The Dawkins Deception (bogus reasoning on the "improbability" of God)

by hooberus 49 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

• 

  hooberus

  Dawkins was trying to use logic to analyze the probability of a god existing, using the creationists own arguments.

  Actually Dawkins attempts to show "why there almost certainly is no God" (the title of chapter 4 of his book) using his own arguments. Examining again his logic:

  1. Complex things are improbable as to coming about by chance: "The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means."

  2. Life is very complex and therefore improbable by chance.

  3. Any God capable of designing the universe [and complex life] would have to be more complex than his creation, and therefore more improbable. Any entity capable of intelligently designing something would have to be even more improbable than his design."a God capable of designing a universe, or anything else, would have to be complex and statistically improbable."

  4. Therefore God (being very improbable) almost certainly does not exist.

  Though creationists believe points 1. and 2., they are also believed by Dawkins as being true as well. Hense, they are just as much his "own arguments" as creationists "own arguments". Points 3. and 4. are Dawkins' arguments, not creationists, especially his equating improbability of any God coming about by chance with improbability of any Gods existence.
• 

  hillary_step

  Hooberus,

  The deception in Dawkins argument lies in the fact that when he uses the phrase "improbable" in relation to life, the universe, etc. he is specifically referring to improbable as to coming about by chance. However, later on when he talks about God being even "more improbable" he doesn't ever directly include the qualifying definition of improbable as to coming about by chance, and simply uses the words "more improbable", giving the impression that his argument disproves the existence of any God (even eternal ones that did not come about by chance).

  Shaking head......

  You really are grasping at straws aren't you. You have missed the point that Dawkins was making, which is the development of a logical position, in favor of a preconceived notion.

  As evidence of this I ask you to look at your statement above, especially with relation to the word 'deception'. You have added motive to Dawkins logic and assumed that his intent is to 'deceive', to use trickery, presumably to fool the believers.

  You cannot divorce your own personal feelings against Dawkins from this issue Hooberus, and that is where you are failing to see the point that Dawkins is really making.

  HS
• 

  BurnTheShips

  You cannot divorce your own personal feelings against Dawkins from this issue Hooberus, and that is where you are failing to see the point that Dawkins is really making.

  Tut tut!

  You have missed the point that Hooberus was making, which is the development of a logical position, in favor of a preconceived notion (that Dawkins is attempting to deceive).
• 

  Galileo

  Complex things are improbable as to coming about by chance.

  This is what I was referring to. This is a Creationist argument, and one that has some merit. The flaw of course, is what he ponts out: that if human life coming about without an intelligent designer is hard to believe, then how much more so the infinitely complex god?

  Of course the response to this, as you have stated and as no doubt most creationists would agree, is that god has always existed. However there is no evidence of this, no mechanism suggested through which this is possible, no hypothesis put forward to test the validity of the claim. If this is the nature of god, he has not chosen to make anythng else with this nature, as everything we have ever observed has had a beginning and has had or will have an end. There is no way to argue against an invisible god that has always existed, just as there is no way to argue against a great many things that most likely don't exist (invisible unicorns, etc.).
• 

  hillary_step

  Hooberus,

  You have missed the point that Hooberus was making, which is the development of a logical position, in favor of a preconceived notion (that Dawkins is attempting to deceive).

  As you seem to think you understand the issue, pray explain to us exactly how Dawkins is using 'deception' to make his point, as opposed to the merely following a logical train of thought from a premise that was posited. The Hobberus ;) comes nowhere near to defining this as others have pointed out, but makes leap of logic in order to try to make his point and tangles himself in his own tights.

  Explain the logic of The Hooberus, Burn.

  HS
• 

  hooberus

  Hooberus,

  The deception in Dawkins argument lies in the fact that when he uses the phrase "improbable" in relation to life, the universe, etc. he is specifically referring to improbable as to coming about by chance . However, later on when he talks about God being even "more improbable" he doesn't ever directly include the qualifying definition of improbable as to coming about by chance , and simply uses the words "more improbable", giving the impression that his argument disproves the existence of any God (even eternal ones that did not come about by chance).

  Shaking head......

  You really are grasping at straws aren't you. You have missed the point that Dawkins was making, which is the development of a logical position, in favor of a preconceived notion.

  As evidence of this I ask you to look at your statement above, especially with relation to the word 'deception'. You have added motive to Dawkins logic and assumed that his intent is to 'deceive', to use trickery, presumably to fool the believers.

  You cannot divorce your own personal feelings against Dawkins from this issue Hooberus, and that is where you are failing to see the point that Dawkins is really making.

  HS

  I used the phrase "deception" in relation to the word "argument", not necessarily in relation to deliberate intent.

  And the argument is deceptive, unless you think that it is valid to equate improbability of to Gods existence with the the improbability of God having come about by chance.

  Especially when he talks about God being even "more improbable" he doesn't ever directly include the qualifying definition of improbable as to coming about by chance, and simply uses the words "more improbable", giving the impression that his argument disproves the existence of any God (even eternal ones that did not come about by chance).
• 

  Galileo

  And the argument is deceptive, unless you think that it is valid to equate improbability of to Gods existence with the the improbability of God having come about by chance (something virtually no one even believes).

  Of course it's valid. If god exists then he must have "come about" somehow. As I have already stated, the idea of his having always existed is an argument with no evidence. If he did indeed "come about", then he was either created by another god, which is not an idea many believers seem to support, or he came about by chance. There is nothing deceptive about that equation. However, since you seem hung up on the fact that he didn't argue the point against the "god has always existed" idea, I'll do it for him, as per my first post: "No he hasn't". There. Done.
• 

  hooberus

  Dawkins claims to have "almost certainly" disproven the existence of any God, (which obviously includes the existence of even eternal ones) .

  Yet the argument he offers at best only disproves the existence of any God that came about by chance.
• 

  BurnTheShips

  Of course it's valid. If god exists then he must have "come about" somehow.

  Beginnings and Endings only have meaning within the context of Time. Remove Time and there are no Beginnings and no Endings. Time began with the Universe. Of course, it's difficult for us to imagine Timelessness (aka Eternity), but it's just as difficult for us to imagine a Universe with more than three physical dimensions. We are limited by our own senses and experiences. We're all Flatlanders. Mathematics, however, is not as limited by our perceptive weaknesses so we can describe some things mathematically that we can't conceive of properly otherwise.

  BTS
• 

  hillary_step

  Burn,

  Beginnings and Endings only have meaning within the context of Time. Remove Time and there are no Beginnings and no Endings. Time began with the Universe. Of course, it's difficult for us to imagine Timelessness (aka Eternity), but it's just as difficult for us to imagine a Universe with more than three physical dimensions. We are limited by our own senses and experiences. We're all Flatlanders. Mathematics, however, is not as limited by our perceptive weaknesses so we can describe some things mathematically that we can't conceive of properly otherwise.

  A high-sounding statement for which there is not the tiniest shred of evidential proof.

  Can you religionists not understand that Dawkins, for all his faults, is merely trying to introduce measurability into the equation of faith. When he does so, faith falls away.

  Now, there is no issue in a person discounting the measurable and decalring, 'I do not care about science or measurability, I know what I believe'. It is when they utter such statements as you have above, which is tantamount to the WTS rebuttal of Carl Jonssons work (we may not have the answers to prove our position now, but one day we may have!) that we know when straws are being grasped.

  You have correctly suggested that with mathematics comes measurability, on which our civilization is founded, and that often this measurability can be used to describe the unseen, but you have already denied the power of this measurability in your first sentence.

  Logic follows a developmental pattern, and this is the mistake that both yourself and Hooberus have made in dealing with Dawkins work. You have tried to shuffle the pattern to suit your objectives. 'Ain't gonna wor.

  HS