Best Religious/Nonreligious Debate Ever

[_marg]

The word "valid" has a specific meaning in logic and another meaning outside of formal logic. You are combining the two.

STOP

Logic is concerned with evaluating argument validity. Following Aristotle, logicians analyze argument validity in terms of form. However, form is not an absolute notion; rather, each logical system offers its own analysis of form.

Marg, I'm not haveing this conversation with you anymore. You don't know what you are talking about and I get absoluetly nothing out of trying to converse with you.

Stak if you don't want to discuss,that's fine. But nothing you quoted above contradicts what I've said or shown that I've said anything in error or that I don't know what I'm talking about. And nothing so far demonstrates to me you know what you are talking about. This linking to sites as if this establishes you know what you are talking about, demonstrates nothing other than you are good at linking to sites.

[_marg]

by the way Kevin it's quite possible that you just might not get it. The reason I told you to "please F- off" is that none of your comments in this thread had anything to do with the issues under discussion. One has to be pretty petty minded or immature to focus solely on bashing with no attempt to participate in discussing the actual issues. Anytime you want to address issues, I'll have no problem with you participating.

And Stak I am still reading the article and actually I'm trying to figure out how your comments even line up with it.

[_Some Schmo]

Some schmo dropped out of the thread a while back. I believe he saw the writing on the wall. Dawkins is terrible outside of biology. He is an absolutely terrible philosopher and this thread has only listed a few of his many failings.

You're an idiot. I mean that literally. I'm amazed you can operate a computer.

I didn't drop out of the thread. Stak and I have a different outlook on Dawkins book. Whatever. Who cares? Neither of us is going to convince the other, so why should I continue to argue over what amounts to a difference of opinion?

And your view of Dawkins is as meaningful to a thinking person as a dog's opinion of cat chow. Nobody gives a crap.

[_MrStakhanovite]

And Stak I am still reading the article and actually I'm trying to figure out how your comments even line up with it.

Marg























are you trolling me?

[_marg]

Ok Stak,

I’ve read the Sober article, well the beginning of it.

Sober says: This paper defends two theses about probabilistic reasoning. First, although modus ponens has a probabilistic analog, modus tollens does not – the fact that a hypothesis says that an observation is very improbable does not entail that the hypothesis is improbable. (I won’t quote the second theses since you only used the first.)


What he is saying is that if you have a deductive argument in modus ponens form you can set up a probabilistic modus ponus analog and the probability conclusion will be reliably true. However the same can not be said of a probabilistic analog for modus tollens form..that is if you convert an M.T argument into a probabilistic M.T …the probabilistic conclusion can not be relied upon.

So let’s look at some of the things you wrote;

-No it's not a good argument, it's invalid. That definition of the God hypothesis, it's negation does not follow from Dawkin's six point argument.

- When it comes to logical validity, all we are concerned with is form, not that the premises are true or false. The way the argument is presented, it's not possible for the conclusion (negation of the GH) to necessarily follow from his 6 premises.

-When I say an argument if invalid, I mean that the argument is built in such a way that it contains formal and informal errors that call into question the ingrity of the argument. I have no problem with the content of what he said, just that he did not arrange the argument in such a way that makes it strong.

And

Dawkin's own argument is a simple modus ponens.

A --> -G, A, .:. -G

If the ARGUMENT of this chapter is accepted, the factual premise of religion- the GOD HYPOTHESIS- is untenable (that means NEGATION).

So in other words Marg, if A is sufficient for -G and we accept A, -G will follow necessarily.

Using your same letters,

This is the argument Stak and it’s modus ponens a validity constructed argument:

1) If the premises are true (A) then ….the H God is false (G]
2) The premises are true [A]

Therefore …the H God is false [G]

converting into probabilistic M.P analog

1) If the premises are true (A) then… the H God is highly probably false
2) The premises are true [A]

Therefore the H God is highly probably false.


Note this consistent with what Dawkins argued which was.. If we accept his premises as true then the H God is false. And Sober does say that this is deductively valid in the probabilistic form. In other words if we knew that as long as the premises were true the H. god would be false, then finding out later that the premises are indeed factually true would mean the H. God would be false.


Now if we put this argument into Modus Tolens valid form ..it doesn’t remain valid in probabilistic M.T. (that is what Sober’s is saying)

1) If premises are true [A] then… the H. God is False [G]
2) The H. god is not false[~G]..

Therefore the premises are false. [~A]

That is deductively valid.


However the probabilistic version is not valid.

1) if the premises are true [A] then… the H God is probably false [G]
2) the H god is not false [~G]

Therefore the premises are probably false. [~A]

So even if we knew for a fact that the H. God is not false or in other words that the H. God is true..that does not allows us to conclude reliably that the premises are probably false.



So Stak, Dawkin's argument is deductively valid as far as form goes and even when put into probablistic form it is still deductively valid.

The problem that you have with the argument is that you don't accept that those premises lead to or warrant his conclusion. You think the reasoning of the argument is poor. That it is set up in valid form is a not the issue that concerns you, it is the reasoning which does. So when you say it's "invalid" you don't mean because of "form" because there is nothing wrong with the form, you mean because the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises. In a probablistic M.P the conclusion is a probability) and that is how Dawkin's expressed it.

Other than you don't think the conclusion follows you've not given any particular reasoning. In effect you don't accept Dawkin's premises, but that doesn't detract from his argument because he acknowledges some people won't. I think though atheists on the whole would accept the reasoning he gives. For example I do accept that if complexity and design is why the H. God is speculated then how does one explain how that God was created..it too would need a creator and creators of infinite regress. As Dawkins writes in the Blindwatchmaker, if "we had infinite time and infinite opportunities anything is possible" but the thing is if we don't have infinite time and opportunities then in theory a probability of the likelihood of life developing could be calculated if we knew the opportunities and time.

Now Sober does disagree with an upper limit probability estimate Dawkins used for probability of life in the universe in the Blindwatchmaker p 142- 146, however at this point I'm not sure that he and Dawkins are referring to the same thing. I think Dawkins was using an upper limit just as an example of a very high improbability, not that he was assuming he had reached a conclusive upper limit. In the God delusion the point Dawkins is making is that complexity doesn't spontaneously erupt..so a God couldn't spontaneously erupt..but rather any intelligence that comes about has come about through gradual processes using the physical laws of the universe.

So although you've cited Sober as somehow destroying Dawkin's argument in the God Delusion, in particular the one you quoted, Sober doesn't. Sober I believe is saying just because we exist and we know how many potential planets there are in the universe, doesn't mean we can assume a reliable upper limit probability for chances that life began based on that. But that's not Dawkins argument in The God Delusion..in that he's saying no intelligent entity could spontaneously erupt it would need to happen by evolution and happen after the existence of the universe.

This video relates though I haven't seen it yet. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wa55s9Gs_Eg&feature=related

[_MrStakhanovite]

converting into probabilistic M.P analog

You didn't convert it right. The whole point of showing you the article was so you could see it done. He gives you an example of how exactly it's done. You didn't do it. You are not comprehending this at all.

Note this consistent with what Dawkins argued which was..

That it is set up in valid form is a not the issue that concerns you

It's not set up in a valid form. You've looked at the one of the forms it would need to take. It's not set up like that. It's not valid.

So although you've cited Sober as somehow destroying Dawkin's argument in the God Delusion

No one said this. Marg, you have comprehension problems. I'm not reading another wall of text.

[_huckelberry]

EAllusion has a colorful reaction to Margs comments. It might be exaggurated but it makes an impression. I assumed that he was reacting to what I reacted to . A day or so later I wondered if I was completely wrong about that. I could have imagined a comment as a trainwreck while EAllsion may be reacting to something entirely different. I do not suppose it matters if we see the same difficulty. Yet, and I risk annoying Mr Allusion but there is a problem in my reading of past comments from him on the subject of fine tuning for life as evidence for God. I have wondered how close his comments come to the weak argument I imagine him reacting to. I thnk the fine tuning is moderately strong though not strong enough to force belief. The part of tuning I find most compelling is the atomic structure which is the basis for building organic chemicals. I sometimes wonder if atheists demand a gap in the pattern of life develing to show God then turn around and reject a hint of that as mere God of the gaps, a link of temporary ignorance of the complete flow of developement. I see Gods image in the completeness of that very flow. Bang to stars to larger atoms to planets to living cells with fabulous reproducing patterns.

I cannot imagine how probability enters into this. Life arose, 100percent certain. It is certain that all necessary requirements were met. That is not the same statement as Marg made,

"People often have a difficult time accepting that it may be that life is here on earth by chance, it seems the chances of it happening are so unlikely. But meanwhile we are here so we know it is possible that it is due to chance. It is therefore a more reliable probability theory that we are here by chance than assuming a God created us for which we have no evidence other than the arguments put forward by various religious groups."

[_marg]

You didn't convert it right. The whole point of showing you the article was so you could see it done. He gives you an example of how exactly it's done. You didn't do it. You are not comprehending this at all.

I don’t think the point was to show how it was done but rather when it comes to deductive arguments of the modus ponens and the modus tollens, and one wishes to consider probabilities set up in either of those forms, the conclusion of the modus ponens offers a reliable probabilistic conclusion. The antecedent is verifiable or is an assumed fact and the consequent is dependent on it. But with the modus tollens argument in a probabilistic form verification of some examples of the consequent doesn’t allow one to assume a reliable probability for the antecedent.

I'm not reading another wall of text.

:) That’s fine Stak, but I’m going to quote and address anyhow. The issue which evolved in this thread was about Dawkin’s and you mentioned his God Delusion book offered very poor arguments, in particular you mentioned his argument P. 157 against God you took exception to ..that “you can’t get God deoes not exist from those 6 premises. It is totally invalid.”

I’m no expert on Dawkins, but I find whenever someone on the Net criticizes him and I look into it, I invariably find they’ve misrepresented him and often don’t understand his argument. Frankly I didn’t understand his argument in that chapter on my reading it a year or so ago, but through my discussion with you and my rereading his chapter “Why There Almost Certainly Is No God”, along with listening to a youtube talk of his on the origin of life which I linked to in a previous post and a reading of his chapter on miracles in the Blindwatchmaker, I believe I have a much better understanding. I also believe you don’t understand it.

you can't get God does not exist from those 6 premises. It is totally invalid

You use this word “invalid” as if you’ve made a good argument. You seem to imply your disagreement is with the form of the argument but then you don’t argue what’s wrong with the form. At another point you seem to argue that the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises but then you don’t ever criticize any of the points of his argument, or why going from the premises to the conclusion is not well warranted. What I also note is you give no indication of actually understanding what his argument is. If you are talking about rejecting his reasoning that you have not explained. All in all you not offered any reasoning why anyone should dismiss Dawkin’s counter argument to God existence as per the God Delusion.

I get the impression you don’t understand deductive logic well, but that’s really not much of an issue in this case anyhow. The issue is whether or not Dawkins made a good argument.

His whole chapter is an argument, and those 6 points are summaries points of the argumentation he presented.

One crucial point perhaps you missed in the chapter is he does not argue that the origin of life could not have been started by a superhuman entity/God.

What he argues against is the argument for any God (an initial God) which existed before a material universe. He argues there are grounds for assuming simplicity comes before complexity, we see that in the evidence for the evolution of life and in all our observations of the universe. It’s never a function of complexity coming before simplicity. So we know the universe exists, we know we exist no matter how improbable that may be ..but anyone who argues for a God as an explanation has offered nothing logically supported. If God is hypothesized because what we observe of the universe seems so improbable then by the same token God is an even greater improbability because it’s a step beyond what we do know. Even if life existing is one chance out of whatever the odds are against we still know those odds exist. But whatever those odds are, if we assume a God .pre universe which created life and the universe, that is even more improbable, as long as we assume based on observations that simplicity comes before complexity.

So Dawkins argument is a counter to a theist’s argument for a creator God pre universe. He has no burden of proof to disprove God’s existence. The burden of proof lies with those making positive assertions of something existing. He’s not making a deductive argument. He’s making an inductive one which is based on observations that simplicity comes before complexity, that complexity evolves in steps.

By the reasoning he offers, which is included in his 6 points we can logically with good warrant, reject a creator God that existed before the universe which would include all theistic God/Gods.

[_marg]

I cannot imagine how probability enters into this. Life arose, 100percent certain. It is certain that all necessary requirements were met. That is not the same statement as Marg made,

"People often have a difficult time accepting that it may be that life is here on earth by chance, it seems the chances of it happening are so unlikely. But meanwhile we are here so we know it is possible that it is due to chance. It is therefore a more reliable probability theory that we are here by chance than assuming a God created us for which we have no evidence other than the arguments put forward by various religious groups."

Actually after rereading Dawkins I realize he made a much stronger argument. His argument is that simplicity precedes complexity in all our observations of the universe. We don't know the probability of our universe and of it being favorable to life. It may be one chance out of all the potential possibilities or it may be a much higher probability, but we know however improbable it wasn't impossible. Intelligence is complex, it evolves. So a complex creator of the universe is less probable than the more simple state of the universe existing pre ..evolution of a complex creator. We may be the only entity with intelligence to speculate upon the universe, or there may be other intelligent life even that we would consider to be God like, and there may be or may have been other universes, but according to Dawkins' argument..intelligence evolved from a more simple state, it came after an initial universe.

Now that's the argument he gives, it's inductive reasoning and it's a counter to theistic Gods. He doesn't have a burden of proof to disprove God/Gods but he offers reasoning why claims to those Gods should be rejected on logical grounds based upon our observations and how we perceive the universe and that logically the burden is on those who make claims to creator God/Gods.

[_huckelberry]

"His argument is that simplicity precedes complexity"

Generally Christian thinkers explicitly realized this and spoke about that some two thousand years ago. God is simple,not in anyway complex.

Dawkins is describing God as a primate somewhat smarter than the others. Hardly a candidate for creator of the universe.

I have sometimes wondered if Mormons would see their view of God reflected in the Dawkins ciriticism. There is common ground but even in Mormon views there is an eternal divine ground whose existence is not an amalgum of parts functioning in a complicated system like organic creatures.

Theologically Dawkings argument is completely naïve. I suspect his making it is simply a gesture of disrespect. He sees no reason to talk about the God people actually believe in.