The God Delusion - Chapter 3

Debate specific books

Moderator: Moderators

Locked
User avatar
otseng
Savant
Posts: 18583
Joined: Thu Jan 15, 2004 1:16 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA
Has thanked: 146 times
Been thanked: 212 times
Contact:

The God Delusion - Chapter 3

Post #1

Post by otseng »

Dawkins presents several arguments used to argue for God's existence:

- The Unmoved Mover
- The Uncaused Cause
- The Cosmological Argument
- The Argument from Degree
- The Argument from Design (Teleological Argument)
- The Ontological Argument
- The Argument from Beauty
- The Argument from Personal Experience
- The Argument from Scripture
- The Argument from Admired Religious Scientists
- Pascal's Wager
- Bayesian Arguments

Does Dawkins adequately refute the arguments for God's existence in this chapter?

I'll also repost McCulloch's questions:
  • Does God provide a natural terminator to the infinite regresses?
  • Is there any validity to Anselm's Ontological Argument?
  • Is the Argument from Beauty valid?
  • Is the Argument from Personal Experience valid? Is it being used or is this Dawkins' strawman?
  • Is the Argument from Scripture valid? Is this another strawman?
  • Does anyone use the Argument from Admired Religious Scientists?
  • Let's not re-do Pascal's Wager
  • Is there any validity to Bayesian Arguments promoted by people such as Stephen Unwin?
  • Did Dawkins leave out or misrepresent any major argument for God's existence?

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10501
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #41

Post by Cathar1950 »

jjg wrote:Cathar, I am willing debate any legitimate arguments. If your going to toss redundant comments around like that last post I'll just assume you have no point to debate.
Calculators? Computers?"

Cathar, do you have any serious arguments besides meaningless, endless cut paste polka quotes that have nothing to do with the debate at hand?
Do you mean like that?

Besides some problem with the articles which I should have just pointed what is your argument with this?
I tend to think of God as a concept.
Much like the unified theory of physics it is still being sought.
We are still searching making larger electron accelerators so i guess if we don't have a God accelerator it might take some time. They are looking for the god particle.
At best arguments for God seem like arguments for the possibility of God.
All revelation seems to be limited to experience and culture.

It might be a product of our evolution that comes with language, art and the things we call human.
I was reading an article on evolution and the brain.
We might not be finished.
I would like to add that your mother of all sciences, metaphysics is also limited to experience culture and language. I might also add that a sound metaphysics must be grounded in reality or our experiences of the world, including science and mathmatics. If it doesn't convince and explain it is useless.

This is why physics cannot apply its methods to the most supreme science of metaphysics.
It seems to me a metaphysics need be aplacable to everything. I think you have it backwards. It might be you are confusing science metphysics and philosophy as you drifted off into being as being.
The one supreme science whose object is not limited to being of a particular category, but being as being, is metaphysics.
Being as being is metaphysics, what does that suppose to mean?
You used being three times in that sentence. Can you explain the relevence and meaning? Go ahead cut and paste if it helps.

jjg
Apprentice
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:42 am
Location: Victoria, B.C.

Post #42

Post by jjg »

Cathar, I'll check back periodicallyand see if you have anything to add to this debate.

Otherwise I'll just consider you a troll and ignore your comments.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10501
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #43

Post by Cathar1950 »

jjg wrote:Cathar, I'll check back periodicallyand see if you have anything to add to this debate.

Otherwise I'll just consider you a troll and ignore your comments.
You can consider all you want but it is as baseless as your mother of all sciences.
How would you know if I had anything to add? Are you going to check your metaphysics?
What does "being as beng" have to do with the chapter?
To understand why physics is out of its context when dealing with these First Cause arguments, the following sound principles of philosophy should be recalled:
I didn't really see any sound philosophical principle being presented that we could follow. What you presented was a word game to argue for a metaphysics you failed to explain.
Now you want to end a pissing contest you started as you drip on your foot.
I don't see your contention even if I agree I didn't need to post the articles as it was a waste of time and effort to look them up.

Are you upset because you said this?
Math can be applied to physics but not vice versa.
You can take it back if you like.
But there is no reason to call me a troll.
I can't help how I look. I am working on it. I don't sleep under bridges or ea goats.

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #44

Post by QED »

jjg wrote:To understand why physics is out of its context when dealing with these First Cause arguments, the following sound principles of philosophy should be recalled:
What do you mean by "dealing with"? Do you mean affirming, refuting or both :confused2: Also it's a rare treat indeed to be presented with a sound principle of philosophy! I hope what follows lives-up to the promise :D
jjg wrote: There is a hierarchy of sciences or a subordination of the various disciplines of the mind.
I see this hierarchy is a set of arbitrary lines we draw on nature to make school time-tabling possible.
jjg wrote: The divisions of the sciences into ranks is not based soley upon the different objects which the sciences study, but is principally justified by their intellectual dependance, one on another, and presumptions of one another.

Biology is dependant in part on chemistry and chemistry in part on physics. This extends beyond mere data; music assumes mathematics and mathematics assumes metaphysics.

The basis of the differences of the sciences is the degree of abstraction involved. Admidst the flux of sensible things, the mind is presented with, it may limit itself to the consideration of material things and their properties, which are experimentally observable. This is physics.

The mind can also abstract so it can concern itself with quantity and extent which is apart from sensible manifestations in material things which is the science of mathematics..
You left out Art, History, Geography, Domestic science, etc... but I get your drift.
jjg wrote: The mind can also deal with things not inasmuch as they are quantitative, but inasmuch as they are or have being. The qualitative aspect of knowledge
There are certain objects of knowledge that we can not only conceive without matter, but which can also exist without matter such as truth.

This third science is metaphysics.
Shouldn't this be in mathematics? After all, what you're talking about is set theory.
jjg wrote: The basis for judging a heirarchy of science is the universality of the science.

All the science disciplines are concerned with being, for that is the common element in which all knowledge bathes. Every particular science adds something to being. Biology adds organism to being. Anthropology adds human origin to being and physics adds matter or energy to being.

The one supreme science whose object is not limited to being of a particular category, but being as being, is metaphysics.
A science of Supreme Being? A universal set? Doesn't this fall foul of The Librarian Paradox?
jjg wrote: Because the sciences are differentiated by the degree of abstractions in which a particular aspect of being is studied, the methods used in each science is different.

Sciences that are more restricted in their study of being cannot have their methods applied to more universal sciences.

Math can be applied to physics but not vice versa.

:lol: This is why physics cannot apply its methods to the most supreme science of metaphysics. :lol:
You promised a sound principle of philosophy. When was Platonism elevated to such a high status?

jjg
Apprentice
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:42 am
Location: Victoria, B.C.

Post #45

Post by jjg »

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZ--- Huh? oh. Can you guys wake me up when you have real arguments to present. I don't mind debating legitimate arguments, but this poking around in the dark like you two are doing is putting me to sleep.

The point of a debate is to come to an understanding of the issues at hand, it's not
to attack without any bases just because you don't agree with the other persons point of view.

User avatar
Cathar1950
Site Supporter
Posts: 10501
Joined: Sun Feb 13, 2005 12:12 pm
Location: Michigan(616)
Been thanked: 1 time

Post #46

Post by Cathar1950 »

jjg wrote:zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZ--- Huh? oh. Can you guys wake me up when you have real arguments to present. I don't mind debating legitimate arguments, but this poking around in the dark like you two are doing is putting me to sleep.

The point of a debate is to come to an understanding of the issues at hand, it's not
to attack without any bases just because you don't agree with the other persons point of view.
Like this :
jjg wrote:"Calculators? Computers?"

Cathar, do you have any serious arguments besides meaningless, endless cut paste polka quotes that have nothing to do with the debate at hand?
I guess you could have taken the high ground first not after.

With you unproduced "sound principles of philosophy" followed by unsuported statements like:
The one supreme science whose object is not limited to being of a particular category, but being as being, is metaphysics...
This is why physics cannot apply its methods to the most supreme science of metaphysics.
You lake just enough meaning to make agrument impossible.
What is your metaphysics and how does it relate to all the knowledge and groups that you have placed under it?
It does apear that you are trying to sneak in Platonic ideals with out substance or context.

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #47

Post by QED »

jjg wrote:zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZ--- Huh? oh. Can you guys wake me up when you have real arguments to present. I don't mind debating legitimate arguments, but this poking around in the dark like you two are doing is putting me to sleep.

The point of a debate is to come to an understanding of the issues at hand, it's not
to attack without any bases just because you don't agree with the other persons point of view.
Well I seem to recall Harvey1 and I managing to fill a dozen or so pages in a debate about Platonic Realism a while ago. Naturally neither of us was to able to improve on the situation that's been around for 2400 years or so. The popularity of Platonism is cyclic, a sure sign that it lacks that certain something that tells us we can reliably incorporate it into our best model of the world. I take your point of view as being that Platonic Idealism can provide a sound basis for such modelling. If so I would like to see you support such a claim.

jjg
Apprentice
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:42 am
Location: Victoria, B.C.

Post #48

Post by jjg »

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZz!

My statements have nothing to do with plotonic thinking, but on what distinguishes between the different science disciplines.

zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZ

jjg
Apprentice
Posts: 244
Joined: Wed Aug 31, 2005 12:42 am
Location: Victoria, B.C.

Post #49

Post by jjg »

Cathar whatever you are refering to as "physics", you cannot build either calculators or computers without the math behind the technology.

Calculators and computers might calculate math faster and more effieciently, but they don't change math as a science. We have to program the math into the computer.

As for "being as being" I defined it in my original post.

Physics and the different science disciplines study a certain aspect of being or reality.

Metaphysics does not study only a certain aspect of being, but being as a whole or being as being.

User avatar
QED
Prodigy
Posts: 3798
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 5:34 am
Location: UK

Post #50

Post by QED »

jjg (presumably in his own words) wrote:There are certain objects of knowledge that we can not only conceive without matter, but which can also exist without matter such as truth.

This third science is metaphysics.
jjg wrote: My statements have nothing to do with plotonic thinking, but on what distinguishes between the different science disciplines.
Did you know what "Platonic thinking" actually was when you wrote this? Your misspelling, among other things, suggests that you didn't. Please desist from filling these pages with long strings of Z's and review the material that has been presented to you for debate. "Objects of knowledge that we can not only conceive without matter, but which can also exist without matter such as truth" are deeply Platonic concepts.

Locked