The God Delusion - Chapter 4

[otseng]

What arguments does Dawkins present that God does not exist?
Are they valid arguments?

McCulloch's questions:
Does evolution by natural selection demonstrate that the argument from design is wrong? He suggests that a hypothetical cosmic designer would require an even greater explanation than the phenomena that they intended to explain.

[Confused]

What has had me stumped occurs on page 136:

What the religious mind then fails to grasp is that two candidate solutions are offered to the problem. God is one. The anthropic principle is the other.

I'm glad you brought this up too cause this was going to be my next point.

What does he mean by there are only two alternatives? God is one and the AP is the other? Doesn't make any sense to me. He's right, the religious mind fails to grasp exactly what he is talking about.

I am still trying to discern how the two aren't inherently linked. I know what he has written, and I have read what QED has written, but I am still stumped as to how he separates God design and AP. I am assuming his reference is in the technicality of saying that just because the AP states something was designed doesn't mean it was designed by God. But I am not sure.

[Confused]

Ugh, sorry, I should have previewed that, usually I dont mess up with quoting.

You still have several hours before editing your own post is not permitted.

Actually, I have yet to see an option to edit a post in this forum. Usually it is up in the right hand corner next to quote, right? I have never seen it in the book debates forum. Not even in Natures Destiny.

[Confused]

Perhaps his exposure to Antrhopic reasoning is predominantly of the sort that I highlighted in blue?

The AP is a description of what we observe, not a solution to what we observe. What you highlighted in blue, the multiverse explanation, would be one solution to the observation of the AP. It would make sense to say there are two solutions to AP - God and a multiverse. But to say there are two solutions, God and AP, is conflating two different things.

I think maybe I may have jumped ahead to quick. When I made the post earlier about this, it was only in the context Dawkins was applying the AP to the planetary level, not the universal. It would appear he expands it more definitively in his cosmological version that makes QED's point.

[Confused]

I think the main bulk of his argument with the philosophical into the scientific realm of improbability hit me starting on pg 138:

"If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against, nevertheless that stupefying improbable event would still happen on a billion planets. The chance of finding any one of those billion life-bearing planets recalls the proverbial needle in the haystack. But we don't have to go out of our way to find the needle (back to the anthropic principle) because any beings capable of looking must necessarily be sitting on one of those prodigiously rare needles before they even start the search"

However, this has nothing to do with the probability of the existence of a God.

Also, his argument here on the probability of life originating is also spurious. Where exactly did he get the "billion to one" odds on "a billion planets"? How does he know there are a billion planets? How does he know it's a billion to one of life arising? I would suggest he picked these numbers out of the air so that he can arrive at 1. Here is another example of Dawkins simply making up things to support his own ideas but lacks any substance.

I don't think he is trying to deceive as you seem to think so. I think he is trying to take very technical physics concepts/formulas and put them into hypothetical form so that the average person with some exposure to physics but without a PhD can understand. He give hypotheticals to simplify his points so that they are easier to comprehend. Hawkings would have saved himself much grief had he done so in "A brief history in time". He wouldn't have had to write " A briefer history in time". Dawkins is appealing to a wide variety of audiences. Not just the experts. But the average as well. In doing so, he may oversimplify some complex issues so that under scrutiny they would be picked apart, but I don't think his intention was for deception. Perhaps to boost book sales in part. But still, to allow the average person with enough exposure to some concept to be able to grasp the more complex. Francis Collins did it in his "The Language of God" book for DNA. Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind both do it in their books as well. I don't think it is so much to support their own ideas that are lacking in substance, rather, to make difficult to understand information more concrete.[/img]

[QED]

If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against, nevertheless that stupefying improbable event would still happen on a billion planets. The chance of finding any one of those billion life-bearing planets recalls the proverbial needle in the haystack. But we don't have to go out of our way to find the needle (back to the anthropic principle) because any beings capable of looking must necessarily be sitting on one of those prodigiously rare needles before they even start the search"

[...] his argument here on the probability of life originating is also spurious. Where exactly did he get the "billion to one" odds on "a billion planets"? How does he know there are a billion planets? How does he know it's a billion to one of life arising? I would suggest he picked these numbers out of the air so that he can arrive at 1. Here is another example of Dawkins simply making up things to support his own ideas but lacks any substance.

Had he included the emphasis that I have put in the above quote it would have made it clearer that he's making up numbers to demonstrate the fact that no matter how small the odds, so long as they are non-zero then it is not at all remarkable that we should find ourselves as beneficiaries. I think you'll find that that was all the substance he intended to deliver.

Most of us appreciate your stance on the weakness of empirical evidence for extrasolar planetary existence, but the point he makes is independent of this.

[otseng]

Actually, I have yet to see an option to edit a post in this forum. Usually it is up in the right hand corner next to quote, right? I have never seen it in the book debates forum. Not even in Natures Destiny.

Sorry about that. Does it show up now?

[otseng]

actually he is saying even if the odds were a billion to one life would still arise on a billion planets. He is starting with 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets. his probability of life arising, if the chance is one in a billion is one billion/1. and while i have heard many estimates of the probability of life arising on a given random planet, i have never heard it placed as lower than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000(10^-18)(whetever number that even is)

No, he is not saying this. Is there a second from anybody else here that thinks Dawkins is trying to say this?

I don't think he is trying to deceive as you seem to think so. I think he is trying to take very technical physics concepts/formulas and put them into hypothetical form so that the average person with some exposure to physics but without a PhD can understand. He give hypotheticals to simplify his points so that they are easier to comprehend.

I would think that if a creationist did this, it would immediately be called a foul. And rightly so too. To use arbitary numbers to justify one's position is not science. Not even popular science. There is no indication here that Dawkins is simplifying findings in order to make concepts more understandable since his numbers are purely speculative. I can also say with equal validity that there are 0 Earth-like planets out there. Therefore there is a 0% chance of any complex life out there.

[FinalEnigma]

The argument of improbability doesn't argue against a designer, but against a materialistic explanation. The correlation between complexity and improbability only arises when a pure random chance explanation is sought.

Ok, it only argues against situations where a purely random chance explination is sought. without evidence for why God exists I must conclude that it is for purely random reasons. him being more complex than the univers means that, without a reason for either one to exist, he is less likely than the universe itself.

One of my favorite arguments is that the Earth is at the center of the universe. If you'll read through this thread, you'll see the evidence that I present to support this.

Sorry, I kind of gave up on understanding that thread a long time ago. I graduated from highschool while I was still in tenth grade so i missed physics And that was one of the VERY few things i actually wanted out of highschool.

actually he is saying even if the odds were a billion to one life would still arise on a billion planets. He is starting with 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets. his probability of life arising, if the chance is one in a billion is one billion/1. and while i have heard many estimates of the probability of life arising on a given random planet, i have never heard it placed as lower than 1,000,000,000,000,000,000(10^-18)(whetever number that even is)

No, he is not saying this. Is there a second from anybody else here that thinks Dawkins is trying to say this?

Are you sure? Ill go read that paragraph again. I could swear that he did.

"If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against, nevertheless that stupefying improbable event would still happen on a billion planets. The chance of finding any one of those billion life-bearing planets recalls the proverbial needle in the haystack. But we don't have to go out of our way to find the needle (back to the anthropic principle) because any beings capable of looking must necessarily be sitting on one of those prodigiously rare needles before they even start the search"

You'll have to show me where ID says this.

Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection"[1][2][3] It is a variation of the teleological argument for the existence of God that has been framed to not explicitly specify the nature or identity of the designer.[4][5] Intelligent design's primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God.[13] Its advocates claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

Sorry, I suppose I was micharictarizing it. I was kind of combining it's pure definitin with the way it is actually used and intended to be used. I must agree with Dawkins though, that ID is a thinly veiled creationism.

[otseng]

without evidence for why God exists I must conclude that it is for purely random reasons.

Well, I already gave evidence and an argument with the Earth being at the center of the universe. So, the fault does not lie in that the evidence for a God does not exist.

Sorry, I kind of gave up on understanding that thread a long time ago. I graduated from highschool while I was still in tenth grade so i missed physics And that was one of the VERY few things i actually wanted out of highschool.

It's never too late to learn physics.

Are you sure? Ill go read that paragraph again. I could swear that he did.

I'm pretty sure. But if someone would back you in your interpretation, I'd be willing to debate it further.

I must agree with Dawkins though, that ID is a thinly veiled creationism.

Even if it was true, it would not affect whether ID is valid or not. Only by arguing with scientific evidence can it be invalidated.

[bernee51]

[

actually he is saying even if the odds were a billion to one life would still arise on a billion planets. He is starting with 1,000,000,000,000,000,000 planets.

No, he is not saying this. Is there a second from anybody else here that thinks Dawkins is trying to say this?

Are you sure? Ill go read that paragraph again. I could swear that he did.

That is more or less how I interpreeted it FE. But it was more along the lines of could rather than would.

"If the odds of life originating spontaneously on a planet were a billion to one against, nevertheless that stupefying improbable event would still happen on a billion planets. The chance of finding any one of those billion life-bearing planets recalls the proverbial needle in the haystack. But we don't have to go out of our way to find the needle (back to the anthropic principle) because any beings capable of looking must necessarily be sitting on one of those prodigiously rare needles before they even start the search"

You'll have to show me where ID says this.

Intelligent design is the claim that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection"[1][2][3] It is a variation of the teleological argument for the existence of God that has been framed to not explicitly specify the nature or identity of the designer.[4][5] Intelligent design's primary proponents, all of whom are associated with the Discovery Institute,[6][7][8][9][10][11][12] believe the designer to be the Abrahamic God.[13] Its advocates claim that intelligent design is a scientific theory that stands on equal footing with, or is superior to, scientific theories regarding the evolution and origin of life.

Sorry, I suppose I was micharictarizing it. I was kind of combining it's pure definitin with the way it is actually used and intended to be used. I must agree with Dawkins though, that ID is a thinly veiled creationism.