Dawkins claims to have "almost certainly" disproven the existence of any God, (which obviously includes the existence of even eternal ones) .
Yet the argument he offers at best only disproves the existence of any God that came about by chance.
hooberus
JoinedPosts by hooberus
-
49
The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)
by hooberus inrecently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
-
-
-
49
The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)
by hooberus inrecently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
-
-
hooberus
Hooberus,
The deception in Dawkins argument lies in the fact that when he uses the phrase "improbable" in relation to life, the universe, etc. he is specifically referring to improbable as to coming about by chance . However, later on when he talks about God being even "more improbable" he doesn't ever directly include the qualifying definition of improbable as to coming about by chance , and simply uses the words "more improbable", giving the impression that his argument disproves the existence of any God (even eternal ones that did not come about by chance).
Shaking head......
You really are grasping at straws aren't you. You have missed the point that Dawkins was making, which is the development of a logical position, in favor of a preconceived notion.
As evidence of this I ask you to look at your statement above, especially with relation to the word 'deception'. You have added motive to Dawkins logic and assumed that his intent is to 'deceive', to use trickery, presumably to fool the believers.
You cannot divorce your own personal feelings against Dawkins from this issue Hooberus, and that is where you are failing to see the point that Dawkins is really making.
HS
I used the phrase "deception" in relation to the word "argument", not necessarily in relation to deliberate intent.
And the argument is deceptive, unless you think that it is valid to equate improbability of to Gods existence with the the improbability of God having come about by chance.
Especially when he talks about God being even "more improbable" he doesn't ever directly include the qualifying definition of improbable as to coming about by chance, and simply uses the words "more improbable", giving the impression that his argument disproves the existence of any God (even eternal ones that did not come about by chance).
-
49
The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)
by hooberus inrecently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
-
-
hooberus
Dawkins was trying to use logic to analyze the probability of a god existing, using the creationists own arguments.
Actually Dawkins attempts to show "why there almost certainly is no God" (the title of chapter 4 of his book) using his own arguments. Examining again his logic:
1. Complex things are improbable as to coming about by chance: "The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means."
2. Life is very complex and therefore improbable by chance.
3. Any God capable of designing the universe [and complex life] would have to be more complex than his creation, and therefore more improbable. Any entity capable of intelligently designing something would have to be even more improbable than his design."a God capable of designing a universe, or anything else, would have to be complex and statistically improbable."
4. Therefore God (being very improbable) almost certainly does not exist.
Though creationists believe points 1. and 2., they are also believed by Dawkins as being true as well. Hense, they are just as much his "own arguments" as creationists "own arguments". Points 3. and 4. are Dawkins' arguments, not creationists, especially his equating improbability of any God coming about by chance with improbability of any Gods existence.
-
49
The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)
by hooberus inrecently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
-
-
hooberus
Even if one grants all of Dawkins other points (which many do not), his argument would only prove that any God is statistically improbable as to having come about by chance, (which virtually no theologian believes anyway).
So you're citing the beliefs of theologians as a reason to believe in God? Theologians are pre-disposed to believe in God, otherwise they wouldn't be theologians. That's circular reasoning.
My point was that (at best) Dawkins only disproves something that virtually no one believes anyway- not to cite "the beliefs of theologians as a reason to believe in God"
Your arguments fail to address Dawkins' main point -- that is , that any Creator God (such as imagined or described to us by traditions or "holy" books like the Bible) would have to be superior to and more complex than his creation.
Actually my arguments deal with Dawkins main point as to his reasoning as to "Why there almost certainly is no God" (the title of Chapter 4 of his book). I even for the sake of argument allowed for the possibility that a Creator God would have to be "more complex than his creation", and still showed that that Dawkins argument is fallacious as to disproving the existence of God.
To use an analogy a boeing 747 is very improbable as to coming about by chance, and its creator (Boeing corp. with all of its complex employees, factories, etc.) is even more complex, and hense even more improbable as to coming about by chance, yet of course this does not mean that Boeing is improbable as to existence .
So.... From where did this complex God come from? If such a deity just popped up out of nowhere, it would prove life could pop up out of nowhere.
The main two ways I've seen creationists evade this question are:
(1) God has always been there, his origins are an undefinable mystery -- or
(2) The rules of the universe don't apply to God. He exists outside the rules of the universe, so anything that is said or defined about him by religionists cannot be disproven because we cannot possibly understand him.
So there is the appeal to mystery and to the fact that, in the minds of religionists, God simply HAS to exist. It's tunnel vision to me. And that's what Dawkins points out.
Dawkins point was to claim that through logic that he has shown that "God almost certainly does not exist".
-
49
The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)
by hooberus inrecently i carefully read (and highlighted) chapter 4 of richard dawkins book "the god delusion".
dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no god".
his reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:.
-
-
hooberus
Recently I carefully read (and highlighted) Chapter 4 of Richard Dawkins book "The God Delusion". Dawkins argument is meant to show that "there almost certainly is no God". His reasoning (taken from various points on different pages by myself) is basically as follows:
1. Complex things are improbable as to coming about by chance: "The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means."
2. Life is very complex and therefore improbable by chance.
3. Any God capable of designing the universe [and complex life] would have to be more complex than his creation, and therefore more improbable. Any entity capable of intelligently designing something would have to be even more improbable than his design."a God capable of designing a universe, or anything else, would have to be complex and statistically improbable."
4. Therefore God (being very improbable) almost certainly does not exist.
There are several problems with Dawkins argument, however the main problem is is equating improbability of coming about by chance with improbability of existence.
Even if one grants all of Dawkins other points (which many do not), his argument would only prove that any God is statistically improbable as to having come about by chance, (which virtually no theologian believes anyway).
Dawkins argument proves nothing about the improbability as to existence of an eternal God (such as his main adversary the God of the Bible).
The deception in Dawkins argument lies in the fact that when he uses the phrase "improbable" in relation to life, the universe, etc. he is specifically referring to improbable as to coming about by chance. However, later on when he talks about God being even "more improbable" he doesn't ever directly include the qualifying definition of improbable as to coming about by chance, and simply uses the words "more improbable", giving the impression that his argument disproves the existence of any God (even eternal ones that did not come about by chance).
-
365
Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!
by Perry ini just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.
in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.
(intellignet design).
-
-
hooberus
.
hooberus,
I checked the site and to get the information I'd have to purchase a book. Can you just tell me yourself why natural selection doesn't account for the complexity of life?
I hope you'd agree small changes take place in species. If a species can change a little bit, what's to stop it changing a little bit more? If there's a small change, then another, and another, over millions of years those small changes will add up. You'll end up with something that looks completely different to how it started out.
That's all evolution is, and yes, creationists do claim to deny this. However, when some say animals diversified quickly after Noah's flood due to natural selection, they're basically explaining evolution!
Small changes + time = complex life forms
The problem is that the complete evolutionary naturalism "version" of history would have required more than merely "small changes" and "time" in order to properly explain the world around us. For example there is the significant issue of the direction of change. Evolutionary naturalsim would have required a massive increaese in genetic informational content over this time (in order to get a bacteriologist from bacteria).
The problem is that the adverse effect of random mutations on information is so overwhelmingly destructive that above a certain (low) amount of mutation rate, natural selection cannot even preserve the existing information in the genome, let alone establish a net increase.
For example:
Take a flopy computer disk and copy the information from an arcticle on the subject of "Evolution" from an Encarta encyclopedia. Then write a program that intrduces three random mutations (mispellings, etc.) on each of four subsequent copies. Then have an Ph.D biologist directly select the best disk according to biological information content out of the four, and through away the rest (perfect selection). Make four more disk copies and repeat the process of "small change" over "time" for as many generarations as you would like. Would such a process ultimately end up with more information about biological evolution for Encarta? Obviously not- the overall effect would be degradation of information with selection unable to keep up.
Note that in the above "Encarta" example the biologist "selector" could not simply select benefical mutations in each disk and then dismiss the harmful ones, since he could not select directly for mutations but must accept or reject the entire flopy disks in each generation. Likewise natural selection can only select whole organisms, and deleterious change (especially with "random" mutation) can easily overpower even perfect selection.
Many internet evolutionists however minimise deleterious change with a simple handwave like:
http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/87640/1461219/post.ashx#1461219
"The fact that these mutations are usually harmful is not at all relevant. If one mutation in a million, or even a billion, was only 1% beneficial, that would be enough fuel to roll the evolutionary machine along. The harmful mutations would simply die and be gone."
-
365
Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!
by Perry ini just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.
in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.
(intellignet design).
-
-
hooberus
serotonin said:
You've misunderstood me.
I wrote: That's all evolution is, and yes, creationists do claim to deny this.
Meaning creationists deny this is all evolution is. They think it's something more, so you get the classic 'I believe in micro evolution, not macro evolution' line, when they don't get that macro evolution is just micro evolution repeated over and over.My comments referred specifically to the false claim in the film that you linkerd to that: "after years of rejecting these simple steps of natural selection some creationist preachers are now embracing them"
-
365
Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!
by Perry ini just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.
in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.
(intellignet design).
-
-
hooberus
hooberus,
I checked the site and to get the information I'd have to purchase a book. Can you just tell me yourself why natural selection doesn't account for the complexity of life?
I hope you'd agree small changes take place in species. If a species can change a little bit, what's to stop it changing a little bit more? If there's a small change, then another, and another, over millions of years those small changes will add up. You'll end up with something that looks completely different to how it started out.
That's all evolution is, and yes, creationists do claim to deny this.
Wait a minute. The film you linked to gives five "steps" (from 3:00 to 4:00) and then states:
"after years of rejecting these simple steps of natural selection some creationist preachers are now embracing them"
Please first either disavow such a statement or list the steps and show that creationists have been rejecting for years the five items (or even some of them).
-
365
Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!
by Perry ini just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.
in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.
(intellignet design).
-
-
hooberus
Natural selection made easy-
Once you understand it properly, it's just completely obvious. It explains the complexity of life very well. If you're open minded enough to watch.
I watched it and found it to make false claims such as: "after years of rejecting these simple steps of natural selection some creationist preachers are now embracing them" which is patently false. (It was even a creationist [Edward Blyth] who though of the concept of natural selction years before Darwin.)
For a treatment of natual selection see the "Biotic message" http://saintpaulscience.com/contents.htm as well as "Genetic Entropy and the mystery of the Human Genome" (both availaible from www.creationresearch.org), then you will know more about the subject of real NS then probably 98% of internet evolutionists (though they will still lecture you on your "ignorance" )
-
365
Richard Dawkins Gets "Expelled" by Ben Stein!
by Perry ini just got back from seeing the new movie release "expelled" which is a documentary exposing the militant culture of supression regarding intelligent design in the scientific community.
in a "million years", i never would have imagined that ben stein could get the author of "the god delusion", richard dawkins to speak favorably about i.d.
(intellignet design).
-
-
hooberus
I've never heard of Haldane's Dilemma, mostly because I've never taken ID's arguments seriously, and always believed in evolution (well, for a very long time), even as a JW, I will investigate it, thanks.
Burn
PS
This link seems to address it pretty well, but it is a long post!
http://www.gnxp.com/blog/2006/04/haldanes-dilemma-should-we-worry.php
see here for more: