Best Religious/Nonreligious Debate Ever

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo sorry.....not interested in explaining.

OK, then. As long as you no longer express any kind of shock or disappointment in people giving you a hard time about the way you post, I can accept this.

[_marg]

What you'd normally say something would you? I don't think you would..which is one reason I have no interest in explaining anything. Carry on as you have been doing. And when have I ever expressed shock at how I've been treated? Disappointment? I'm not sure that's the word.
This board is like I'm gawking at a car crash..I just keep looking...unfortunately I've been doing it for a hell of a long time.

[_Some Schmo]

What you'd normally say something would you?

Normally say something about what?

Why do I feel like I'm listening to one side of a telephone conversation, except the other voice is in your head too?

I don't think you would..which is one reason I have no interest in explaining anything. Carry on as you have been doing.

Well, since I have no idea what the hell you're talking about, I can't say one way or another.

What I can say, however, is that I'm starting to understand why people talk to you the way they do.

And when have I ever expressed shock at how I've been treated? Disappointment? I'm not sure that's the word.

You've been whining about how nobody is willing to join you in your fight (as though it's a simple given that you're right about what you're saying and the only reason people aren't joining in is because they're afraid of screwing over their particular clique - obviously, it's never occurred to you that you simply could be fighting a dumb battle). You whine about the way Stak treats you. And now you're whining about me (although I can't for the life of me figure out why).

This board is like I'm gawking at a car crash..I just keep looking...unfortunately I've been doing it for a hell of a long time.

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that in many cases, you're the one driving the car.

[_marg]

Schmo

Very quickly ..because I've got to get off today. ..there are different levels to consider. There is this actual thread and an evaluation of it as to how the discussion was conducted..was it carried on with intellectual honesty, what was the critical thinking in it like. So that's one level. On that level you said nothing.

There is the level of the actual arguments were they well warranted..on this level you did say something.

Then there is another level...involving me and Stak and it's why this thread came up. This thread was used as an example by Stak for why he's justified in being insulting to me. So this all started in the thread Stak set up to malign DCP. So a 3rd party has said something, he's said that Stak wasn't justified based on his perspective in his insults and in fact I was right on one point and Stak was wrong. If you'll look in the thread on that point, I received all sorts of insults when I made it, and yet Stak was the one wrong. I'm not assuming at this point that Tarski the 3rd party necessarily appreciates the entire thread and argument. But Stak hasn't acknowledged Tarski's comments so far. If Tarski looks into the thread and finds my argument well warranted what does that say about Stak's justification for insulting others to excess. What does it say about his thread to malign DCP..if he doesn't use intellectual honesty and conduct himself with respect towards others in discussion. You have said nothing on this. I suspect because you yourself wish to malign DCP.

[_Some Schmo]

Schmo

Very quickly ..because I've got to get off today. ..there are different levels to consider. There is this actual thread and an evaluation of it as to how the discussion was conducted..was it carried on with intellectual honesty, what was the critical thinking in it like. So that's one level. On that level you said nothing.

Actually, I said something about how you guys were talking past each other. But I only gave your exchange with Stak a light reading, and I don't tend to comment on things I'm not very sure about.

Then there is another level...involving me and Stak and it's why this thread came up. This thread was used as an example by Stak for why he's justified in being insulting to me. So this all started in the thread Stak set up to malign DCP. So a 3rd party has said something, he's said that Stak wasn't justified based on his perspective in his insults and in fact I was right on one point and Stak was wrong. If you'll look in the thread on that point, I received all sorts of insults when I made it, and yet Stak was the one wrong.

Let's stop the bus right here. Are you asserting that Stak is wrong simply because Tarski says so? Look, I respect what Tarski has to say as much as anyone, but let's not get carried away. I bet Tarski would be the first to admit that he could be wrong. I even think he already said as much. I wouldn't break out the victory champaign just yet.

I'm not assuming at this point that Tarski the 3rd party necessarily appreciates the entire thread and argument. But Stak hasn't acknowledged Tarski's comments so far. If Tarski looks into the thread and finds my argument well warranted what does that say about Stak's justification for insulting others to excess.

Look, Stak is a young guy... he's obviously pretty sharp, but he is young. He's not the first cocky young dude part of the way through college to come off as if everyone else is an idiot if they don't agree with him.

I don't think he feels the need to actually justify the way he treats you. He's in his twenties, ffs. I've had a few small disagreements with him, and sometimes, I shake my head and think, whatever you say, my man. But more often than not, he says some pretty insightful things. He generally does back up his opinions.

It seems to me your problem with him is one of style, not substance.

What does it say about his thread to malign DCP..if he doesn't use intellectual honesty and conduct himself with respect towards others in discussion.

Jesus, marg, I know you're not this daft. The way he treats you is not indicative of how he treats everyone. Can you not see that? I think I'd be pretty reluctant to throw around terms like "intellectual honesty" when making generalizations about him that just aren't true (at least, from what I've seen, and I suspect I've read more of Stak than you have, given your break from the board).

You have said nothing on this.

Well why would I? I don't agree with your assessment.

Here, I'll say something about it. I don't agree with your assessment. Somehow, I don't think this will satisfy you, but there ya go. I've said something. Maybe the reason others haven't is because they're trying to spare you what you don't want to hear. Who knows? You, of all people, with your heavy emphasis on evidence, shouldn't presume to know other people's reasons for not joining the fray.

Besides, you have no problem taking Tarski's word for it when he tells you he agrees with you on some remote point, but I've noticed you've ignored the vast majority of people who completely agree with Stak on his assessment of DCP's "work." What's up with that?

I suspect because you yourself wish to malign DCP.

Two things about this:

1) I couldn't care less about DCP. He's just another idiot in a long list of mopologist idiots. I don't generally open threads about him, I barely even read what he has to say (usually only read when he's quoted for the sake of context for someone else's post). He's as boring and as immature a poster as this board has to offer.

2) DCP has absolutely no need of me to malign himself. I could never dream to do the number on him that he's done on himself. I'm neither that talented nor ambitious.

[_marg]

Besides, you have no problem taking Tarski's word for it when he tells you he agrees with you on some remote point, but I've noticed you've ignored the vast majority of people who completely agree with Stak on his assessment of DCP's "work." What's up with that?

The point is not remote...mathematical induction is not the same as what induction means in reasoning argumentation and/or science. Look it up, look at the websites I linked to. That was a point I made that Tarski acknowledged was correct.

I believe it was a critical component of Stak's because he argued induction required form and when I commented that it didn't ..he then brought up mathematical induction equations..which didn't prove his point..because that is not the same as induction in reasoning. I'm not taking Tarski's word for it, he merely is confirming what one can easily find doing a search on the Net.

The rest of your post I'll address next week.

[_marg]

Tarski

Ok for now I want to skip Stak's talk on induction,form and validity which in my opinion Stak was wrong, but if we deal with that, perhaps later.

I want to unpack this:

Stak writes:

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).

Do you agree with this Tarski..that this is Dawkins' deductive argument? Do you agree that Dawkins argument can be shown symbolically as Stak has done?

Stak kept saying the "form" of Dawkins' argument was invalid...do you understand what Stak was saying or trying to say. Even though I don't agree that Dawkin's argument was deductive, I don't see anything wrong with the form Stak gave..am I missing something?

Also if it were deductive, wouldn't it have to be provable? Obviously Dawkins realizes that's not the case.

The title of the chapter is "Why there almost certainly is no God". It seems to me Dawkins offers inductive reasoning, and it's a more rational alternative to the assumption God. I believe he argues ..that we know based upon our existence that we are probable..no matter how improbable the odds. Although we don't yet know how life began, invoking a complex entity as a creator adds an unnecessary hypothesis ..because it's additional data without improving upon or increasing the explanation and that data requires explanation of its own, how did God come into existence. We observe evolution of complexity, that simplicity always precedes complexity ...and a creator complex God would also have to evolve from simplicity to complexity ... and would not precede the universe which is simpler than God. (I don't think I have Dawkins argument worded quite right)

So what's your perspective on Stak's argument against Dawkins argument?

[_marg]

Tarski,

As I was waking up, actually just a few moments ago, something occurred to me. Isn't it different when one argues against a claim which has met no burden of proof to establish the existence of something. Dawkins argument is not really a proof there is no God which is what Stak argues it is, Dawkins argument is an argument against the religious claim of a God or God Hypothesis. Therefore it seems to me there is less justification necessary for Dawkins to argue "God almost certainly does not exist". If he had been claiming that something did exist..there would be a greater burden on him to provide warrants or justification.

It gets back to the general rational concept extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Dawkins isn't the one making the extraordinary claim, he's simply countering why one has extraordinarily good reason to reject it. Postulating God doesn't add anything, it adds further complexity to the issue of how life began. And there are reasons or justifications to assume that we began by chance even though the odds are so small it's hard for our brains to fathom.

Because Dawkins has no burden of proof, because he's not claiming the existence of something but rather rejecting a claim of something for which there are other explanations...I don't think it's justified to turn his argument into a deduction as Stak has done..that Dawkins is offering proof or an argument which states there is proof the no God exists.

[_MrStakhanovite]

Philosophy isn't a court of law, and the Burden of Proof isn't some defeasible presumption you try to shift on someone. Dawkins is affirming the proposition "God almost certainly does not exist", which is why he dedicates all of chapter 4 to explaining his argument.

I suppose you are going to tell me next that atheism is a belief like bald is a hair color?

Stop being naïve.

[_MrStakhanovite]

#3 of Dawkins argument on Pages 157-158 can be true along with the God Hypothesis, hence, his entire argument doesn't follow. There is no entailment.