Craig Responds to Dawkins

[Adonael]

I think Craig caught Dawkins with a mean left hook with this point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsymb6UxWM0

[GenesisNemesis]

Without watching the video, I'll bet that he uses some sort of argument which somehow "proves" that God is, in fact, eternal, and does not, in fact, require a designer.

[Adonael]

Without watching the video, I'll bet that he uses some sort of argument which somehow "proves" that God is, in fact, eternal, and does not, in fact, require a designer. No.

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

I think Craig caught Dawkins with a mean left hook with this point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsymb6UxWM0
I think Craig caught Dawkins with a mean left hook with this point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsymb6UxWM0
Ya think?
If the cosmos is designed and we, specifically, are designed in the designer's image then, if we saw the designer he she or it would appear designed, just like Craig would say we are. If you posit a designer for everything that appears designed, stopping at your favourite deity is just special pleading.
And yes, he brings up infinite regress, which only makes things worse for the design hypothesis, IMHO.

C_M_S

Without watching the video, I'll bet that he uses some sort of argument which somehow "proves" that God is, in fact, eternal, and does not, in fact, require a designer. No.

Nah, he just waves his hands and claims he doesn't need to explain that.:rolleyes:

[Gamer4Fire]

In short: Infinite regression argument, God as a creator does not need a creator because explanations do not require explanations. If we find machinery on the moon that was not left by Americans or Russians, we can automatically assume that it was left by extra terrestrial lifeforms, it doesn't need further explanation (no j/k).

In other words, pure BS because explanations have to follow logically from the evidence, you cannot automatically assume anything.

[Riley Stone]

Without watching the video, I'll bet that he uses some sort of argument which somehow "proves" that God is, in fact, eternal, and does not, in fact, require a designer.

It's along those lines.

He provides what he says is a quote from Mr. Dawkins, as follows: “The temptation to attribute the appearance of design to a designer is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.”

Craig argues with this point saying that: "In order to recognize an explanation as the best, you don’t have to have an explanation to explain the explanation."

Well, the problem here, obviously, is that theists are not providing an explanation. They're employing a form of reasoning, a form of reasoning that they claim is no longer valid when applied to a similar scenario.

The point is that if a theist wants to imply that complexity denotes design, then the theist must also use that same reasoning to say that God, who is surely far more complex than what we see in the universe, would also have to have a designer.

In my opinion, this is just another example of Christians wanting to have things both ways. They want to be allowed to reason in a certain way. However, they object to using the same reasoning to draw a conclusion that would contradict their beliefs and claims. This type of reasoning is ONLY acceptable as long as it is used to "prove" that their claims and beliefs are valid. It just seems dishonest to me.

[GenesisNemesis]

Without watching the video, I'll bet that he uses some sort of argument which somehow "proves" that God is, in fact, eternal, and does not, in fact, require a designer.

It's along those lines.

He provides what he says is a quote from Mr. Dawkins, as follows: “The temptation to attribute the appearance of design to a designer is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.”

Craig argues with this point saying that: "In order to recognize an explanation as the best, you don’t have to have an explanation to explain the explanation."

Well, the problem here, obviously, is that theists are not providing an explanation. They're employing a form of reasoning, a form of reasoning that they claim is no longer valid when applied to a similar scenario.

The point is that if a theist wants to imply that complexity denotes design, then the theist must also use that same reasoning to say that God, who is surely far more complex than what we see in the universe, would also have to have a designer.

In my opinion, this is just another example of Christians wanting to have things both ways. They want to be allowed to reason in a certain way. However, they object to using the same reasoning to draw a conclusion that would contradict their beliefs and claims. This type of reasoning is ONLY acceptable as long as it is used to "prove" that their claims and beliefs are valid. It just seems dishonest to me.

To critique Craig's point, we do not need an explanation to explain the explanation, because explanations only go so far as to explain certain (natural) phenomenon, and if we have an explanation for that phenomenon that fits the evidence required, then that explanation is sufficient by that definition.

On what grounds could "Goddidit" possibly be sufficient?

[Martian Astronomer]

Craig argues with this point saying that: "In order to recognize an explanation as the best, you don’t have to have an explanation to explain the explanation."


So, does this mean that Christians will stop showing up here and telling us that we can't possibly believe in the Big Bang if we don't know what caused it?

[Adonael]

Ya think?
If the cosmos is designed and we, specifically, are designed in the designer's image then, if we saw the designer he she or it would appear designed, just like Craig would say we are. This is an unargued premise.



If you posit a designer for everything that appears designed, stopping at your favourite deity is just special pleading. hence this is baseless. moreover, even if i grant you your premise, it is not special pleading just yet. For specialpleading to be applied, the reason for excluding God would have to be poor. It is not special pleading simply because we exclude God.

[Adonael]

The point is that if a theist wants to imply that complexity denotes design, then the theist must also use that same reasoning to say that God, who is surely far more complex than what we see in the universe, would also have to have a designer. It is not merely complexity that denotes design. Theists can grant that some things are complex and yet hail from natural processes. The point the theist makes is when something is likely too complex for natural processess. moreover, the ideas that im familiar actually deny that God is complex and so it seems you are shooting at unmanned arguments.

[Adonael]

It's along those lines.

He provides what he says is a quote from Mr. Dawkins, as follows: “The temptation to attribute the appearance of design to a designer is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.”

Craig argues with this point saying that: "In order to recognize an explanation as the best, you don’t have to have an explanation to explain the explanation."

Well, the problem here, obviously, is that theists are not providing an explanation. They're employing a form of reasoning, a form of reasoning that they claim is no longer valid when applied to a similar scenario.

The point is that if a theist wants to imply that complexity denotes design, then the theist must also use that same reasoning to say that God, who is surely far more complex than what we see in the universe, would also have to have a designer.

In my opinion, this is just another example of Christians wanting to have things both ways. They want to be allowed to reason in a certain way. However, they object to using the same reasoning to draw a conclusion that would contradict their beliefs and claims. This type of reasoning is ONLY acceptable as long as it is used to "prove" that their claims and beliefs are valid. It just seems dishonest to me.

To critique Craig's point, we do not need an explanation to explain the explanation, because explanations only go so far as to explain certain (natural) phenomenon, and if we have an explanation for that phenomenon that fits the evidence required, then that explanation is sufficient by that definition.

On what grounds could "Goddidit" possibly be sufficient?

because for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation.

[Gamer4Fire]

To critique Craig's point, we do not need an explanation to explain the explanation, because explanations only go so far as to explain certain (natural) phenomenon, and if we have an explanation for that phenomenon that fits the evidence required, then that explanation is sufficient by that definition.

On what grounds could "Goddidit" possibly be sufficient?

because for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation.

And what cases would those be? I know of none.

[Adonael]

because for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation.

And what cases would those be? I know of none.

The telelogical argument takes that form or at least can take that form. I'm not interested in discussing whether the telelogical argument is true or likely true.

[Gamer4Fire]

And what cases would those be? I know of none.

The telelogical argument takes that form or at least can take that form. I'm not interested in discussing whether the telelogical argument is true or likely true.

No, the teleological argument is not the case. What case does "for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation"? Which is the teleological argument.

[Riley Stone]

It's along those lines.

He provides what he says is a quote from Mr. Dawkins, as follows: “The temptation to attribute the appearance of design to a designer is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.”

Craig argues with this point saying that: "In order to recognize an explanation as the best, you don’t have to have an explanation to explain the explanation."

Well, the problem here, obviously, is that theists are not providing an explanation. They're employing a form of reasoning, a form of reasoning that they claim is no longer valid when applied to a similar scenario.

The point is that if a theist wants to imply that complexity denotes design, then the theist must also use that same reasoning to say that God, who is surely far more complex than what we see in the universe, would also have to have a designer.

In my opinion, this is just another example of Christians wanting to have things both ways. They want to be allowed to reason in a certain way. However, they object to using the same reasoning to draw a conclusion that would contradict their beliefs and claims. This type of reasoning is ONLY acceptable as long as it is used to "prove" that their claims and beliefs are valid. It just seems dishonest to me.

To critique Craig's point, we do not need an explanation to explain the explanation, because explanations only go so far as to explain certain (natural) phenomenon, and if we have an explanation for that phenomenon that fits the evidence required, then that explanation is sufficient by that definition.

On what grounds could "Goddidit" possibly be sufficient?


That's a very good point, and I agree that "Goddidit" is not an explanation at all.

Craig's point rests on his unsubstantiated claim that a designer is "recognized as the best explanation."

[TruthPrevails]

I think Craig caught Dawkins with a mean left hook with this point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsymb6UxWM0It was a baseless left skyhook that he used, i.e.

skyhook = "imaginary device to hold things up," 1915, originally aviators' jargon, from sky + hook.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/skyhook
and therefore his 'explanation don't need explanation' argument that was hung on hot air, is useless.

Dawkins claimed that creationists use the skyhook approach, i.e. when they do not have answers to any improbable complexity, they will take big leaps to hang it onto the skyhook of the god-of-the-gap.
From the psychological view, this is due to cognitive dissonance arising from the primordial fear of mortality that subliminally make theists emotional wrecks of various degrees.

Dawkins stated that it is obvious that man-created objects (up to 6+ millions years) can be traced to human-creators. It is tempting to the ignorant, to apply this same principle to biological beings, persons or the universe (billion, trillions, nth years), but it will not work.
But, if ignorant creationists insist on applying this limited human-based principle, then they must subject their designer to the same principle, i.e. who created the designer.

Dawkins is questioning and asking for explanations to the logic and basis of the creationists' skyhook explanation.
I wonder why would Craig slyly used the weaker term 'explanation' rather than 'conclusion'. An explanation is just a brief description of causes and any rational person would ask for the underlying assumptions and limitations that are used.

If he conclude an intelligent designer, then he must provide sufficient evidences and rational explanations to support it.

[GenesisNemesis]

because for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation.

The best explanation for things such as the purpose of the Universe and the "True" reason for humanity's existence? I would have to agree, if I didn't think those things were futile in their pursuit and meaningless.

[GenesisNemesis]

That's a very good point, and I agree that "Goddidit" is not an explanation at all.

Craig's point rests on his unsubstantiated claim that a designer is "recognized as the best explanation."

Polytheism was also recognized in ancient times as the "best explanation" until monotheism came along. Now polytheism is, mostly, forgotten. :Cheeky:

[Riley Stone]

To critique Craig's point, we do not need an explanation to explain the explanation, because explanations only go so far as to explain certain (natural) phenomenon, and if we have an explanation for that phenomenon that fits the evidence required, then that explanation is sufficient by that definition.

On what grounds could "Goddidit" possibly be sufficient?

because for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation.

What cases? If you can't substantiate your claim, why make it at all?

Craig's entire point rests on the unwarranted assumption that "God is recognized as the best explanation" [for the origin of the universe.] If Craig wishes to make a point based on an assumption, he must first prove that the assumption is warranted. Since he did not do that (and since you cannot or will not do it), then you cannot argue that he has made a valid point.

It would be like me saying to a theist: Since it has been recognized that the best explanation for religious belief is ignorance, we can conclude that all theists are ignorant.

I'm sure a theist would have a problem with that statement. Why? Because the theist would not agree with the assumption that "ignorance has been recognized as the best explanation for religious belief."

Imagine the following dialogue:

Atheist: Since it has been recognized that the best explanation for religious belief is ignorance, we can conclude that all theists are ignorant.

Theist: Please explain why we should accept your assumption that "it has been recognized that the best explanation for religious belief is ignorance."

Atheist: I don't want to get into a discussion about whether or not it is true that ignorance is recognized as the best explanation for religious belief.

Do you see the problem?

If, in this case, the atheist is not willing to demonstrate how his assumption is warranted, then he cannot claim that any point made in connection to the unwarranted assumption is a point that is valid.

http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=5328214

Fallacies of Presumption

Fallacies of presumption are not errors of reasoning in the sense of logical errors, but are nevertheless commonly classed as fallacies. Fallacies of presumption begin with a false (or at least unwarranted) assumption, and so fail to establish their conclusion.

[Riley Stone]

That's a very good point, and I agree that "Goddidit" is not an explanation at all.

Craig's point rests on his unsubstantiated claim that a designer is "recognized as the best explanation."

Polytheism was also recognized in ancient times as the "best explanation" until monotheism came along. Now polytheism is, mostly, forgotten. :Cheeky:

Well I am partial to the widely accepted explanation that this is is all the work of a good-natured, but seriously injured Elf. However, please don't ask me to explain why my assumption about the Elf is warranted. It's kind of personal, and I don't want to talk about it. :p

[Riley Stone]

Craig argues with this point saying that: "In order to recognize an explanation as the best, you don’t have to have an explanation to explain the explanation."


So, does this mean that Christians will stop showing up here and telling us that we can't possibly believe in the Big Bang if we don't know what caused it?

GREAT point. (But I can't say what the Christians will or will not do. Sorry!)

[Adonael]

edit.

[Adonael]

The telelogical argument takes that form or at least can take that form. I'm not interested in discussing whether the telelogical argument is true or likely true.

No, the teleological argument is not the case. What case does "for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation"? Which is the teleological argument.


For some cases such that are found within the uses of the teleological argument. This is my answer. If you don't like it, then fine. But, do not pester me with your reverberations,please.

[Adonael]

What cases? If you can't substantiate your claim, why make it at all? I only aimed to explain how theists can argue past GenesisNemesis' objection. I did not try to argue my own beliefs in regards to what is the best explanation, whether such arguments are true, or give examples of such arguments. I repeat: I was not trying to say that God is actually the inference to best explanation and thus this whole interaction is inaccurate:
Atheist: Since it has been recognized that the best explanation for religious belief is ignorance, we can conclude that all theists are ignorant.

Theist: Please explain why we should accept your assumption that "it has been recognized that the best explanation for religious belief is ignorance."

Atheist: I don't want to get into a discussion about whether or not it is true that ignorance is recognized as the best explanation for religious belief.


Although the confusion is an understandable one and i take responsibility for it. :)
Craig's entire point rests on the unwarranted assumption that "God is recognized as the best explanation" It's not an assumption; it's his conclusion based upon abductive reasoning.



[for the origin of the universe.] If Craig wishes to make a point based on an assumption, he must first prove that the assumption is warranted. Since he did not do that (and since you cannot or will not do it), then you cannot argue that he has made a valid point. But Craig does argue for the best explanation. Whether or not he proves it is up for debate. Do you even read Craig?

[Adonael]

From the psychological view, this is due to cognitive dissonance arising from the primordial fear of mortality that subliminally make theists emotional wrecks of various degrees. Spare me the psych.


But, if ignorant creationists insist on applying this limited human-based principle, then they must subject their designer to the same principle, i.e. who created the designer. This is a keystone to your "argument" and it is unargued.

I wonder why would Craig slyly used the weaker term 'explanation' rather than 'conclusion'. An explanation is just a brief description of causes and any rational person would ask for the underlying assumptions and limitations that are used. No, you are a bit "ignorant" to what an explanation is. google it.

If he conclude an intelligent designer, then he must provide sufficient evidences and rational explanations to support it Sure.

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

Ya think?
If the cosmos is designed and we, specifically, are designed in the designer's image then, if we saw the designer he she or it would appear designed, just like Craig would say we are. This is an unargued premise.



If you posit a designer for everything that appears designed, stopping at your favourite deity is just special pleading. hence this is baseless. moreover, even if i grant you your premise, it is not special pleading just yet. For specialpleading to be applied, the reason for excluding God would have to be poor. It is not special pleading simply because we exclude God.

It's not me who's excluding god from the set {things which appear designed and therefore require a designer}, it's Craig who does that. It's special pleading because he wants an explanation for everything except that.

It is not merely complexity that denotes design. Theists can grant that some things are complex and yet hail from natural processes. The point the theist makes is when something is likely too complex for natural processess. moreover, the ideas that im familiar actually deny that God is complex and so it seems you are shooting at unmanned arguments.
And where does the theist draw the line? More important, how does the theist know where to draw the line?

C_M_S

[Adonael]

It's special pleading because he wants an explanation for everything except that.
Err, no. Even if I grant you that Craig "wants an explanation for eveything but that" it is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition of special pleading. You can look the fallacy up if you want and verify your claims. i'm sure you will find that you are quite incorrect.


theist know where to draw the line? Draw what line? A line for what?

[fatpie42]

Draw what line? A line for what?


when something is likely too complex for natural processess

So where do we draw the line then? What counts as 'too complex for natural processes'?

[C_Mucius_Scaevola]

It's special pleading because he wants an explanation for everything except that.
Err, no. Even if I grant you that Craig "wants an explanation for eveything but that" it is neither a sufficient nor necessary condition of special pleading. You can look the fallacy up if you want and verify your claims. i'm sure you will find that you are quite incorrect.
From wiki:Essentially, this involves someone attempting to cite something as an exemption to a generally accepted rule, principle, etc. without justifying the exemption.
Craig argues in the video that what appears designed must have a designer, but he exempts his deity from this rule for no apparent reason. That is special pleading. But if you don't want to give it that name, please yourself. You still don't explain why god should be exempt.

theist know where to draw the line? Draw what line? A line for what?
The line between what is too complex for natural processes and that which is not. The part of your post which I quoted should have given you a clue.

C_M_S

[Hedshaker]

It's not an assumption; it's his conclusion based upon abductive reasoning.

Craig starts with the belief that goddidit and then attempts to fit his (so called) reasoning around that presupposition.

[Gawen]

Moving to EoG

[thedistillers]

What Craig is doing is pointing out the fallacy in Dawkins' reasoning that leads the biologist to conclude that "God almost certainly does not exist". Even if God is more complex than the universe, so what? If you find a book on a beach, you cannot posit that an intelligent designer wrote it because the designer would have to be more complex than the book? This is nonsense.

The problem is that Dawkins didn't formulate his argument properly. I would argue that - when the universe is concerned - we should seek an explanation until we find a simple, coherent explanation that emcompasses everything. But in the process, it is possible that what explains X - E - is more complex than X. Should we rule out E because it's more complex? Of course not! Because maybe there is a very simple explanation for E.

It's clear stopping with God is not satisfactory, because we're stopping with a being enormously powerful that begs for an explanation, but theists claim no explanation is required. This is incoherent.

[Antiplastic]

This has been done to death already. (http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=236799&highlight=dawkins+747)

The only thing Slick Willie's response shows is the hair-trigger special pleading reflex of the apologist.

[Clivedurdle]

Since it has been recognized that the best explanation for religious belief is ignorance, we can conclude that all theists are ignorant.



Hmm. Maybe that is not a presumption at all.

http://books.guardian.co.uk/top10s/top10/0,,1140156,00.html

[Doug Shaver]

pleading just yet. For specialpleading to be applied, the reason for excluding God would have to be poor.
No, it wouldn't. You can special-plead with a bulletproof argument. What makes it special pleading is that you reject the argument's relevance to any proposition except the one you want it to apply to.

[Gamer4Fire]

No, the teleological argument is not the case. What case does "for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation"? Which is the teleological argument.


For some cases such that are found within the uses of the teleological argument. This is my answer. If you don't like it, then fine. But, do not pester me with your reverberations,please.

What? You said "for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation," that IS the teleological argument. I want to know for which cases the teleological argument is the best explanation.

[Will.L]

Almost painful to watch... could this guy get any more redundant?

Seems to me that near the end, if you took it differently than he does, he's actually coming close to making a very mature point. You can't ever have an absolute explanation for anything. Not the universe, not the meaning of our lives, not God, nothing. Of course, this doesn't necessarily leave the door open for nihilism either, it's just an admittance of the basic point that we are fallible and we CAN'T say that we have found absolute answers to the big questions, because we will always be finding new ways to "describe" (not necessarily EXPLAIN) the cosmos, our lives, consciousness, meaning, etc.

[Steven Carr]

I think Craig caught Dawkins with a mean left hook with this point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsymb6UxWM0

And Dawkins has commented on Craig :-

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767


One of our commenters on another thread, stevencarrwork, posted a link to this article by the American theologian and Christian apologist William Lane Craig. I read it and found it so dumbfoundingly, staggeringly awful that I wanted to post it again. It is a stunning example of the theological mind at work. And remember, this is NOT an 'extremist', 'fundamentalist', 'picking on the worst case' example. My understanding is that William Lane Craig is a widely respected apologist for the Christian religion. Read his article and rub your eyes to make sure you are not having a bad dream.

[Adonael]

Draw what line? A line for what?


when something is likely too complex for natural processess

So where do we draw the line then? ? I'm not sure. But for the argument to work, it's not necessary to know exactly where the line is.

[Adonael]

I think Craig caught Dawkins with a mean left hook with this point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsymb6UxWM0

And Dawkins has commented on Craig :-

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767


One of our commenters on another thread, stevencarrwork, posted a link to this article by the American theologian and Christian apologist William Lane Craig. I read it and found it so dumbfoundingly, staggeringly awful that I wanted to post it again. It is a stunning example of the theological mind at work. And remember, this is NOT an 'extremist', 'fundamentalist', 'picking on the worst case' example. My understanding is that William Lane Craig is a widely respected apologist for the Christian religion. Read his article and rub your eyes to make sure you are not having a bad dream.

I don't see this as criticism.

[Adonael]

What? You said "for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation," that IS the teleological argument.

No i didnt.

[Adonael]

pleading just yet. For specialpleading to be applied, the reason for excluding God would have to be poor.
No, it wouldn't. You can special-plead with a bulletproof argument. What makes it special pleading is that you reject the argument's relevance to any proposition except the one you want it to apply to.

You are incorrect:
Form:
Rule: Xs are generally Ys.
x is an X.
x is an exception to the rule because it is I (where I is an irrelevant characteristic).
Therefore, x is not a Y.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/specplea.html

[Adonael]

From wiki:and you'll notice that wiki says something different than you, doesnt it?

Craig argues in the video that what appears designed must have a designer, but he exempts his deity from this rule for no apparent reason. craig does not state that god appears designed and so i see no exemption from him.

[Deleet]

I think Dawkins' argument was: According to the theists, complex objects demand a complex explanation. The complex explanation, God, requires a complex explanation ad infinitum. I don't think that Dawkins thinks that in order for some explanation to be valid, it must explain 'itself'. It helps if it does though.

[thedistillers]

I'm not a fan of Craig, but his short critique of the god delusion is excellent:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493

Dawkins argument against the existence of God is probably one of the worst I've ever seen. Arguments for God's existence may be questionable, but at least they are formulated correctly (they are logically correct, if you accept the premises). Dawkins argument is not an argument, he pulls out of his ass the conclusion that God almost certainly does not exist.

And why not concluding that God does not exist? (If we accept for the sake of the argument that all his premises are valid). Why "almost"? According to his point 3, we cannot posit a designer because it leads to infinite regresses, then surely according to him God cannot possibly exist?

For Christian apologists, Dawkins book is a golden opportunity to reassure believers that they have no reason to doubt their faith. All they have to do is pointing out that one of the top "intellectual" atheist doesn't even know how to formulate an argument logically. Sad, but true.

[Adonael]

I'm not a fan of Craig, but his short critique of the god delusion is excellent:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493

Dawkins argument against the existence of God is probably one of the worst I've ever seen. Arguments for God's existence may be questionable, but at least they are formulated correctly (they are logically correct, if you accept the premises). Dawkins argument is not an argument, he pulls out of his ass the conclusion that God almost certainly does not exist.

And why not concluding that God does not exist? (If we accept for the sake of the argument that all his premises are valid). Why "almost"? According to his point 3, we cannot posit a designer because it leads to infinite regresses, then surely according to him God cannot possibly exist?

For Christian apologists, Dawkins book is a golden opportunity to reassure believers that they have no reason to doubt their faith. All they have to do is pointing out that one of the top "intellectual" atheist doesn't even know how to formulate an argument logically. Sad, but true.

is the commentary yours or Craigs? if it is Craig's, then please provide a proper link for it. however,it does not sound like Craig.

[thedistillers]

Obviously Craig would never say that, this is my commentary.

[Riley Stone]

I think Craig caught Dawkins with a mean left hook with this point:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qsymb6UxWM0

And Dawkins has commented on Craig :-

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5767


One of our commenters on another thread, stevencarrwork, posted a link to this article by the American theologian and Christian apologist William Lane Craig. I read it and found it so dumbfoundingly, staggeringly awful that I wanted to post it again. It is a stunning example of the theological mind at work. And remember, this is NOT an 'extremist', 'fundamentalist', 'picking on the worst case' example. My understanding is that William Lane Craig is a widely respected apologist for the Christian religion. Read his article and rub your eyes to make sure you are not having a bad dream.

I was amazed by this quote from Craig's article:

So whom does God wrong in commanding the destruction of the Canaanites? Not the Canaanite adults, for they were corrupt and deserving of judgement. Not the children, for they inherit eternal life. So who is wronged? Ironically, I think the most difficult part of this whole debate is the apparent wrong done to the Israeli soldiers themselves. Can you imagine what it would be like to have to break into some house and kill a terrified woman and her children? The brutalizing effect on these Israeli soldiers is disturbing.

[Adonael]

I Why "almost"? According to his point 3, we cannot posit a designer because it leads to infinite regresses, then surely according to him God cannot possibly exist?One of the two reasons that i suspected the commentary was not Craig's words was because the commentary was insulting. But, besides that, it also seems to have a blatant error of reasoning that Craig would catch. The error, it seems to me, is what i have bolded. Infinite regresses may complicate inferences and explanations, but they do not somehow implicate that God cannot exist. You took a jump from an epistemological issue to a metaphysical stance aboutGod's existence. I find this troubling.

[Gamer4Fire]

What? You said "for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation," which is the teleological argument.

No i didnt.

because for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation.

Now answer the question. What case(s) do the teleological argument fit as the best explanation?

[thedistillers]

I Why "almost"? According to his point 3, we cannot posit a designer because it leads to infinite regresses, then surely according to him God cannot possibly exist?One of the two reasons that i suspected the commentary was not Craig's words was because the commentary was insulting. But, besides that, it also seems to have a blatant error of reasoning that Craig would catch. The error, it seems to me, is what i have bolded. Infinite regresses may complicate inferences and explanations, but they do not somehow implicate that God cannot exist. You took a jump from an epistemological issue to a metaphysical stance aboutGod's existence. I find this troubling.

Was there any reason to think Craig wrote that? Sorry I'm not following you. I provided a link with his critique of the god delusion, following with my personal comments. If it would have been Craig's thoughts, I would have said so. I'm also not sure to see what's insulting in what I've said: 1) Dawkins argument is bad atheology. 2) He cannot write a logical argument properly (the conclusion doesn't follow from the premises).

If we follow Dawkins reasoning that God needs an extraordinary explanation because God is incredibly complex, then I don't see how he can think God could possibly exist, because there is nothing that could possibly explain God. (by definition!).

[Steven Carr]

I'm not a fan of Craig, but his short critique of the god delusion is excellent:

http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5493

Dawkins argument against the existence of God is probably one of the worst I've ever seen. Arguments for God's existence may be questionable, but at least they are formulated correctly (they are logically correct, if you accept the premises). Dawkins argument is not an argument, he pulls out of his ass the conclusion that God almost certainly does not exist.

And why not concluding that God does not exist? (If we accept for the sake of the argument that all his premises are valid). Why "almost"? According to his point 3, we cannot posit a designer because it leads to infinite regresses, then surely according to him God cannot possibly exist?

For Christian apologists, Dawkins book is a golden opportunity to reassure believers that they have no reason to doubt their faith. All they have to do is pointing out that one of the top "intellectual" atheist doesn't even know how to formulate an argument logically. Sad, but true.


And what is Craig's point?

'Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism.'

In other words, Craig thinks it perfectly OK to believe in God, even if all the arguments for God's existence are bunk.

Wow! Dawkins must be kicking himself for being so dumb as not to realise that!

You can imgaine Craig going around claiming that it was perfectly reasonable to reject all arguments for the non-existence of God and then commit yourself to atheism, can't you?

Of course, you can't. Because Craig has double standards...

' First, in order to recognize an explanation as the best, one needn't have an explanation of the explanation. This is an elementary point concerning inference to the best explanation as practiced in the philosophy of science. If archaeologists digging in the earth were to discover things looking like arrowheads and hatchet heads and pottery shards, they would be justified in inferring that these artifacts are not the chance result of sedimentation and metamorphosis, but products of some unknown group of people, even though they had no explanation of who these people were or where they came from.'

Idiot!

Craig's alleged god hasn't created any arrowheads and hatchet heads. In fact, Craig boasts that his alleged god can create things that nothing else can create, which means that such analogies are useless.

Secondly, we have a very good explanation of where people come from (when a mummy and a daddy love each other very much...)

We also have very good explanations of why and how people create arrowheads and hatchet heads.

The best analogy for god is as an explanation for wny Mr. C won the lottery one week and Mrs. X won the lottery the next week. Why did those two people win? Because an alleged god fixed the lottery results, and he wanted those 2 people to win for his own mysterious, but all-wise and all-good reasons. That explains everything.

Craig is claming that because ad hoc hypotheses explain everything, science should resort to ad hoc hypotheses.

This is the very opposite of science.

[Kosh3]

Craig is entirely right - we don't need to supply explanations to explanations in order to accept them. Plantinga has also made the same point also: it is simply absurd to demand explanations for all explanations (for such a ongoing demand can never be met in any domain).

Note that this in no way means you have to like arguments from design. It simply means the (almost too easy) 'who designed the designer?' retort is a quite thoroughly inappropriate response.

[Steven Carr]

Craig is entirely right - we don't need to supply explanations to explanations in order to accept them.

So the lottery god is the best explanation of why certain people in a certain order won the lottery?

Craig is claiming that ad hoc, untestable, unfalsifiable hypotheses are the best explanations.

CRAIG
'So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.'

So design does NOT need an explanation. Craig says so himself. Explanations for some things do NOT have to be supplied.

CRAIG
'As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity.'

Really? Craig might have a simple mind, but God?

[TruthPrevails]

From the psychological view, this is due to cognitive dissonance arising from the primordial fear of mortality that subliminally make theists emotional wrecks of various degrees. Spare me the psych.Note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Why the need (prob. primordial fear) to run away from truth and reality.
Read the article in the link, google and review yourself as a case study.

No, you are a bit "ignorant" to what an explanation is. google it.Here is the difference between 'explanation' and 'conclusion'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation
An explanation is a description which clarify causes, context, and consequences of a certain object, and a phenomenon such as a process, a state of affairs. This description may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing ones in relation to an object, and a phenomenon examined. The components of an explanation can be implicit, and be interwoven with one another.

A conclusion is a proposition, which is arrived at after the consideration of evidence, arguments or premises.

Conclusion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conclusion
1. the end or close; final part.
2. the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached.
3. a result, issue, or outcome; settlement or arrangement: The restitution payment was one of the conclusions of the negotiations.
4. final decision: The judge has reached his conclusion.
5. a reasoned deduction or inference.
6. Logic. a proposition concluded or inferred from the premises of an argument.

Craig was using 'explanation', as a diversion to convince his gullible believers.

Dawkins did not ask for explanation as an end, he wanted a conclusion, i.e. reasoned deduction that god exists.

In his book, 'The God Delusion', he stated that the 'God Exists Hypothesis' is a non-starter as creationists were merely using the designer-god as a default and 'skyhook' to close any intellectual gaps based on faith (i.e. no proofs required).

If god designed and created everything, who created god? is a very reasonable and rational question which is of significant interest to humanity. What is all the fuss about explanations, just provide a reasoned deduction.

The reasoned deduction to the above question is simple. It is humans who created god. Do you need explanations or a conclusion to this assertion?

[Kosh3]

So the lottery god is the best explanation of why certain people in a certain order won the lottery?

Craig is claiming that ad hoc, untestable, unfalsifiable hypotheses are the best explanations.

CRAIG
'So in the case at hand, in order to recognize that intelligent design is the best explanation of the appearance of design in the universe, one needn't be able to explain the designer.'

So design does NOT need an explanation. Craig says so himself. Explanations for some things do NOT have to be supplied.

CRAIG
'As an unembodied mind, God is a remarkably simple entity.'

Really? Craig might have a simple mind, but God?

It is prudent to differentiate two separate claims:
A) explanations for explanations are always required
B) God is the best explanation of the universe

I don't particularly care what else Craig has to say about B - on A he is correct. A is false. Whether B is true or not is something to be treated separately - but what is clear is that B need not follow from A, nor is it necessary to deny A just in order to help one's denial of B.

[Steven Carr]

It is prudent to differentiate two separate claims:
A) explanations for explanations are always required
B) God is the best explanation of the universe

I don't particularly care what else Craig has to say about B - on A he is correct. A is false. Whether B is true or not is something to be treated separately - but what is clear is that B need not follow from A, nor is it necessary to deny A just in order to help one's denial of B.


This is just more double-standards by theists, protecting their belief in an alleged god from being questioned.

For example, John Polkinghorne writes ' It goes against the grain for a scientist to be so intellectually lazy. The meta-question of the unreasonable effectiveness of mathematics insists on being answered. '

But, of course, Polkinghorne and Dawins are both scientists. Craig is not....

[Steven Carr]

So the lottery god is the best explanation of why certain people in a certain order won the lottery?


It is prudent to differentiate two separate claims:
A) explanations for explanations are always required
B) God is the best explanation of the universe

I don't particularly care what else Craig has to say about B - on A he is correct. A is false. Whether B is true or not is something to be treated separately - but what is clear is that B need not follow from A, nor is it necessary to deny A just in order to help one's denial of B.

I see you don't answer the question of why we should dismiss the lottery god, when that is the only conceivable explanation of why certain people won the lottery , rather than certain other people. Happenstance doesn't explain why person A won , rather than person B.

The lottery god is therefore the best explanation, as it is the only explanation which explains why certain people were favoured in the lottery draws, and so Craig must believe in the lottery god.

[trendkill]

Dawkins's point in the quoted argument seems to be that the claim that complexity requires an intelligent designer leads to an infinite regress of designers (i.e. that the same argumentation that shows that nature requires a designer also shows that the designer requires a designer and so on into infinity), and that therefore the designer cannot be God, who by definition cannot have a designer. This does not require as a "principle" that in order to recognize that an explanation is the best, you have to have an explanation for the explanation, as Craig seems to think it does. So I would say that, rather than being a left hook, this is a swing and a miss on Craig's part. It's an uncharitable interpretation of the Dawkins quote, certainly.

[Steven Carr]

Dawkins's point in the quoted argument is that the claim that complexity requires an intelligent designer leads to an infinite regress of designers (i.e. that the same argumentation that shows that nature requires a designer also shows that the designer requires a designer and so on into infinity), and as such, the designer cannot be God, who by definition cannot have a designer. This does not require as a "principle" the contrary of the statement "in order to recognize that an explanation is the best, you do not have to have an explanation for the explanation", as Craig seems to think it does. So I think, rather than being a left hook, this is a swing and a miss.

Craig's claim that minds can only be explained by positing a disembodied mind that has no explanation is very different from cases where people have posited explanations that they cannot explain.

For example, certain physical phenomena are explained by things like 'colour' 'charm', 'top', 'down', 'charge' which cannot themselves be explained.

So explanations do not always need explanations themselves.

But the god explanation is as circular as claiming that the earth rests on turtles, and that there is no need to explain what the turtles rest on.

[trendkill]

But the god explanation is as circular as claiming that the earth rests on turtles, and that there is no need to explain what the turtles rest on.Well, in the video Craig seems to espouse the view that there are independent reasons to think that (something in nature) is designed. His archaeology analogy shows this. So with the turtle analogy, maybe the evidence would be "we see patterns in the geological makeup of the earth that resemble a turtle shell's pattern", or "the lowest levels of the earth's crust uniformly show large trace amounts of turtle shell material", or something like that. So we would conclude that there is a turtle down there somewhere. And we would not have to know whether it's turtles all the way down in order to come to this conclusion.

Craig's reasoning up to a point is correct; the problem is that to relate it to what Dawkins is saying, he has to misinterpret Dawkins, or at least interpret him uncharitably.

[Kosh3]

I see you don't answer the question of why we should dismiss the lottery god, when that is the only conceivable explanation of why certain people won the lottery , rather than certain other people. Happenstance doesn't explain why person A won , rather than person B.

The lottery god is therefore the best explanation, as it is the only explanation which explains why certain people were favoured in the lottery draws, and so Craig must believe in the lottery god.

People in the thread seem to be leaping all around the place from point to point; I wanted to ensure that at least the point I have defended is seen as a point by itself. Anything else anyone wants to say - once that issue has been clearly delineated - is open to them.

[Adonael]

[QUOTE=Steven Carr;5329608]And what is Craig's point?
'Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism.'
In other words, Craig thinks it perfectly OK to believe in God, even if all the arguments for God's existence are bunk. The quote is not saying that at all. For Craig, atheism is the denial of god's existence. You cannot deny God's existence simply because you know of no good argument for God's existence. But, I suspect Craig would still permit belief in God through the self-authenticating verification of the Holy Spirit.

Craig's alleged god hasn't created any arrowheads and hatchet heads. In fact, Craig boasts that his alleged god can create things that nothing else can create, which means that such analogies are useless. I have a hard time seeing why Craig's point fails. While God has not created arrows and hatchets, the idea is that both the arrow, hatchet and the fine tuning of the universe are likely too complex to be the product of natural processes. What allows the analogy to take place is our sample of what natural and personal processes can produce and what they cannot.

[Adonael]

Spare me the psych.Note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Why the need (prob. primordial fear) to run away from truth and reality.
Read the article in the link, google and review yourself as a case study.

No, you are a bit "ignorant" to what an explanation is. google it.Here is the difference between 'explanation' and 'conclusion'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation
An explanation is a description which clarify causes, context, and consequences of a certain object, and a phenomenon such as a process, a state of affairs. This description may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing ones in relation to an object, and a phenomenon examined. The components of an explanation can be implicit, and be interwoven with one another.

A conclusion is a proposition, which is arrived at after the consideration of evidence, arguments or premises.

Conclusion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conclusion
1. the end or close; final part.
2. the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached.
3. a result, issue, or outcome; settlement or arrangement: The restitution payment was one of the conclusions of the negotiations.
4. final decision: The judge has reached his conclusion.
5. a reasoned deduction or inference.
6. Logic. a proposition concluded or inferred from the premises of an argument.

Craig was using 'explanation', as a diversion to convince his gullible believers.

Dawkins did not ask for explanation as an end, he wanted a conclusion, i.e. reasoned deduction that god exists.

In his book, 'The God Delusion', he stated that the 'God Exists Hypothesis' is a non-starter as creationists were merely using the designer-god as a default and 'skyhook' to close any intellectual gaps based on faith (i.e. no proofs required).

If god designed and created everything, who created god? is a very reasonable and rational question which is of significant interest to humanity. What is all the fuss about explanations, just provide a reasoned deduction.

The reasoned deduction to the above question is simple. It is humans who created god. Do you need explanations or a conclusion to this assertion?

Did you just refer to the dictionary for epistemological issues? Oh, my.

[Steven Carr]

I have a hard time seeing why Craig's point fails. While God has not created arrows and hatchets, the idea is that both the arrow, hatchet and the fine tuning of the universe are likely too complex to be the product of natural processes. What allows the analogy to take place is our sample of what natural and personal processes can produce and what they cannot.

The old 'Nature is not natural' argument.

[Adonael]

I have a hard time seeing why Craig's point fails. While God has not created arrows and hatchets, the idea is that both the arrow, hatchet and the fine tuning of the universe are likely too complex to be the product of natural processes. What allows the analogy to take place is our sample of what natural and personal processes can produce and what they cannot.

The old 'Nature is not natural' argument.

What about it?

[Steven Carr]

In short: Infinite regression argument, God as a creator does not need a creator because explanations do not require explanations. If we find machinery on the moon that was not left by Americans or Russians, we can automatically assume that it was left by extra terrestrial lifeforms, it doesn't need further explanation (no j/k).


Why doesn't Craig say God created this machinery?

Because Craig does not believe in a god who creates machines, and so says they must have been extra-terrestials?

But hasn't Craig read the memo telling Intelligent Design theorists that they must never say that the designed object tells us anything about what sort of designer created it?

[Deleet]

If Dawkins' view is that an explanation must always explain itself, then Craig's critique is justified. Does anyone know the page in The God Delusion where Dawkins makes this point?

[Antiplastic]

If Dawkins' view is that an explanation must always explain itself, then Craig's critique is justified. Does anyone know the page in The God Delusion where Dawkins makes this point?

His argument is that if every complex thing must be the result of a design process, then every complex thing must be the result of a design process.

[Steven Carr]

His argument is that if every complex thing must be the result of a design process, then every complex thing must be the result of a design process.

Craig's argument is that if every complex thing must be the result of a design process, then not every complex thing must be the result of a design process, and his alleged god has got a very simple mind anyway.

[Adonael]

If Dawkins' view is that an explanation must always explain itself, then Craig's critique is justified. Does anyone know the page in The God Delusion where Dawkins makes this point?


I, alas, threw out my copy because I was not fond of the arguments. However, i do recall Dawkins stating that reference to an intelligence from phenomena that was too complex for natural purposes "does not explain anything". Plantinga criticized Dawkins on the same point, if I recall correctly. In fact, if i'm right, he suggested that for those who believe such things, then it is time to go back to philosophy class.

[Adonael]

Craig's argument is that if every complex thing must be the result of a design process, then not every complex thing must be the result of a design process, and his alleged god has got a very simple mind anyway.
No.It must be overly complex for natural processes.Enough of the strawmen, people.

[Steven Carr]

No.It must be overly complex for natural processes.Enough of the strawmen, people.


I see. So if you saw the writing 'Mene, mene, tekel, uparshim' on a wall, it would be quite wong to conclude that God had written it?

And who died and made Craig the arbiter of what nature can and cannot do?

'Nature. It's just not natural, is it?'

Not much of an argument by Craig there....

[Steven Carr]

Craig's argument is that if every complex thing must be the result of a design process, then not every complex thing must be the result of a design process, and his alleged god has got a very simple mind anyway.
No.It must be overly complex for natural processes.Enough of the strawmen, people.


So a very simple thing, like the mind of alleged god, could be created by natural processes?

[Antiplastic]

I think I missed the observations to the effect that Yaweh's ecto-brain was simple. Could someone point me to any documented evidence of the complexity or lack thereof of Yahweh, or failing that, suggest a procedure to replicate these observations myself?

Because I would just hate to believe that an apologist would fabricate evidence out of thin air.

[thedistillers]

And what is Craig's point?

'Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism.'.

In other words, Craig thinks it perfectly OK to believe in God, even if all the arguments for God's existence are bunk.

You're taking the sentence out of context. He said right before:

Maybe our belief in God isn't based on arguments at all but is grounded in religious experience or in divine revelation.

He's saying that the failure of some traditional arguments for the existence of God doesn't have to lead to atheism.

[Gamer4Fire]

RePost:
What? You said "for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation," which is the teleological argument.
No i didnt.

because for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation.

Now answer the question. What case(s) do the teleological argument fit as the best explanation?

[Steven Carr]

And what is Craig's point?

'Indeed, many Christian theologians have rejected arguments for the existence of God without thereby committing themselves to atheism.'.

In other words, Craig thinks it perfectly OK to believe in God, even if all the arguments for God's existence are bunk.

You're taking the sentence out of context. He said right before:

Maybe our belief in God isn't based on arguments at all but is grounded in religious experience or in divine revelation.

He's saying that the failure of some traditional arguments for the existence of God doesn't have to lead to atheism.

I see.

So having divine revelations or religious experience is no argument at all for God's existence?

[Adonael]

RePost:

No i didnt.

because for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation.

Now answer the question. What case(s) do the teleological argument fit as the best explanation?

What does that quote aim to show? What i said was that the teleological argument can or does take the form of IBE

[Steven Carr]

What does that quote aim to show? What i said was that the teleological argument can or does take the form of IBE

And it is as valid as the argument that the best explanation for certain people winning the lottery in certain weeks is that there is a lottery god who has the goal of having those particular people win the lottery in a particular order.

[Adonael]

No.It must be overly complex for natural processes.Enough of the strawmen, people.


So a very simple thing, like the mind of alleged god, could be created by natural processes?

The premise is silent on that question. But, forwhat it is worth to you, Christians would deny that God is created.

[Adonael]

What does that quote aim to show? What i said was that the teleological argument can or does take the form of IBE

And it is as valid as the argument that the best explanation for certain people winning the lottery in certain weeks is that there is a lottery god who has the goal of having those particular people win the lottery in a particular order.

Okay. Feel free to support that.

[Steven Carr]

And it is as valid as the argument that the best explanation for certain people winning the lottery in certain weeks is that there is a lottery god who has the goal of having those particular people win the lottery in a particular order.

Okay. Feel free to support that.

What? Provide an explanation for my explanation? Haven't you bothered to read Craig? I don't need no explanations of my best explanation.

Do you have a *better* explanation of why a particular set of people won the lottery in a particular set of weeks?

[Adonael]

Okay. Feel free to support that.

What? Provide an explanation for my explanation?

:banghead: Your statement was not an explanation. Evidence or support for a claim is not necessarily an explanation.

[Gamer4Fire]

What does that quote aim to show? What i said was that the teleological argument can or does take the form of IBE

No, you said:



To critique Craig's point, we do not need an explanation to explain the explanation, because explanations only go so far as to explain certain (natural) phenomenon, and if we have an explanation for that phenomenon that fits the evidence required, then that explanation is sufficient by that definition.

On what grounds could "Goddidit" possibly be sufficient?

because for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation.

And I asked:


because for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation.

And what cases would those be? I know of none.

Now stop sidestepping and answer the question. For WHAT case does your god as inference of best explanation work?

[Adonael]

What does that quote aim to show? What i said was that the teleological argument can or does take the form of IBE

No, you said:



And I asked:


And what cases would those be? I know of none.

Now stop sidestepping and answer the question. For WHAT case does your god as inference of best explanation work?

by the word "case" you do not mean a specific argument form such like the teleological argument for god's existence but rather the set of evidences used within that argument form?

[Deleet]

Gamer4Fire
Now stop sidestepping and answer the question. For WHAT case does your god as inference of best explanation work?
You're being overaggressive. This thread is not discussing the teleological argument, but discussing an objection Dawkins allegedly made to it.

[Antiplastic]

Gamer4Fire
Now stop sidestepping and answer the question. For WHAT case does your god as inference of best explanation work?
You're being overaggressive. This thread is not discussing the teleological argument, but discussing an objection Dawkins allegedly made to it.

Wait, there's discussion going on in this thread? Where?

[Gamer4Fire]

For WHAT case does your god as inference of best explanation work?

by the word "case" you do not mean a specific argument form such like the teleological argument for god's existence but rather the set of evidences used within that argument form?

Next you are going to ask me what the definition of "is" is. By case, I mean a specific instance of an occurance or situation.

Adonael: because for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation.
Gamer4Fire: And what cases would those be? I know of none.


What structure, situation or argument can you make that goddidit is better than any other natural explanation?

[Deleet]

Gamer4Fire

You're being overaggressive. This thread is not about discussing the teleological argument, but discussing an objection Dawkins allegedly made to it.

Wait, there's discussion going on in this thread? Where?

I see I missed a fatal word 'about'. The thread was intended, I think, to discuss it. But as you know, from intention, actuality does not follow.

[Steven Carr]

What? Provide an explanation for my explanation?

:banghead: Your statement was not an explanation. Evidence or support for a claim is not necessarily an explanation.

I se. So 'Lottery God did it' is not an explanation, while 'Alleged God did it' is an explanation....

[Adonael]

:banghead: Your statement was not an explanation. Evidence or support for a claim is not necessarily an explanation.

I se. So 'Lottery God did it' is not an explanation, while 'Alleged God did it' is an explanation....

That was not the statement that I asked you to support. I asked you to support the statement that they are just as valid. Remember?...And it is as valid as the argument that the best explanation for certain people winning the lottery in certain weeks is that there is a lottery god who has the goal of having those particular people win the lottery in a particular order. When i asked you to support the quoted, you asked claimed the quoted was an explanation. :banghead: Moreover, it wouldnt hurt to learn the difference between a conclusion, argument and an explanation.

[Steven Carr]

Moreover, it wouldnt hurt to learn the difference between a conclusion, argument and an explanation.

This is what happens when you apply Craig's logic to other situations. People see through it at once...

[Eddie Schultz]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer4Fire

What? You said "for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation," which is the teleological argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adonael
No i didnt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adonael
because for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation.


All I wanted to see was an acknowledgement from Adonael that what Gamer4Fire claimed he said was in fact said. It was right there for Adonael to see, and he chose to ignore it. Had he went back and double checked what he said, he could have saved himself the humiliation of being wrong, instead of just saying "No I didn't". Isn't that typical of christians, creationists, etc....?

This head banging goes out to you. :banghead:

[Adonael]

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gamer4Fire

What? You said "for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation," which is the teleological argument.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adonael
No i didnt.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Adonael
because for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation.


All I wanted to see was an acknowledgement from Adonael that what Gamer4Fire claimed he said was in fact said. It was right there for Adonael to see, and he chose to ignore it. Had he went back and double checked what he said, he could have saved himself the humiliation of being wrong, instead of just saying "No I didn't". Isn't that typical of christians, creationists, etc....?

This head banging goes out to you. :banghead:



Hello, here is how the conversation went:


because for some cases, God would be the inference of best explanation.

And what cases would those be? I know of none.

for this question, I took the word "cases" to mean particular arguments such like the teleological argument. So, I reply:
The telelogical argument takes that form or at least can take that form. I'm not interested in discussing whether the telelogical argument is true or likely true.
But, as you can see, this is not what Game4Fire actually meant by the word "cases".

The above is the crux of the confusion and the discussion went on from there. It is not that I or Game4Fire are wrong, but that there was a miscommunication.

[Deleet]

I think I missed the observations to the effect that Yaweh's ecto-brain was simple. Could someone point me to any documented evidence of the complexity or lack thereof of Yahweh, or failing that, suggest a procedure to replicate these observations myself?

Because I would just hate to believe that an apologist would fabricate evidence out of thin air.

Omniscient beings seem complex to me, intuitively.

[Gamer4Fire]

Hello, here i

Okay. So for what case(s) does goddidit work better than any other natural explanation?

[TruthPrevails]

Note http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance
Why the need (prob. primordial fear) to run away from truth and reality.
Read the article in the link, google and review yourself as a case study.

Here is the difference between 'explanation' and 'conclusion'.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Explanation
An explanation is a description which clarify causes, context, and consequences of a certain object, and a phenomenon such as a process, a state of affairs. This description may establish rules or laws, and may clarify the existing ones in relation to an object, and a phenomenon examined. The components of an explanation can be implicit, and be interwoven with one another.

A conclusion is a proposition, which is arrived at after the consideration of evidence, arguments or premises.

Conclusion
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conclusion
1. the end or close; final part.
2. the last main division of a discourse, usually containing a summing up of the points and a statement of opinion or decisions reached.
3. a result, issue, or outcome; settlement or arrangement: The restitution payment was one of the conclusions of the negotiations.
4. final decision: The judge has reached his conclusion.
5. a reasoned deduction or inference.
6. Logic. a proposition concluded or inferred from the premises of an argument.

Craig was using 'explanation', as a diversion to convince his gullible believers.

Dawkins did not ask for explanation as an end, he wanted a conclusion, i.e. reasoned deduction that god exists.

In his book, 'The God Delusion', he stated that the 'God Exists Hypothesis' is a non-starter as creationists were merely using the designer-god as a default and 'skyhook' to close any intellectual gaps based on faith (i.e. no proofs required).

If god designed and created everything, who created god? is a very reasonable and rational question which is of significant interest to humanity. What is all the fuss about explanations, just provide a reasoned deduction.

The reasoned deduction to the above question is simple. It is humans who created god. Do you need explanations or a conclusion to this assertion?

Did you just refer to the dictionary for epistemological issues? Oh, my."just refer to the dictionary" this is exactly the same approach you adopt in believing in a designer-god, i.e. jumping to conclusion! despite the wiki link starring at you.

The terms, 'explanation' and 'conclusion' from Wiki that i had provided are sufficient for epistemological consideration. The dictionary link to just to show the range of the term's meaning.

Earlier, I did use the word explanation in the narrower semantic sense and not the philosophical perspective. I doubt Craig's audience in that video would have viewed his 'explanation' on a espistemological basis.

Craig is intellectually bankrupt by insisting that Dawkins should not ask for an explanation (philosophical) to his 'best' subjective explanation. That is pure escapism.

Dawkins had pointed out in his book that the creationists used ridiculous 'skyhooks' to jump to conclusion that a designer-god exist.
Dawkins' "who created the designer?" is a sort of 'checkmate' move to swipe off those 'skyhooks' and exposes the fact that, the existence of a designer-god, is a white-lie to soothe psychological pains and insecurities.

Why beat around?
If Craig or any creationists are braved enough to face the question 'who created the designer', they will eventually find out that it is they themselves that created the designer-god on an intersubjective basis as driven by the primordial fear of mortality.

[Adonael]

Hello, here i

Okay. So for what case(s) does goddidit work better than any other natural explanation?

I dont see this as relevant. i am speaking exclusively about the structure of the argument.

[Adonael]

Craig is intellectually bankrupt by insisting that Dawkins should not ask for an explanation (philosophical) to his 'best' subjective explanation. That is pure escapism. Thankfully Craig does not state that. What Craig states is that an explanation for the explanation is not required.

Dawkins had pointed out in his book that the creationists used ridiculous 'skyhooks' to jump to conclusion that a designer-god exist.
Dawkins' "who created the designer?" is a sort of 'checkmate' move to swipe off those 'skyhooks' and exposes the fact that, the existence of a designer-god, is a white-lie to soothe psychological pains and insecurities.


Dawkins was also ridiculed for his lack of understanding within the workings of explanation by at least some philosophers and certainly one prestigious epistemologist.



If Craig or any creationists are braved enough to face the question 'who created the designer' it's a loaded question and one that the "creationists" need not face.

[Gamer4Fire]

Okay. So for what case(s) does goddidit work better than any other natural explanation?

I dont see this as relevant. i am speaking exclusively about the structure of the argument.

Okay, it might not be the most relevant question in the world. But what cases does goddidit work as the best explanation?

[Manwe]

Craig is intellectually bankrupt by insisting that Dawkins should not ask for an explanation (philosophical) to his 'best' subjective explanation. That is pure escapism. Thankfully Craig does not state that. What Craig states is that an explanation for the explanation is not required. But this is the flaw in the argument. The argument assumes that god as a designer is the best explanation. In this case there are two things we can do to break the chain of infinite regression:
1. Assume that the universe has always existed in some form with natural processes accounting for all things which are existent
2. A being designed the universe since it is complex
Craig is flawed in assuming that the best way to break such a chain is going to be god. Occams razor states the opposite. Postulating god is taking something for which there is no evidence, and assuming it exists, since we can not yet explain how all things formed in their present state. This is not a needed postulation, since the universe is here, and is evidence of itself . Craig's claims that this explanation does not need an explanation are in some sense correct....it's just that he has backed the wrong assumption if he wished to honestly interpret the evidence.



Dawkins was also ridiculed for his lack of understanding within the workings of explanation by at least some philosophers and certainly one prestigious epistemologist.



If Craig or any creationists are braved enough to face the question 'who created the designer' it's a loaded question and one that the "creationists" need not face.
Lol creationists

[Dante Alighieri]

it's a loaded question and one that the "creationists" need not face.

It is not a loaded question (at least properly construed in terms of brute facts and explanations) because it points the problem in the design hypothesis in the fine-tuning argument. The reasoning that theists employ to apply significance to fine-tuning can be applied to God as well; which elucidates the problem.

[thedistillers]

But this is the flaw in the argument. The argument assumes that god as a designer is the best explanation.

Where in the an explanation for the explanation is not required argument do you infer that one must assume that God as a designer is the best explanation?

That's 2 separate issues.

An atheist can easily agree with the principle that "an explanation for the explanation is not required". This is not a theistic criticism of Dawkins, even if Craig himself is a theist.

The argument is: ***IF*** X is the best explanation for Y, then one is not required to explain X.

So ***IF*** God happens to be the best explanation for our universe, theists are not required to provide an explanation for God. If you think God is in fact not the best explanation, well then that's another issue.

[Adonael]

it's a loaded question and one that the "creationists" need not face.

It is not a loaded question (at least properly construed in terms of brute facts and explanations) because it points the problem in the design hypothesis in the fine-tuning argument. The reasoning that theists employ to apply significance to fine-tuning can be applied to God as well; which elucidates the problem.

oh? Alright. So, let's take WLC's argument:


The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

It is not due to physical necessity or chance.

Therefore, it is due to design.


Show me how someone can ask: "Well who designed the designer?" I don't think they can without first knocking out or chance and physical necessity. But, if a person were to ask in response to Craig's argument: 'Well, who designed the designer?" without knocking our chance and physically necessity, then they'd be asking a loaded question and likely begging the question.

-----
Addendum: I'd say that God is metaphysically/logically necessary rather than physical.

[Manwe]

But this is the flaw in the argument. The argument assumes that god as a designer is the best explanation.

Where in the an explanation for the explanation is not required argument do you infer that one must assume that God as a designer is the best explanation? Because otherwise this is not an explanation. If you wan t this to be an argument for god it has to be the best argument there is given the evidence, or it is invalid.

That's 2 separate issues.

An atheist can easily agree with the principle that "an explanation for the explanation is not required". This is not a theistic criticism of Dawkins, even if Craig himself is a theist.

The argument is: ***IF*** X is the best explanation for Y, then one is not required to explain X.

So ***IF*** God happens to be the best explanation for our universe, theists are not required to provide an explanation for God. If you think God is in fact not the best explanation, well then that's another issue.
Yes! The thing is...I used logic to show why I was correct.

[Dante Alighieri]

It is not a loaded question (at least properly construed in terms of brute facts and explanations) because it points the problem in the design hypothesis in the fine-tuning argument. The reasoning that theists employ to apply significance to fine-tuning can be applied to God as well; which elucidates the problem.

oh? Alright. So, let's take WLC's argument:


The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Therefore, it is due to design.


Show me how someone can ask: "Well who designed the designer?" I don't think they can without first knocking out or chance and physical necessity. But, if a person were to ask in response to Craig's argument: 'Well, who designed the designer?" without knocking our chance and physically necessity, then they'd be asking a loaded question and likely begging the question.

-----
Addendum: I'd say that God is metaphysically/logically necessary rather than physical.

A brief summary:

Atheist: Isn't it grand that we just happen to have the type of God who would favor life? I mean, of all the types of Gods to exist, we just happen to have the one that would favor the existence of life? Ergo, God is "fine-tuned" as well.

Naturalist: Look, the problem with your fine-tuning argument is that it doesn't really understand what it means for there to be a brute fact. We have fine-tuning In both of our hypotheses, we have to appeal to a brute fact. In my case, I take the universe itself as a brute fact. But, you take God to be the brute fact. Why? What precisely is the reasoning that leads you to believe that the universe cannot be a brute fact? Ultimately, brute facts must exist. Both naturalism and theism have the precise same "problem" here.

This is, of course, posterior to the question of whether or not fine-tuning is surprising.

[Adonael]

oh? Alright. So, let's take WLC's argument:


The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Therefore, it is due to design.


Show me how someone can ask: "Well who designed the designer?" I don't think they can without first knocking out or chance and physical necessity. But, if a person were to ask in response to Craig's argument: 'Well, who designed the designer?" without knocking our chance and physically necessity, then they'd be asking a loaded question and likely begging the question.

-----
Addendum: I'd say that God is metaphysically/logically necessary rather than physical.

A brief summary:

Atheist: Isn't it grand that we just happen to have the type of God who would favor life? I mean, of all the types of Gods to exist, we just happen to have the one that would favor the existence of life? Ergo, God is "fine-tuned" as well.

Naturalist: Look, the problem with your fine-tuning argument is that it doesn't really understand what it means for there to be a brute fact. We have fine-tuning In both of our hypotheses, we have to appeal to a brute fact. In my case, I take the universe itself as a brute fact. But, you take God to be the brute fact. Why? What precisely is the reasoning that leads you to believe that the universe cannot be a brute fact? Ultimately, brute facts must exist. Both naturalism and theism have the precise same "problem" here.

This is, of course, posterior to the question of whether or not fine-tuning is surprising.


That's nice.

but, the above argument that I have quoted is the teleological argument. you have stated:The reasoning that theists employ to apply significance to fine-tuning can be applied to God as well
Tell me how someone could reply to that argument with: "Well, who created god? " I want you to show me which of Craig's premises leads to your reasoning.

Also, tell me how this:

Atheist: Isn't it grand that we just happen to have the type of God who would favor life? I mean, of all the types of Gods to exist, we just happen to have the one that would favor the existence of life? Ergo, God is "fine-tuned" as well.

is comparably the same to this:
The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.
It is not due to physical necessity or chance.
Therefore, it is due to design.

[Dante Alighieri]

Adonael,

I don't really understand your latest post. I indicated the fine-tuning argument, which is the same argument Craig was talking about.

You asked how someone could reply to the fine-tuning argument "well, who designed the designer?" The first reply by the Atheist was such a reply.

So, unless I'm missing something, I've already indicated how the reasoning applied to make fine-tuning significant can be applied to God.

[Dante Alighieri]

Atheist: Isn't it grand that we just happen to have the type of God who would favor life? I mean, of all the types of Gods to exist, we just happen to have the one that would favor the existence of life? Ergo, God is "fine-tuned" as well.The fine-tuning of the deity that fine-tuned the universe is either due to meta-physical necessity (whatever that means; clearly this doesn't correspond to any standard modality) or chance or design.

It is not due to meta-physical necessity or chance.

Ergo, it is due to design.

In any case, Craig's presentation of the fine-tuning argument is largely inaccurate. It is more accurately presented as a Bayesian, probabilistic argument c.f. Robin Collins, rather than in a deductive syllogism. The latter doesn't capture the reasoning of the fine-tuning argument accurately enough.

[Adonael]

Adonael,

I don't really understand your latest post. I indicated the fine-tuning argument, which is the same argument Craig was talking about.

You asked how someone could reply to the fine-tuning argument "well, who designed the designer?" The first reply by the Atheist was such a reply.

So, unless I'm missing something, I've already indicated how the reasoning applied to make fine-tuning significant can be applied to God.

It's pretty simple, Dante.

Craig's arguments are a set of premises that deductively lead to its conclusion. To charge that the argument's reasoning also applies to God, then you'd need to show which one of the premises ( or both) allow this switch over. if none, then you have no case.

So, which premise is it? it cannot be 2 because that's nonsense. so, it has to be 1. Yet, to have 1 applied to God, you'd need to first need to argue that that God has fine-tunings. Why? Well, take a look at 1:

The fine-tuning of the universe is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

Substituting the "universe" with God gives us:
The fine-tuning of God is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

You see that the premise demands you pre-establish the fine-tuning of God. Yet, merely asking: "Well who created the creator?" skips this step.

Moreover, even if I grant you that 1 can be applied to god, then we'd only get:

The fine-tuning of God is due to either physical necessity, chance, or design.

In order to deduce that god has a designer, you'd need to negate physical necessity and chance. But this negation is not present within merely responding: who designed the designer? Instead, these questions are begged by merely responding with: "Well, who created the creator?"

[Adonael]

Also Dante Alighieri

This argument: Atheist: Isn't it grand that we just happen to have the type of God who would favor life? I mean, of all the types of Gods to exist, we just happen to have the one that would favor the existence of life? Ergo, God is "fine-tuned" as well. Is structurally invalid.

[Dante Alighieri]

Adonael,

"Who designed the designer?" (which is really a rhetorical question i.e. a statement) is the conclusion of the switch-over argument.

Now, you are correct that one needs to show that God is fine-tuned. I thought I showed this.

Atheist: Of the all the types of Gods that could exist, there happens to exist a particular kind of God, one who favors life. Clearly, this God is fine-tuned, in the sense that had they not been the sort of God they are, life would be enormously improbable. Now, given the probabilistic argument as it is, since the probability of the reference class of universes permitting life is low and indicates design, since the probability of the reference class of Gods permitting life is also low, therefore, God is also designed.
----

The point is that the fine-tuning argument is probabilistic and inductive. First, it disputes physical necessity and chance by asserting that the probability of a life-permitting universe is low; because a low probability contradicts physical necessity (which entails a probability of 1) and chance (because the phenomenon of life is specified and too improbable to arise by chance).

That is how the switch-over occurs. Of course, whether or not the assumptions the supporter of the FTA makes (namely: life is specified, the constants are not physically necessary, and the probability of a life-permitting universe is low) are true is a matter of debate prior to this fact. The "who designed the designer" objection is more like the endgame of the opponent of the FTA.

[TruthPrevails]

Craig is intellectually bankrupt by insisting that Dawkins should not ask for an explanation (philosophical) to his 'best' subjective explanation. That is pure escapism. Thankfully Craig does not state that. What Craig states is that an explanation for the explanation is not required.I had since viewed the video a few times and I find Craig very stupid each time i hear his explanation.

Craig gave two reasons why creationists don't have to have an explanation for the 'best' explanation;

1. it is an elementary point in the philosophy of science, and asking for additional explanation is an insult to science. hee... hee

The fundamental requirement of any scientific explanation is that it must be falsifiable.

Falsifiability (or refutability or testability) is the logical possibility that an assertion can be shown false by an observation or a physical experiment. That something is "falsifiable" does not mean it is false; rather, it means that it is capable of being criticized by observational reports. Falsifiability is an important concept in science and the philosophy of science.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability


It is implied in science that all explanation must be subjected to more explanations or else it would not progress. Einstein 'ask' for explanations of Newton's theories and QM scientists 'ask' for explanations of Einstein theories.

Craig gave two examples, of archaelogists finding arrow heads and if and when machineries were to be found on the dark side of the moon. He stated that it is obvious that the best explanation would be due to some intelligent designer behind those creations. That fucker acted in such a manner that it would be stupid not to agree with him. If he is referring to man-made objects, Dawkins would agreed with him as he had stated in his book (pg. 157). This is 'kindergarten' science.

BUT Dawkins insisted one cannot extend this 'kindergarten' science to the eye, person, and the universe. That temptation to do so is false, i.e. short of saying it is very stupid.

Thus when Dawkins question "who created the designer", it is in the spirit of scientific questioning because the best answer must be falsifiable and questioned.

Craig did not understand the basic principles of science.


2. it will lead to infinite regression of explanation and nothing could be explained, and that would destroy science which Dawkins worships.

Scientists will always welcome infinite regression as they know that whatever 'best explanation' they come up with, is subject to some degrees of falsity and is not final as apposed to the creationists' intelligent designer.
It is the reality of requiring of explanations to have explanations that enable science to progress.

Dawkins is doing science when he asked 'who created the designer' when faced with any 'best' explanation.

Dawkins was also ridiculed for his lack of understanding within the workings of explanation by at least some philosophers and certainly one prestigious epistemologist.Any links. In anycase, one need to view Dawkins' argument in the context of his whole book and i find his argument very sound.


If Craig or any creationists are braved enough to face the question 'who created the designer' it's aloaded question and one that the "creationists" need not face.Typical of creationists to be ostriches and running away from facing the truth and reality.

What is the truth and reality of the situation when creationists arrive at their best explanation that the universe is designed by an intelligent designer.
Answer: Neurons in the brain stem and amygdala working overtime, that's the truth and reality.

[Adonael]

Adonael,

"Who designed the designer?" (which is really a rhetorical question i.e. a statement) is the conclusion of the switch-over argument.

Exactly! It is a conclusion; but, the problem is that the statement is only a conclusion. But, you can't just state your conclusion without the premises. You likely exclude the premises because you are assuming the premises to be true. But, i can assure you, the premises will be doubted. And, therein rests the loaded question and question begging. Going right to the conclusion assumes what is at stake!



Now, you are correct that one needs to show that God is fine-tuned. I thought I showed this.

Atheist: Of the all the types of Gods that could exist, there happens to exist a particular kind of God, one who favors life. Clearly, this God is fine-tuned, in the sense that had they not been the sort of God they are, life would be enormously improbable. Now, given the probabilistic argument as it is, since the probability of the reference class of universes permitting life is low and indicates design, since the probability of the reference class of Gods permitting life is also low, therefore, God is also designed.
You did not previously state or showed the above. You expounded this little invalid argument: Atheist: Isn't it grand that we just happen to have the type of God who would favor life? I mean, of all the types of Gods to exist, we just happen to have the one that would favor the existence of life? Ergo, God is "fine-tuned" as welland related it to the theistic version. How inaccurate.
----

[Dante Alighieri]

Exactly! It is a conclusion; but, the problem is that the statement is only a conclusion. But, you can't just state your conclusion without the premises. You likely exclude the premises because you are assuming the premises to be true. But, i can assure you, the premises will be doubted. And, therein rests the loaded question and question begging. Going right to the conclusion assumes what is at stake!

Right, which is why the objectors to the FTA typically expound on the conclusion. The "who designer the designer" objection is a phrase for this species of objections.

You did not previously state or showed the above. You expounded this little invalid argument: and related it to the theistic version. How inaccurate.
----How is it invalid? In any case, the argument is inductive and probabilistic, not deductive. In any instance, I wrongly assumed that you were familiar with the probabilistic structure of the FTA, and could fill in the enthymemes.

And I believe I just explained how the reasoning of the fine-tuning argument plays out with respect to God as well. Do you dispute that?

[Adonael]

1. it is an elementary point in the philosophy of science, and asking for additional explanation is an insult to science. hee... heeThe fundamental requirement of any scientific explanation is that it must be falsifiable.It is implied in science that all explanation must be subjected to more explanations or else it would not progress. Einstein 'ask' for explanations of Newton's theories and QM scientists 'ask' for explanations of Einstein theories.

Again, you are misunderstanding Craig. He is not saying anything like God, alone, does not need an explanation. what Craig is saying is that God doesn't need an explanation in order for God to be the best explanation.

Craig gave two examples, of archaelogists finding arrow heads and if and when machineries were to be found on the dark side of the moon. He stated that it is obvious that the best explanation would be due to some intelligent designer behind those creations. That fucker acted in such a manner that it would be stupid not to agree with him. If he is referring to man-made objects, Dawkins would agreed with him as he had stated in his book (pg. 157). This is 'kindergarten' science.


In light of your language, i will no longer entertain our current conversation.

[GenesisNemesis]

Again, you are misunderstanding Craig. He is not saying anything like God, alone, does not need an explanation. what Craig is saying is that God doesn't need an explanation in order for God to be the best explanation.

That renders God, effectively, meaningless. :wave:

[Adonael]

[QUOTE=Dante Alighieri;5331537]
Right, which is why the objectors to the FTA typically expound on the conclusion. The "who designer the designer" objection is a phrase for this species of objections.

And, when it is complied in a question form of its conclusion and asked to the theist, it is asking a loaded question. What is the theist supposed to say to:

Who created the creator?

Obviously, theists will reply that the creator was not created and note that the question has built in assumptions. This is what is called a "loaded question".

How is it invalid? Are you serious?

In any case, the argument is inductive and probabilistic, not deductive.

then it was not cogent.

In any instance, I wrongly assumed that you were familiar with the probabilistic structure of the FTA, and could fill in the enthymemes.


Let us not use enthymemes when it is those very premises that will be doubted.



And I believe I just explained how the reasoning of the fine-tuning argument plays out with respect to God as well. Do you dispute that?
I don't dispute that you tried to, but I think the argument fails. But, in any case, our conversation is only about whether merely saying "Well, who created the creator?" is a loaded question and whether the question begs the question.

[thedistillers]

Again, you are misunderstanding Craig. He is not saying anything like God, alone, does not need an explanation. what Craig is saying is that God doesn't need an explanation in order for God to be the best explanation.

That renders God, effectively, meaningless. :wave:

How?

[Adonael]

:eek:Again, you are misunderstanding Craig. He is not saying anything like God, alone, does not need an explanation. what Craig is saying is that God doesn't need an explanation in order for God to be the best explanation.

That renders God, effectively, meaningless. :wave:

:eek: How is that?

[Dante Alighieri]

[quote]

[QUOTE] And, when it is complied in a question form of its conclusion and asked to the theist, it is asking a loaded question. What is the theist supposed to say to:

Who created the creator?

Obviously, theists will reply that the creator was not created and note that the question has built in assumptions. This is what is called a "loaded question".


I see. I think you are talking about the objection in terms of how most amateur atheists portray it. I'm talking about the objection as expounded and detailed upon. I think we are agreeing violently.

Are you serious?

I don't see how the argumentative structure is formally invalid, if we add in the enthymemes I indicated. (Unless you are not talking about formal invalidity; but that's what I received from your terminology involving "argumentative structure")

then it was not cogent.

Right; but that's the point of the argument. It takes the precise same flawed reasoning to show that the same could be said of the Creator, in order to undermine the argument.

Let us not use enthymemes when it is those very premises that will be doubted.

Okay then. (Although, would this mean that you dispute the FTA? Because the premises that apply to God are the same that are applied to the universe)

I don't dispute that you tried to, but I think the argument fails.

Why would you say that?

But, in any case, our conversation is only about whether merely saying "Well, who created the creator?" is a loaded question and whether the question begs the question.

Yes, I believe we are agreeing violently.

[Gamer4Fire]

Okay. So for what case(s) does goddidit work better than any other natural explanation?I dont see this as relevant. i am speaking exclusively about the structure of the argument.

Okay, it might not be the most relevant question in the world. But what cases does goddidit work as the best explanation?

[simongc]

Dawkins seems to be a bit of a lone voice out there trying to advance the cause of rational thinking . Is there anyone else he and we need more visibility in the world of media Also like any topic no one person is the font of all true and correct knowledge..
he is facing odds greater than the brave 300.

[GenesisNemesis]

:eek: How is that?

Saying that God doesn't need an explanation in order to be the best explanation is the same as saying God is eternal, and that is an excuse, my friend. It is not an explanation at all.

[thedistillers]

:eek: How is that?

Saying that God doesn't need an explanation in order to be the best explanation is the same as saying God is eternal, and that is an excuse, my friend. It is not an explanation at all.

I'm not following you.

To say that "God doesn't need an explanation in order to be the best explanation" is itself not an explanation, it's an application of the "an explanation doesn't require an explanation" principle.

To make an analogy, we could acknowledge string theory is a good explanation without being able to explain why the universe is made of string, or who made those string. I'm sure some people will misunderstand me and will try to show how the analogy between God and string theory fails, but again people would be missing the point. The issue is not about whether or not God is good explanation for the universe, it's about the fact that *************************IF******************** we conclude that God is the best explanation for our universe, we aren't require to explain God.

[Steven Carr]

So ***IF*** God happens to be the best explana