Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Questions for Atheists
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 40 of 110 (481278)
09-10-2008 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 5 by Open MInd
09-09-2008 3:52 PM


Re: Fictional atheists!
Dawkins is an infamous atheist who uses science to support atheism.
His claims are usually fallacious. The one about not requiring God is illogical because he pre-supposes there is no motive for anything, at all, despite the substance of anything - at all.
So a human being who thinks and feels, has no baring on his argument. This means that he conflates cause with motive and then pretends that it's all fine.
My washing machine doesn't require me to wash my socks, but there is a motive as to why the socks are being washed. It doesn't mean I am not needed therefore don't exist, or that there is no reason to wash them, present within any other party.
Some atheists would have argued as you have said they do - and some don't. But what is clear is that they don't own thought, so I would agree that you should think for yourself, and not be brainwashed by the likes of Dawkins.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by Open MInd, posted 09-09-2008 3:52 PM Open MInd has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 41 by Granny Magda, posted 09-10-2008 10:03 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 42 by bluegenes, posted 09-10-2008 10:52 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 63 by Rrhain, posted 09-11-2008 3:50 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 43 of 110 (481292)
09-10-2008 10:53 AM
Reply to: Message 41 by Granny Magda
09-10-2008 10:03 AM


Re: Fictional atheists!
Dawkins' propositions are well known. I often see him on TV regurgitating his usual ad nauseum vacous tangeants.
The particular argument to which I refer is the one that basically states that because science has found that natural processes answer as a cause of all things, then there is no requirement for a God.
Unfortunately for him, Creationists such as myself disregard the former and the latter. That is to say - I reject evolution, and I reject his conclusion, but even if I accepted the former, that by no means would compel me to accept the latter; that being a false inference.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 41 by Granny Magda, posted 09-10-2008 10:03 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 45 by Granny Magda, posted 09-10-2008 11:08 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 69 by ramoss, posted 09-11-2008 12:43 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 44 of 110 (481295)
09-10-2008 11:01 AM
Reply to: Message 42 by bluegenes
09-10-2008 10:52 AM


Re: Fictional atheists!
Hello again.
I feel we are disagreeable about great many a thing young skywalker. I apreciate your difference to myself, but in this instance, I can confidently say that having conversed with you for but a minute, I have a shedload more respect for you than I do Dawkins.
You are correct, he infact mis-uses science in order to promote his own agenda, and he doesn't do atheism any good for it!
If you were honest, you could just do a bit of self-analysis and come out with something like:
"I don't like Dawkins because he offends my desires for a comforting imaginary friend."
Without experience of this guy, you must try and be impartial towards me. I actually don't mind people challenging my beliefs, what I dislike is people mis-using their position to promote something which is not sound. In this case, Dawkins is clever and educated in science but I confess to having found him wanting, when it comes to his claims.
I shown this when I said that he conflates cause with motive/purpose. It is not enough to jump on science's back, one has to be able to show that one is interested in sound wisdom. In this case, he is mistaken about his statements. I refer to the program of recent, "The genius of Darwin", where his jumping to conclusions escalates to the absurd, by stating that evolution caused us to forget supernatural explanations, as if abiogenesis was just a side-issue.
LOL

This message is a reply to:
 Message 42 by bluegenes, posted 09-10-2008 10:52 AM bluegenes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 09-10-2008 11:23 AM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 09-10-2008 6:39 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 51 of 110 (481388)
09-10-2008 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Granny Magda
09-10-2008 11:08 AM


Re: Fictional atheists!
If we have naturalistic explanations for observed phenomena, we don't need to insert God as a flimsy explanation. What on Earth is fallacious about that?
1. The explanation is not a logical proof over a supernatural alternative.
2. As long as you don't jump to the WHOLE, which has done on TV, in debate, many times, then it's fine.
Why would he say that thunder can happen alone therefore there's no God? Clearly I wouldn't propose he said that. I only know that he promotes the idea that God is not required because of naturalism. This is common knowledge, not a strawman, so you can call bullshit untill you're blue in the face but it won't change the fact that Dawkins jumps to conclusions about a creator, because of evolution.
Nice try though.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Granny Magda, posted 09-10-2008 11:08 AM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by Granny Magda, posted 09-10-2008 6:37 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 58 by Modulous, posted 09-10-2008 7:44 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 62 by Otto Tellick, posted 09-11-2008 3:16 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 54 of 110 (481394)
09-10-2008 5:53 PM
Reply to: Message 46 by bluegenes
09-10-2008 11:23 AM


Re: Fictional atheists!
If you want to claim that someone is making fallacious arguments, you really ought to present precise quotes in their context, as I said in the other post.Evolution may well have caused many people to "forget" supernatural explanations regardless of abiogenesis
Which is fine, as long as we all know that atheism doesn't have any scientific or logically sound backing.
Hell, if Dawkins doesn't argue it, big deal - it's still a common argument therefore I can refute it. But we all know he does make these claims and mikey isn't stupid enough to be distracted from the rather large fact that parsimony, as I stated, isn't obstructed. If you agree, then that is very fine indeed. If your hero didn't say it - it's even better, you can correct atheists by telling them what I have said.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 46 by bluegenes, posted 09-10-2008 11:23 AM bluegenes has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 57 by onifre, posted 09-10-2008 7:30 PM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 66 by obvious Child, posted 09-11-2008 4:19 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 84 of 110 (481808)
09-12-2008 6:16 PM
Reply to: Message 58 by Modulous
09-10-2008 7:44 PM


Re: On the necessity of God as an explanatory entity
Which is true. There is an ever increasing amount of things that we garner explanations about, time and again naturalistic explanations are ultimately the successful ones and the supernatural ones are time and again the ones that don't help at all. As Dawkins also puts forward, this kind of track record that science keeps racking up 'boosts our confidence' in its ability to tackle future questions.
Thanks for the quote from Dawkins, which matches what I have previously said more or less - that he states God is "unparsimonious".
It is not true because no one can establish whether physical causes alone present enough "purpose". There are two assumptions.
1. Physical purpose, contingencies following naturally.
2. Motives behind construction.
Number 2 is still far more likely than number one. Don't forget, the claim is that everything we see, in all i's obvious brilliance, is just a chance consequent of a physical self-acting cause. This is a big claim.
God CAN be parsimonious because you have to assume that everything in existence has no motive behind it which contradicts the truism of design.
As for natural causes, it is a natural universe, so they themselves become painfully predictable, and self-fulfilling.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 58 by Modulous, posted 09-10-2008 7:44 PM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 86 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2008 7:45 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 88 by Granny Magda, posted 09-12-2008 10:20 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 109 by Modulous, posted 09-17-2008 1:14 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 85 of 110 (481813)
09-12-2008 6:27 PM
Reply to: Message 56 by Percy
09-10-2008 6:39 PM


Re: Fictional atheists!
I'm often accused of not being accurate, because I usually assume people can read between the lines.
For example, the problem I mentioned pertaining to cause and motive, infact doesn't change as a refutation, even if Dawkins' claim was minutely different.
I.e. My objections are still sound, and therefore should either be probed as incorrect or remain as correct by default.
My hypothetic with the washing machine is that I am not present within the system and the washing of socks can be deemed as irrelevant. It's a small logical point because God is also not recognized within natural processes and therefore atheists can deem the unfolding of life as irrelevant.
We can't establish whether physical causes FROM motivational causes because we have the same facts. I hope you agree.
If I am a bit harsh on Dawkins, forgive me, he just seems to be an arrogant pompous atheist who can't see past his own beliefs, or disbeliefs.
Sorry I can't post more, regards Mike. (sorry to those I didn't respond to).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 56 by Percy, posted 09-10-2008 6:39 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 107 by dogrelata, posted 09-16-2008 9:47 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 90 of 110 (481922)
09-13-2008 2:30 PM
Reply to: Message 86 by Rrhain
09-12-2008 7:45 PM


Purpose is proven how I defined it.
You haven't read properly into what I am saying.
Purpose of motive has been proven to exist in the physical universe. I refer to a "extra cause" being present within an event.
If Jack the ripper had no reason to kill his victims, he wouldn't have killed them. This means that it is possible to get no physical cause and effect, without a motivational cause.
The attempt to drag me into the semantics over "purpose" has failed, because I do not require the term "purpose" for my argument, I merely require one proof of motivational cause being a reality. I have many.
Example in syllogism;
If NO X then no cause Y and effect Z.
This is logically correct because physical causes and effects can't NECESSARILY happen without a motivation. This doesn't prove the universe has motivational cause but for all we know, the universe might not be able to happen without motivational cause.
An example of physical causes alone would be thunder and lightning.
Parsimony isn't obstructed if we say that Jack had a motivation for ripping.
You don't know if the universe has a motivational cause or not.
Instead of stating that I am incorrect, first understand what I am saying.
It is clear that I am correct. Nobody knows whether the universe requires a creator. Dawkins' position is ultimately argumentum ad ignorantiam.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 86 by Rrhain, posted 09-12-2008 7:45 PM Rrhain has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 91 by cavediver, posted 09-13-2008 2:39 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 09-13-2008 4:37 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 104 by Rrhain, posted 09-15-2008 3:13 AM mike the wiz has not replied
 Message 106 by Dash on the Darkside, posted 09-15-2008 3:58 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 92 of 110 (481928)
09-13-2008 2:40 PM
Reply to: Message 88 by Granny Magda
09-12-2008 10:20 PM


Re: On the necessity of God as an explanatory entity
Any claim about the origins of everything that is will be pretty big don't you think? Besides, "just a chance consequent"? Who claimed that?
It merely follows, as there would be a lack of intention.
Ofcourse, chance has to be assumed to operate outside of this universe, which is not a guaranteed assumption.
As for purpose, refer to my post to rhrain, we do not need to use the term, as I am referring to Aristotle's use of a motivational cause.
Who said motive was an important consideration? Why do we need to consider motive in something like planetary formation? Once again, you are adding unnecessary entities to the explanation.
Think deeply about the following;
Why do we need to consider socks becoming clean in a washing machine? It's just a coincidence because they are in an environment of watery soap where they are violently thrown around, ofcourse there is no purpose in this physical process, other than that of cause and effect.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 88 by Granny Magda, posted 09-12-2008 10:20 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 98 by Granny Magda, posted 09-13-2008 4:02 PM mike the wiz has replied
 Message 105 by Rrhain, posted 09-15-2008 3:18 AM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 93 of 110 (481930)
09-13-2008 2:44 PM
Reply to: Message 91 by cavediver
09-13-2008 2:39 PM


Your post had no content, try again.
If you can't understand me - why do you leap to the conclusion that I am incoherent. I have spoken plainly - if you don't understand me, then perhaps you should just not respond.
Jack the ripper killed for a motivational reason. If he wsn't nuts, or high on violence or whatever, he wouldn't have followed with the physical causes that followed.
The physical causes are obvious, he took a knife, ripped, strangled, etc.
The physical cause was the thrusting of the knife, the motivational cause was the reason he done it. What else is there to not understand without me using hand-puppets?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 91 by cavediver, posted 09-13-2008 2:39 PM cavediver has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 95 by cavediver, posted 09-13-2008 2:54 PM mike the wiz has replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 94 of 110 (481932)
09-13-2008 2:48 PM


LAST POST
I am finished with the futility of trying to explain my thoughts.
I am well aware that people are capable or reading what I say and understanding it. I do not go along witpeople being deliberately obtse.
Refer to messgae 90 in this thread, fro kindergarten explanation of obviously correct observations.

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 96 of 110 (481937)
09-13-2008 3:04 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by cavediver
09-13-2008 2:54 PM


Give me a chance
Message 90.
I shown a process that was without motivational cause. That was thunder and lightning.
I only have to prove one motivational cause exists within the physical universe, rather than JUST natural processes.
If our parents merely had sex, there was only physical causes. If there was a decision to have us, then without that decision we would not exist. You are clever enough to understand this!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by cavediver, posted 09-13-2008 2:54 PM cavediver has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 97 of 110 (481942)
09-13-2008 3:12 PM
Reply to: Message 95 by cavediver
09-13-2008 2:54 PM


You know, a few years ago, I'm fairly sure your posts made some sort of sense. Now it looks like one to many 'shrooms in the tea.
Ha. It would explain a lot.
If it helps I am happy to admitt that I could be talking a load of bollocks.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 95 by cavediver, posted 09-13-2008 2:54 PM cavediver has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 100 of 110 (481967)
09-13-2008 5:45 PM
Reply to: Message 98 by Granny Magda
09-13-2008 4:02 PM


Re: On the necessity of God as an explanatory entity
It's a terrible metaphor. You pick something that we all know is human-designed and human-made for a human purpose. The only purpose it has is the purpose put into it by a human mind. You then compare it to a range of non-human phenomena, where no mind or conciousness can be observed in the process. It's a completely false comparison.
Thanks for explaining my analogy. Now the creator of the analogy will explain it properly.
It is ofcourse known that washing machines are created by humans. The point is that if we are only presented with the physical causes, then it is not possible to say; "It's a completely false comparison".
You infact can't conclude that it is false without assuming there is no motivational cause involved. You can only argue there isn't one, when to many it is painfully obvious that the brilliant lifeforms show there is one, and the order in the universe. That this isn't convincing to you is irrelevant to the plain facts.
Logically you can't technically assume a motivational cause or a lack of one. So that leaves Dawkins talking bullshit, however much you dislike the fact.
Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 98 by Granny Magda, posted 09-13-2008 4:02 PM Granny Magda has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 103 by Granny Magda, posted 09-13-2008 6:17 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
mike the wiz
Member
Posts: 4752
From: u.k
Joined: 05-24-2003


Message 101 of 110 (481968)
09-13-2008 5:49 PM
Reply to: Message 99 by Straggler
09-13-2008 4:37 PM


Re: Irrelevant Ripper
Unless you are claiming all physical proceses from tidal waves to leaves falling to radioactive decay are the result of such motivations it would seem that we have numerous examples of non-sentient physical proceses that lack motivation and no examples at all of any that do.
Of which I never said contrary. Time to go back and read properly. I require one proof of a motivational cause in order to prove that one is possible.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 99 by Straggler, posted 09-13-2008 4:37 PM Straggler has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 102 by Straggler, posted 09-13-2008 6:10 PM mike the wiz has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024