|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total) |
| |
popoi | |
Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: The Ultimate Question - Why is there something rather than nothing? | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
Doctor Craig was not summarising Dawkins. It doesn't appear to me that W.L.C mis-represented Dawkins. He was summarizing Dawkins' arguments not quoting him directly.Doctor Craig claims he was quoting directly: quote:That was a lie. Black Cat writes:
It distorted what Dawkins had written by claiming it was what Dawkins had written, while it was in fact not what Dawkins had written. Can you please explain to me how how Craig's summarization sentence affected or distorted what Dawkins actually wrote?This should not be difficult to understand. If you claim that someone said something that they didn't say - then that is mis-quoting. It is lying. Black Cat writes:
No. It is because he included the words "On pages 157-8 of his book, Dawkins summarizes" - and then proceeds to make up what Dawkins had actually written.
Is it because he didn't include the words "so far"?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
No, he didn't claim Dawkins had written that. From the introductory sentence it doesn't seem clear whether his intention was to quote directly or to summarize. W.L.C does not explicitly say that he intended to quote directly. That's something you're assuming based on your reading of the sentence.
Edited by Black Cat, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
You can't have it both ways. No, he didn't claim Dawkins had written that. From the introductory sentence it doesn't seem clear whther his intention was to quote directly or to summarize. W.L.C does not explicitly say that he intended to quote directly. That's something you're assuming based on your reading of the sentence. Either the list is a direct quote from Dawkins' book or Dr. Craig is attacking a straw-man argument which he fabricated himself. {abe}
quote:This shows the level of deceit. Dr. Craig is criticising his own mis-quotes as if they are Dawkins' own words. Edited by Panda, : No reason given. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
The list is not direct quotes, Craig never claims that they are. All he did was replace "crane so far" with "explanation". This doesn't compromise the meaning of the sentence, it simply makes it more understandable.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined:
|
Black Cat writes:
Is that all he did? All he did was replace "crane so far" with "explanation"Really? Let us compare and contrast, shall we? Then we will see if all he did was replace 3 words... Dr Craig writes:
The temptation is a false one because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer.Richard Dawkins writes:
Seems that you might have been wrong about what Dr. Craig replaced. The temptation is a false one, because the designer hypothesis immediately raises the larger problem of who designed the designer. The whole problem we started out with was the problem of explaining statistical improbability. It is obviously no solution to postulate something even more improbable. We need a 'crane', not a 'skyhook', for only a crane can do the business of working up gradually and plausibly from simplicity to otherwise improbable complexity.Let's look at another... Dr Craig writes:
We don't have an equivalent explanation for physics.Richard Dawkins writes:
Wow! Dr. Craig has replaced and removed dozens of words. We don't yet have an equivalent crane for physics. Some kind of multiverse theory could in principle do for physics the same explanatory work as Darwinism does for biology. This kind of explanation is superficially less satisfying than the biological version of Darwinism, because it makes heavier demands on luck. But the anthropic principle entitles us to postulate far more luck than our limited human intuition is comfortable with.How did you not know this? I am starting to think that you have no knowledge of what Dawkins actually wrote.Or maybe you support mis-quoting people out of context? Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined: |
Again, there's no clear evidence that he intended to quote Dawkins directly. Second, his summation of Dawkins' main points is accurate, that can easily be seen from the quotes you provided. Craig is not obligated to quote whole paragraphs based on what you feel he should inlude and not include.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 305 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined:
|
Again, there's no clear evidence that he intended to quote Dawkins directly. Second, his summation of Dawkins' main points is accurate, that can easily be seen from the quotes you provided. Craig is not obligated to quote whole paragraphs based on what you feel he should inlude and not include. Ok let me try his method let me quote you again
Again, there's clear evidence that he intended to quote Dawkins directly. Second, his summation of Dawkins' main points is not accurate, that can easily be seen from the quotes you provided. Craig is obligated to quote whole paragraphs based on what you feel he should include and not include.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Black Cat Junior Member (Idle past 4613 days) Posts: 28 From: Canada Joined:
|
Very bad example. First, you claimed to be quoting me, something Craig did not do of Dawkins. Also, you altered the meaning of what I said, something Craig did not do of Dawkins.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
The list is not direct quotes, Craig never claims that they are. All he did was replace "crane so far" with "explanation". This doesn't compromise the meaning of the sentence, it simply makes it more understandable. It conceals Dawkins' meaning; and it conceals that Craig is snipping random pieces out of Dawkins' argument and pretending that he is summarizing Dawkins' argument. Dawkins distinguishes between two types of explanation for things, which he calls "cranes" and "skyhooks". He argues that "cranes" are probable and "skyhooks" are improbable; and he argues that God is a "skyhook". Craig rips out this aspect of Dawkins' argument, changes "crane" to "explanation" so that you can't tell that there's a massive chunk of argument missing, and then complains that "the atheistic conclusion [...] seems to come suddenly out of left field" and that "that conclusion doesn't follow from the six previous statements" and goes on to refer to "the six steps of Dawkins' argument" as though Dawkins' argument did in fact consist of the six "steps" ripped out of context and re-written by Craig. This seems to me to be dishonesty, but it could merely be idiocy. Or maybe a bit of both. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Panda Member (Idle past 3712 days) Posts: 2688 From: UK Joined: |
Black Cat writes:
I didn't claim that he did intend to quote Dawkins diectly. Again, there's no clear evidence that he intended to quote Dawkins directly.In fact, I strongly suspect that he had every intention of mis-quoting Dawkins. But, if he was going to argue against the summary then he should have quoted it directly. Black Cat writes:
His summary of Dawkin's summary is not accurate. That can easily be seen from the quotes I provided.
Second, his summation of Dawkins' main points is accurate, that can easily be seen from the quotes you provided. Black Cat writes:
Correct. Craig is not obligated to quote whole paragraphs based on what you feel he should inlude and not include.But he is obligated to not mis-quote and not quote-mine. So, to summarise:Dr. Craig has an ambiguous and misleading opening sentence. He takes single sentences out of context. He changes the wording of those sentences. He argues against those sentences as if they are actually what Richard Dawkins had written. If he was being honest he would have simply posted the complete summary - there is no reason not to.I think he is simply lying for god. Edited by Panda, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 284 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
Craig is not obligated to quote whole paragraphs based on what you feel he should inlude and not include. If he just wanted to say: "Here are six things Dawkins said that are wrong for the following reasons ..." he would not be obligated to summarize Dawkins' entire argument. But instead, he pretends that these six things are Dawkins' entire argument and then complains that the conclusion doesn't follow from them. I think he is kinda not obligated to do this. And then he has the gall to write this:
A more charitable interpretation would be to take these six statements, not as premises, but as summary statements of six steps in Dawkins' cumulative argument for his conclusion that God does not exist. So it would be "charitable" would it, to "assume" that these are "summary statements"? No assumption is necessary. Craig knows damn well that they are a summary. They are a summary written by William Lane Craig. Unless ... it has just struck me ... maybe Craig, instead of bothering to actually read the book, read this "summary" of Dawkins' argument written by another dumbass Christian apologist and didn't realize that what he was reading was not in fact written by Dawkins. That would also explain his behavior.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
tubbyparticle Junior Member (Idle past 4619 days) Posts: 5 Joined:
|
I'm no scientist and my opinion may not have the needed merit to persuade too many people, but I think this matter is within reach of everyone, because it is more philosophical than scientific. I agree with the two statements made during this discussions, that nothing has no states, and that science can only detect what happens after the universe has come into existence. Concerning what is defined as stateless, however, I disagree, since it has been said here that the concept of nothing is self-contradictory due to it having properties that make it nothing. Nothing is indeed the absence of everything, but the state is applied to the things that would be, not the nothing itself, and only applies as a state in reference to those things. Therefore, when something has the state of absence, it is excluded from reality, and therefore gives room for nothing. Nothing defines reality when nothing else defines it. So nothing does not have states, rather, it is the state of all things being absent. Also, that those objects have the state of absence does not mean they exist, for the state of those things are evident in that they do not exist, not the other way around.
I know that was probably the most crack-pot thing you've read so far.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 1.9 |
tubbyparticle writes: I know that was probably the most crack-pot thing you've read so far. Either that or the most brilliant, but I have no idea which one it is.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
PaulK Member Posts: 17822 Joined: Member Rating: 2.3 |
While it wasn't as clearly written as it might be I think you are basically right. Nothing isn't a thing (by definition). If it were it would be self-contradictory. Any argument that does treat nothing as a thing to conclude a contradiction is, therefore, begging the question.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
bluegenes Member (Idle past 2476 days) Posts: 3119 From: U.K. Joined: |
PaulK writes: Nothing isn't a thing (by definition). If it were it would be self-contradictory. Any argument that does treat nothing as a thing to conclude a contradiction is, therefore, begging the question. So what would your answer to the O.P. question be? If I answer:
"Why is there something rather than nothing?" with: "Because nothing, by definition, cannot be." Is there anything wrong with my answer? If we wanted to phrase the question in a way that's truly unanswerable, wouldn't it be better to avoid the verb "to be" and say:
"Why existence?"
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024