" life on earth but allows evolution to complete the process.

      Sorry about that. I forgot this point. God supposedely designed life. But the end result is because of adaptation and natural selection, not because of initial design. Hence, current life is not designed since it was shaped by evolution and not god.

      Delete
    11. >Do you agree so far?

      - As far as our present debate is concerned, you apparently believe that the words, terms and premises in The God Delusion argument are not clear enough to stand on their own and must be interpreted based on Dawkins' own defintions of God as described in his book.

      When we look into hoe Dawkins actually describes God, we find a complete straw man presentation based on naturalistic limitations.

      Dawkins believes that God needs a designer because he is thinking in naturalistic terms and apparently cannot conceive why, logically, a perfect, transcendent, eternal spiritual being would not need a designer. This was described more at the following link:

      IV. The biblical God versus straw-man caricatures

      http://www.blogger.com/blogger.g?blogID=1645439856635422478#editor/target=post;postID=7096390286203017167

      The true God is not just "superhuman" but fully omnipotent and omniscient. And this seems to be one of the main problems in Dawkins' definition of God:

      "1. God is defined as superhuman, supernatural intelligence who deliberately designed and created the universe and everything in it.

      So, no. I don't agree so far with Dawkins' definitions of God.

      If you want to apply God in a more general sense in his philosophical argument, then that might be a possibility for the sake of discussion. But Dawkins' definition of God in no way matches my personal understanding of God which offers a more logically cohesive understanding of reality.

      Delete
    12. R:As far as our present debate is concerned, you apparently believe that the words, terms and premises in The God Delusion argument are not clear enough to stand on their own and must be interpreted based on Dawkins' own defintions of God as described in his book

      Not really. Most people understand the argument without rephrasing it. I am doing this as a favor to you, because it seems to be an impossible mental challenge to understand the argument as it is for our dear friend Rick.

      R:Dawkins believes that God needs a designer because he is thinking in naturalistic terms and apparently cannot conceive why, logically, a perfect, transcendent, eternal spiritual being would not need a designer.

      As it was pointed out before, you are using a fallacy called "special pleading". Everything needs a designer, but not god.

      R:The true God is not just "superhuman" but fully omnipotent and omniscient

      And that kind of god is even easier to refute since it is a self-contradictory concept. Dawkins tried to work up at least a little challenge. 8)

      Besides, it is irrelevant if your god is omnipotent and omniscient. He still falls under the kind of god Dawkins is arguimg against.

      R:If you want to apply God in a more general sense in his philosophical argument, then that might be a possibility for the sake of discussion.

      Oh! So now we jumped from "completely illogical and non-sequitor" to straw man. Dully noted.

      R:But Dawkins' definition of God in no way matches my personal understanding of God which offers a more logically cohesive understanding of reality.

      Ok...Let us compare your definitions...

      1. Rick defines god as an omnipotent, omniscient being and Dawkins claim it is a superhuman... Would an omnipotent and omniscient being be superhuman? Yes. Check...

      2. Rick claims that god is a transcendent mind and Dawkines defines it as a supernatural intelligence. A mind without a body falls under the category of supernatural and Rick does agree that god is intelligent. Check

      3. Rick claims that god designed the universe and all of life, the same way as Dawkins defines god. Check.

      Conclusion: Rick s definition of god falls under Dawkins definition of god.

      Delete
    13. >Not really. Most people understand the argument without rephrasing it.

      - There are unilversalists, deists, and many who believe in a creative higher power that would dissagree with the defintion of God that you claim is required.

      >As it was pointed out before, you are using a fallacy called "special pleading". Everything needs a designer, but not god.

      - No, in this case is is not a fallacy of special pleading at all according to this secular website Freethoughtpedia: "From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading is violating a well accepted principle, namely the 'Principle of Relevant Difference'. According to this principle, two people can be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them."

      http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Logical_Fallacies_by_Todangst

      It would probably be accurate to state that being eternal, perfect, omnicient and omnipotent would count as "relevent differences" that have logical consequences. One of those logical consequences of God's nature is obviously that God would not need a designer.

      If you need a few examples of the Principle of Relevant Difference, you can see them at this site:

      http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

      The following points outline how Dawkins commits a Fallacy of Degrees in his assessment of God based on Dawkins' approach to the question:

      1. Superior designs emanate from a superior minds.
      2. However, the mind of God is not simply superior, it is omniscient, perfect and eternal.
      3. There is no mind superior to an omniscient, perfect and eternal mind.
      4. Therefore, there is no need for (or possibility of) God having a superior designer.

      >And that kind of god is even easier to refute since it is a self-contradictory concept.

      - Bald assertion not proven.

      >Besides, it is irrelevant if your god is omnipotent and omniscient. He still falls under the kind of god Dawkins is arguimg against

      - Wrong, Dawkins creates a straw man God for his purposes. The biblical God or other versions of God would not fit into his arguments.

      >Conclusion: Rick s definition of god falls under Dawkins definition of god.

      - Your definitons are not accurate because you and Dawkins conflate "superhuman" with the multifaceted perfection of God. I have offered one example of why this leads to erroneous conclusions.

      As I pointed out above, confirming God's eternal perfection, omnipotence and omniscience is not a case of special pleading. These are widely accepted characteristics of God's nature. The four points I presented outline why God does not logically require any designer.

      Is there any point of the four "Fallacy of Degrees" argument that you care to challenge?

      Delete
    14. Great, now we go completely off-topic from the initial claim that Dawkins agument is illogical. I guess you have conceded that point. 8)

      R:There are unilversalists, deists, and many who believe in a creative higher power that would dissagree with the defintion of God that you claim is required

      Funny how you provide bold assertions again and again without giving anything definite... Also do remember that the conclusion is "god is highly unlikely to exist" and not "god does not exist".

      R:No, in this case is is not a fallacy of special pleading at all according to this secular website Freethoughtpedia:

      You know that quoting apologetic websites, whose goal is to prove god disrepective if it is true or not, does not hold much weight? And imnotandrei has pointed out before:

      "1. God is spiritual, transcendent and eternal.

      Aaaand, we fall at the first hoop. Why is it that we should grant "eternal" nature to anything? You may assert it is so, but it's not something that can be casually granted. Indeed, since your proofs for the existence of God rely on things *not* being eternal, why should we permit the special pleading here, again?

      2. That which is spiritual, transcendent and eternal has metaphysical primacy over that which is physical non-transcendent and temporal.

      Again, assuming one even grants the existence of the "spiritual" and "transcendent". Remember, these are the things you're trying, in the big picture, to *establish*, so merely asserting them here undercuts the validity of your entire argument.

      3. Because God has metaphysical primacy over the physical world, God is not subject to physical laws and physical causality.

      If one accepted 1 and 2 blithely, this would, in fact, follow.

      However, 1 and 2 aren't granted lightly.

      4. Because God is not subject to physical laws and physical causality, God does not logically require a designer or creator, as temporal physical things do.

      So, in other words, there are no metaphysical laws or causality? Because that's more or less what you're asserting here.

      Oh -- and asserting that the "metaphysical" can somehow affect the physical without being, in return, affected by it.

      In other words, your God doesn't need a designer because, well, you've defined it that way.

      Useful definition from your point of view, pointless from anyone else's."

      R:Bald assertion not proven.

      Remember the old question if god can create a rock so heavy he will not be able to lift it? The answer from apologetics is supposed to be that god is bound by logic and cannot create such rock, because of logic. By right now you claim that logical laws of causation have no effect on god and he needs no designer.

      R:Your definitons are not accurate because you and Dawkins conflate "superhuman" with the multifaceted perfection of God.

      1. That is not my definition.
      2. The definition for superhuman is as follows: having or showing exceptional ability or powers (Oxford).
      Do you claim that god is NOT superhuman, e.i. does not have or show exceptional ability or powers?

      P.S. I cannot help myself but correct your syllogism:

      1. Superior designs emanate from a superior minds.
      2. However, the mind of God is not simply superior, it is omniscient, perfect and eternal.
      3. There is no mind superior to an omniscient, perfect and eternal mind.
      4. Therefore, there is no God

      Delete
    15. P.S. And the most obvious hurdle for your omni god is the problem of evil. No matter what, you are unable to give an adequate response to it. Platinga free will defense only takes into account the free will of evil doers, disregarding natural evils (like earthquakes) and the free will of the victims.

      Delete
  4. >Not really. Most people understand the argument without rephrasing it.

    - There are unilversalists, deists, and many who believe in a creative higher power that would dissagree with the defintion of God that you claim is required.

    >As it was pointed out before, you are using a fallacy called "special pleading". Everything needs a designer, but not god.

    - No, in this case is is not a fallacy of special pleading at all according to this secular website Freethoughtpedia: "From a philosophic standpoint, the fallacy of Special Pleading is violating a well accepted principle, namely the 'Principle of Relevant Difference'. According to this principle, two people can be treated differently if and only if there is a relevant difference between them."

    http://www.freethoughtpedia.com/wiki/Logical_Fallacies_by_Todangst

    It would probably be accurate to state that being eternal, perfect, omnicient and omnipotent would count as "relevent differences" that have logical consequences. One of those logical consequences of God's nature is obviously that God would not need a designer.

    If you need a few examples of the Principle of Relevant Difference, you can see them at this site:

    http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/special-pleading.html

    The following points outline how Dawkins commits a Fallacy of Degrees in his assessment of God based on Dawkins' approach to the question:

    1. Superior designs emanate from a superior minds.
    2. However, the mind of God is not simply superior, it is omniscient, perfect and eternal.
    3. There is no mind superior to an omniscient, perfect and eternal mind.
    4. Therefore, there is no need for (or possibility of) God having a superior designer.

    >And that kind of god is even easier to refute since it is a self-contradictory concept.

    - Bald assertion not proven.

    >Besides, it is irrelevant if your god is omnipotent and omniscient. He still falls under the kind of god Dawkins is arguimg against

    - Wrong, Dawkins creates a straw man God for his purposes. The biblical God or other versions of God would not fit into his arguments.

    >Conclusion: Rick s definition of god falls under Dawkins definition of god.

    - Your definitons are not accurate because you and Dawkins conflate "superhuman" with the multifaceted perfection of God. I have offered one example of why this leads to erroneous conclusions.

    As I pointed out above, confirming God's eternal perfection, omnipotence and omniscience is not a case of special pleading. These are widely accepted characteristics of God's nature. The four points I presented outline why God does not logically require any designer.

    Is there any point of the four "Fallacy of Degrees" argument that you care to challenge?


    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Great, now we go completely off-topic from the initial claim that Dawkins agument is illogical. I guess you have conceded that point. 8)

      R:There are unilversalists, deists, and many who believe in a creative higher power that would dissagree with the defintion of God that you claim is required

      Funny how you provide bold assertions again and again without giving anything definite... Also do remember that the conclusion is "god is highly unlikely to exist" and not "god does not exist".

      R:No, in this case is is not a fallacy of special pleading at all according to this secular website Freethoughtpedia:

      You know that quoting apologetic websites, whose goal is to prove god disrepective if it is true or not, does not hold much weight? And imnotandrei has pointed out before:

      "1. God is spiritual, transcendent and eternal.

      Aaaand, we fall at the first hoop. Why is it that we should grant "eternal" nature to anything? You may assert it is so, but it's not something that can be casually granted. Indeed, since your proofs for the existence of God rely on things *not* being eternal, why should we permit the special pleading here, again?

      2. That which is spiritual, transcendent and eternal has metaphysical primacy over that which is physical non-transcendent and temporal.

      Again, assuming one even grants the existence of the "spiritual" and "transcendent". Remember, these are the things you're trying, in the big picture, to *establish*, so merely asserting them here undercuts the validity of your entire argument.

      3. Because God has metaphysical primacy over the physical world, God is not subject to physical laws and physical causality.

      If one accepted 1 and 2 blithely, this would, in fact, follow.

      However, 1 and 2 aren't granted lightly.

      4. Because God is not subject to physical laws and physical causality, God does not logically require a designer or creator, as temporal physical things do.

      So, in other words, there are no metaphysical laws or causality? Because that's more or less what you're asserting here.

      Oh -- and asserting that the "metaphysical" can somehow affect the physical without being, in return, affected by it.

      In other words, your God doesn't need a designer because, well, you've defined it that way.

      Useful definition from your point of view, pointless from anyone else's."

      R:Bald assertion not proven.

      Remember the old question if god can create a rock so heavy he will not be able to lift it? The answer from apologetics is supposed to be that god is bound by logic and cannot create such rock, because of logic. By right now you claim that logical laws of causation have no effect on god and he needs no designer.

      R:Your definitons are not accurate because you and Dawkins conflate "superhuman" with the multifaceted perfection of God.

      1. That is not my definition.
      2. The definition for superhuman is as follows: having or showing exceptional ability or powers (Oxford).
      Do you claim that god is NOT superhuman, e.i. does not have or show exceptional ability or powers?

      P.S. I cannot help myself but rephrase your syllogism:

      1. Superior designs emanate from a superior minds.
      2. However, the mind of God is not simply superior, it is omniscient, perfect and eternal.
      3. There is no mind superior to an omniscient, perfect and eternal mind.
      4. Therefore, there is no God

      Delete
    2. >Great, now we go completely off-topic from the initial claim that Dawkins agument is illogical.

      - It was you who has offered that Dawkins' argument against God's existence pertains only to a narrow understanding of God. That's your requirement, not mine.

      >Funny how you provide bold assertions again and again without giving anything definite

      - If you are unaware of what deists and universalists believe, you can look in an encyclopedia.

      >You know that quoting apologetic websites, whose goal is to prove god disrepective if it is true or not, does not hold much weight?

      - That's why I quoted a secular site. You apparently are not aware that freethought is a secular philosophy. I'll agree with you that the name is quite misleading :)

      >Why is it that we should grant "eternal" nature to anything?

      - When applying a true hypothesis, all the necessary conditions of the hypothesis must be taken into account. In order to address the God of theism in a true hypothesis, the eternal nature of God is a necessary attribute. Unless, of course, the idea is merely to produce a straw-man God.

      "The eternal God is your refuge, and underneath are the everlasting arms."

      >Again, assuming one even grants the existence of the "spiritual" and "transcendent". Remember, these are the things you're trying, in the big picture, to *establish*

      - No, wrong. It is Dawkins who is attempting to disprove this "God Hypothesis" and he is the one who has the burden of proof to "establish" that these attributes do not exist.

      >However, 1 and 2 aren't granted lightly.

      - Again, the burden of proof is on the argument maker to actually establish that proposition.

      >So, in other words, there are no metaphysical laws or causality?

      - No, that is not what I wrote. I wrote that God is not subject to physical laws as a transcendent being.

      >In other words, your God doesn't need a designer because, well, you've defined it that way.

      - Nope, I've offered several reasons why this is a logical conclusion.

      >Remember the old question if god can create a rock so heavy he will not be able to lift it? The answer from apologetics is supposed to be that god is bound by logic and cannot create such rock, because of logic. By right now you claim that logical laws of causation have no effect on god and he needs no designer.

      - Again, you are misrepresenting my words. I wrote that God is not necessarily bound by physical laws. It may help you to consider the difference between 2D space and 3D space. A circle is bound by 2D space. A sphere is not bound by 2D space. Does this mean that 2D space does not exist and is not constricting? No.

      >2. The definition for superhuman is as follows: having or showing exceptional ability or powers (Oxford).

      - Right. And "exceptional ability" is not the same as omnipotence.

      You don't seem to understand the difference and that is probably why you don't understand that your silly little rephrased argument is illogical.

      Delete
    3. R:That's why I quoted a secular site. You apparently are not aware that freethought is a secular philosophy. I'll agree with you that the name is quite misleading :)

      True, I did not pay much attention to that source.

      R:When applying a true hypothesis, all the necessary conditions of the hypothesis must be taken into account. In order to address the God of theism in a true hypothesis, the eternal nature of God is a necessary attribute.

      Again.. you need to prove it god is eternal. Why should we grant eternity to god, when you deny the universe being eternal?

      R:No, wrong. It is Dawkins who is attempting to disprove this "God Hypothesis" and he is the one who has the burden of proof to "establish" that these attributes do not exist.

      Dawkins offered a definition of "god" to which your version comply and he did show it is unlikely to exist.

      R:Again, the burden of proof is on the argument maker to actually establish that proposition.

      Trying to shift the burden of proof? It is YOUR own definition of god, Rick. Hence, it is your job to prove it is consisten and possible 8)

      R:No, that is not what I wrote. I wrote that God is not subject to physical laws as a transcendent being.

      And you need to prove it, not just assert this. You need to prove god is eternal, transcendent and omni.

      R:Nope, I've offered several reasons why this is a logical conclusion.

      You offered several assertions. We know that the universe is a necessary existance, but we do not know that the god concept is necessary or even possible.

      R:Again, you are misrepresenting my words. I wrote that God is not necessarily bound by physical laws.

      And you repeatedely fail to prove that. You just assert it is transcendent and so on without giving any proof.

      R:You don't seem to understand the difference and that is probably why you don't understand that your silly little rephrased argument is illogical.

      You did not answer my question: Do you claim that god is NOT superhuman, i.e. does not have or show exceptional ability or powers?

      You seem to have problems understanding basic English. Of course being superhuman and omnipotent is not the same. However, an omnipotent being is ALWAYS superhuman. And a superhuman is NOT ALWAYS omnipotent. Get it?

      Delete
  5. I am Mariam used every single spell worker on the internet, spent untold amounts of money and discovered they are all fakes...i was the fool though; doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. In the end, I decided that I wanted a tarot reading to know what my future held for me; I contacted a woman who lives locally to me and she told me about a man named (Priests Iromole); he does not advertise on the internet, has another job for income, has no set prices, makes no false promises and refuses to help anyone that cannot be helped and even helps
    for free sometimes, he will give you proof before taking money. He is a wonderful man and he was the only person who actually gave me real results. I really hope he doesn't mind me advertising his contact on the internet but I'm sure any help/ extra work will benefit him.contact him as spirituallighthealing101@rediffmail.com He travel sometimes.i cant give out his number cos he told me he don’t want to be disturbed by many people across the world..he said his email is okay and he’ will replied to any emails asap,love marriage,finance, job promotion ,lottery Voodoo,poker voodoo,golf Voodoo,Law & Court case Spells,money voodoo,weigh loss voodoo,any sicknesses voodoo,Trouble in marriage,HIV AIDS,it's all he does Hope this helps everyone that is in a desperate situation as I once was; I know how it feels to hold onto something and never have a chance to move on because of the false promises and then to feel trapped in wanting something
    more.

    ReplyDelete

You are welcome to post on-topic comments but, please, no uncivilized blog abuse or spamming. Thank you!