MrStakhanovite wrote:The God Delusion wrote:If the argument of this chapter is accepted, the factual premise of religion- the God Hypothesis- is untenable. God almost certainly does not exist.
Look at the first word of this statement, "if". When you translate this into logical notation, that word is doing two things. First, it's setting you up for a conditional statement and second, it's telling you what the antecedent is.
This is A
If the argument of this chapter is accepted
This is the negation of G
the factual premise of religion- the God Hypothesis- is untenable.
This becomes If A then -G. He's saying that A alone is sufficient for -G to come about.
"-G to come about" makes no sense to me. The God Hypothesis "G" is essentially the argument for an intelligent creator entity of current monotheistic religions. What on earth is a negative argument? If you want to assume "-G" is his rejection of the God Hypothesis sure if one accepts his premises then rejection of the God Hypothesis follows. His statement says if you accept the argument outlined in his chapter then the arguments put forward by theologians and religious individuals for an intelligent creator god which created life and the universe is not warranted (logically).
And yes he frames it as .."if.....then."
marg wrote:Deduction is about logical validity and form ..not induction
Look at what you just wrote. You just told me, that induction is not about validity and form. You are telling me, that when someone makes an inductive argument, they don't have to offer a proof to show it's valid. Do I have to explain why this is patently absurd and borderline stupid?
Yes you will have to explain why this is patently absurd and borderline stupid...if you don't mind.
marg wrote:and deduction entails a conclusion necessarily follows not induction
I gave you counter examples to this, but you ignored them. Probably because you don't know what they are and I don't think you have a clear idea what exactly you are arguing for.
I didn't see counter examples, I saw you saying that Dawkins argument could be considered (I believe you said) demonstratively inductive and that functioned like deduction. Your words haven't established that for me.
marg wrote:And why would I try to prove the "validity" of Dawkins' argument.
Well, when someone says, " hey, that argument is invalid." And someone else says, " I think it's a strong argument!" The first thing they try to do is show the arguments validity.
I also wanted to demonstrate you don't know what you are talking about.
I'll quote you from my first year intro to logic book by Copi and you argue it or quote from where ever you wish.
Inductive arguments do not claim that their premises ever if true support their conclusions with certainty. They make a weaker but nonetheless important claim that their premises support their conclusions with probability, which always falls short of certainty.
Inductive argument are neither valid nor invalid. We can still evaluate them of course. Indeed appraisal of inductive arguments is one of the leading tasks of scientists in every sphere.
marg wrote:By validity are you talking deductive form or are you talking about the reasoning that the conclusion he offers doesn't follows logically from the premises?
deduction, induction, abduction, whatever. All forms of logical argumentation have proofs of validity.
What is your definition of validity?
marg wrote:If so I've already discussed that. I think his conclusion does follow from the premises which were a summary of what he had presented in the chapter.
This is the part where you show it....
What I'll show is his reasoning..of which he never claims absolute certainty. In fact his last line in the preceding chapter specifically mentions this ..I'll the last few sentences:
Dawkins wrote: The whole argument turns on the familiar question 'Who made God?', which most thinking people discover for themselves. A designer God cannot be used to explain organized complexity because any God capable of designing anything would have to be complex enough to demand the same kind of explanation in his own right. God presents an infinite regress from which he cannot help us to escape. This argument as I shall show in the next chapter, demonstrates that God, though not technically disprovable, is very very improbable indeed.
As well in his conclusion which you noted he writes "God
almost certainly does not exist" again indicating he is not advocating a deductive argument.
So his reasoning presented in the chapter (in my opinion) is that evolution is extremely complex but we can explain that complexity as happening in progressively small steps not in happening in one leap into existence for the various species. While the creation of life seems highly improbable we know it is probable just because we exist, no matter how improbable it is. And so whatever those factors necessary for life to begin on earth are...we may not fully understand however they did occur so that is evidence they aren't impossible. On the other hand postulating a God creator offers no logically satisfying explanation. God is more improbable than abiogenesis. We know life came about that's a sure probability but what evidence is there that a God spontaneously came into existence..such a complex entity with intelligence and ability to design would itself have needed a designer..if that is the God Hypothesis that we are here because God designed us and the universe. We can hypothesize logically that due to the laws of physics life even though highly improbable were just the right mix for life to come about. But the probability of God spontaneously coming into existence is much less.
That's my impression of his argument.
