Posts by hooberus

39

Noah's ark - Can't believe I once actually thought it was true

by sam_sane_now in

when i was a jw i didn't even question that the noah's ark story might not be true.

i didn't realise that it wasn't achievable for a handful of people to gather literally millions of animals - two of each kind - and fit them into a boat where they would all survive for many days.

i didn't think about the fact that if the highest mountain was covered with water then how could plant life like trees and flowers come to exist again, especially so soon after, with the raven grabbing an olive leaf was it?

hooberus

from:

http://www.creationresearch.org

John Woodmorappe. 1996. Institute for Creation Research, 298 pages.

This remarkable book is the most compete analysis ever published regarding the gathering of animals to the Ark, provisions for their care and feeding, and the subsequent dispersion. The author has devoted seven years to this scholarly, systematic answer to virtually all the anti-Ark arguments, alleged difficulties with the biblical account, and other relevant questions.

46

Endosymbiosis --- A challenge to Dawkins' Universal Darwinism

by hamilcarr in

jw
friends

inspired by dawkins' notion of universal darwinism, biologists have been trying to prove that all sorts of evolution can be explained by a simple paradigm of random mutation and natural selection.

because of dawkins' ardor to spread the word, many have no idea there's far more to discover about evolutionary mechanisms beyond natural selection.. one of these challenges to dawkins' universal darwinism is called the endosymbiotic theory, popularized by lynn margulis in the 90s.

she's known for her bold rejection of some neo-darwinian interpretations.

hooberus

On a related note,one of the passages I found interesting in "The God D elusion" was Dawkins statement that:

"Nevertheless, it may be that the origin of life is not the only major gap in the evolutionary story that is bridged by sheer luck, anthropically justified. For example, my collegue Mark Ridley in Mendel's Demon . . .has suggested that the origin of the eucaryotic cell (our kind or cell, with a nucleus and various other complicated features such as mitochondria, which are not present in bacteria) was an even more monumentous, difficult and statisally improbable step than the origin of life." The God De lusion page 168.

49

The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)

by hooberus in

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:.

hooberus

hooberus:
So you don't think that it is fallacious to use an an argument based on the improbability of something coming about by chance against the probability of existence of something not believed to have come about by chance?
Not at all. Merely simplified. But I thought I said that already.

Really, so I guess then you don't have a problem with me claiming that Dawkins "almost certainly does not exist" based on the same logic.

After all any being like him would be very improbable by chance- therefore Richard Dawkins [nor any other atheist] "almost certainly does not exist."

49

The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)

by hooberus in

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:.

hooberus

In a way I do disagree with Dawkins trying to prove that God doesn't exist, yet I don't think he is so unintelligent as to actually use that as a real argument. I do believe that he is doing it for the purpose of using the theist's own arguments against them.

Dawkins is trying to use it as a "real argument."- I believe he even refers to it as "the central argument" of his book as to why "God almost certainly does not exist."

Nor could he merely be using "the theist's own arguments against them", since informed theists do not equate improbability of coming about by chance with improbability of existence, for things that need not to have come about by chance.

49

The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)

by hooberus in

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:.

hooberus

hooberus:
Dawkins argument is fallacious.
Not at all. Merely simplified. . .

So you don't think that it is fallacious to use an an argument based on the improbability of something coming about by chance against the probability of existence of something not believed to have come about by chance?

49

The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)

by hooberus in

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:.

hooberus

There are several problems with Dawkins argument, however the main problem is is equating improbability of coming about by chance with improbability of existence.
They might be slightly different but both are about the improbability of something complex just happening to exist.

They are more than "slighty different" for many reasons. However most importantly for this thread the fact remains that an argument based on the improbability of coming about by chanceproves nothing against the probability of existence of something that did not come about by chance.

Dawkins argument is fallacious.

49

The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)

by hooberus in

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:.

hooberus

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.

49

The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)

by hooberus in

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:.

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 in

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:.

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 in

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:.

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".