An excellent even debate on the universe having a purpose with Richard Dawkins

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p6tIee8FwX8

Excellent debate with Richard Dawkins being the weakest of the 3 athiests(Michael Shermer porbably being the best of the 3).

shermer is a personal favorite,I always read his column in Scientific American

C

I try to stay clear of these debates. i usually find myself right without even needing them to witness it. i then forget my answer. the best way to settle this is through catastrophe. it brings out the best of both sides. tell me i am wrong, and i will prove you to be what the religious don't want to be thought as and the atheist think themselves as not.

Looks like a game show. For an alternative setting I recommend Beyond Belief.

Odd to see Richard Dawkins accept a debate against a professional charlatan like William Lane Craig. It's below him. Richard Dawkins is a rational-oriented biologist who follow truth and evidence as a seal. William Lane Craig is a master of rhetoric that use the technique of misrepresentating or misconstructing so much in a such compressed amount of time that it's impossible to meet during a debate. If you have the prior education you quickly realize the numerous lies he makes in every minute, but if you do not it's impossible for his opponent to explain to you during a debate what Craig is misrepresenting. There are youtube videos that analyse this rhetoric off-debate where five minutes Craig may take hours to explain.

Originally Posted by JemyM
Odd to see Richard Dawkins accept a debate against a professional charlatan like William Lane Craig. It's below him. Richard Dawkins is a rational-oriented biologist who follow truth and evidence as a seal. William Lane Craig is a master of rhetoric that use the technique of misrepresentating or misconstructing so much in a such compressed amount of time that it's impossible to meet during a debate. If you have the prior education you quickly realize the numerous lies he makes in every minute, but if you do not it's impossible for his opponent to explain to you during a debate what Craig is misrepresenting. There are youtube videos that analyse this rhetoric off-debate where five minutes Craig may take hours to explain.

I would like details of these misconstructions and misrepresentations or links to the youtube vids of it. WLC makes the same 5 arguments over and over again, so anyone who would do a little research on him should in theory be able to counter those arguments if there are really flaws in them. I have seen some youtube vids that supposedly have counter arguments against WLC but they sem to misrepresent what he says like for example one youtube vid states that WLC said that God has a "static mind" or something to that effect like God had no free will or something but i cant find anything on that despite google returning results when i click on those pages.

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
I would like details of these misconstructions and misrepresentations or links to the youtube vids of it. WLC makes the same 5 arguments over and over again, so anyone who would do a little research on him should in theory be able to counter those arguments if there are really flaws in them. I have seen some youtube vids that supposedly have counter arguments against WLC but they sem to misrepresent what he says like for example one youtube vid states that WLC said that God has a "static mind" or something to that effect like God had no free will or something but i cant find anything on that despite google returning results when i click on those pages.

Yes, he makes the same arguments over and over again and have done so for 20-30 years. There are videos on youtube that show how he is repeatedly debunked only to use the same argument in the next debate again.

God cannot be empirically studied, therefore facts about God cannot be established by a human perspective. This is also why God is meaningless within science since science study the observable rather than speculate on the unobservable. This means that truth statements of God is purely the product of human assumption/speculation. Atheists and theists who uses science knows this. An analogue to science here is to make a pancake. The ingredients that make a pancake and the procedure to produce the perfect and tasty pancake over and over again is unrelated to the question about God. Thus a theist and an atheist who have learned the method and the pancake recipe can both produce equally yummy pancakes.

Kinda like math, logic is based on itself. It's to be used as a tool that only if used properly can assist in answering questions. In it's own, neither math nor logic can make something true. You can see math and logic as a machine that analyse what you feed it with, so if you load it with bad data you will also get a bad result. For instance, if you apply aerodynamic principles on a bumblebee you can establish that a bumblebee cannot fly.

God here is kinda like the bumblebee but have the problem that the word is abstract and cultural rather than precise. The word "God" have no clear definition, which make it unuseable in logical arguments. To accept a TAG (theological argument for god) you must rely on a cultural assumption that there's a common universal and accepted understanding of the word "God". It's with this cultural assumption you are lead to the illusion that the TAG is logically sound.

WLC's argument thus, is a construct that is human. It tells us more about human cognitive functions and logic than on anything related to "God". Basically it can be summarized; "If 3 is 2, 3+2 is 4".

I am doing my finals in my course in Sociology at the moment so I do not have the time to chase down the proper youtube videos but I promise you that I will find you a couple when I have the time. I cannot promise to do so this week.

Originally Posted by JemyM
I am doing my finals in my course in Sociology at the moment so I do not have the time to chase down the proper youtube videos but I promise you that I will find you a couple when I have the time. I cannot promise to do so this week.

Thank you. (i thought i would post this first ebfore my reply to your other post before you go)

Originally Posted by JemyM
Yes, he makes the same arguments over and over again and have done so for 20-30 years. There are videos on youtube that show how he is repeatedly debunked only to use the same argument in the next debate again.

God cannot be empirically studied, therefore facts about God cannot be established by a human perspective. This is also why God is meaningless within science since science study the observable rather than speculate on the unobservable. This means that truth statements of God is purely the product of human assumption/speculation. Atheists and theists who uses science knows this. An analogue to science here is to make a pancake. The ingredients that make a pancake and the procedure to produce the perfect and tasty pancake over and over again is unrelated to the question about God. Thus a theist and an atheist who have learned the method and the pancake recipe can both produce equally yummy pancakes.

Kinda like math, logic is based on itself. It's to be used as a tool that only if used properly can assist in answering questions. In it's own, neither math nor logic can make something true. You can see math and logic as a machine that analyse what you feed it with, so if you load it with bad data you will also get a bad result. For instance, if you apply aerodynamic principles on a bumblebee you can establish that a bumblebee cannot fly.

God here is kinda like the bumblebee but have the problem that the word is abstract and cultural rather than precise. The word "God" have no clear definition, which make it unuseable in logical arguments. To accept a TAG (theological argument for god) you must rely on a cultural assumption that there's a common universal and accepted understanding of the word "God". It's with this cultural assumption you are lead to the illusion that the TAG is logically sound.

WLC's argument thus, is a construct that is human. It tells us more about human cognitive functions and logic than on anything related to "God". Basically it can be summarized; "If 3 is 2, 3+2 is 4".

I dont really understand this you say his arguments have been debunked yet you say "God cannot be empirically studied, therefore facts about God cannot be established by a human perspective", isnt that a contradiction? As for the last part I dont think you can nullify WLC's arguments with a statement like that using maths as there are several examples in maths that work like that. For example
.999 repeater = 1

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
I dont really understand this you say his arguments have been debunked yet you say "God cannot be empirically studied, therefore facts about God cannot be established by a human perspective", isnt that a contradiction?

The bold sentence you quoted describes the understanding of empirical science established within the Christian world in the 13th and 14th century, credited to Thomas of Aquino and William of Ockham. This understanding of science was a key to bring forth the scientific revolution. The muslim world were lead to another conclusion which makes science and theism much more difficult to coexist.

I will explain some of the key reasons how WLC can be debunked below.

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
As for the last part I dont think you can nullify WLC's arguments with a statement like that using maths as there are several examples in maths that work like that. For example
.999 repeater = 1

It works within itself. Math in its entirety is a human construct that inheritly rely on itself, but because of it's precision within itself we can try to apply math to the natural world. If we properly use math on a natural event that we can study in a lab, we can also establish/guess how the same natural event when multiplied make up the fabric of reality beyond our labs. It's this way we can know with precision we can know the weather of tomorrow without a timemachine, or whether or not a bridge will collapse within the next 50 years. But if we make the slightest mistake within our lab, we are going to make the wrong conclusions about tomorrow.

Now back to Craig. His arguments are based on a foundation of misrepresenting the subjects he rely on. For example, he change established philosophical standpoints, science and history and go from there.

To understand the philosophical background to those subjects you need to have a basic education in philosophy, requiring you to sacrifice the time and effort to grasp the philosophy. There are no crash courses for those. It took me years of study to grasp these standpoints. If I speak in front of someone who do not have the education I do, it's easy for me to manipulate who ever trust me in what I have to say. This is also why scientists find it so frustrating to hear someone do this, because the consequences of misconstruing or misrepresenting high-level ideas are terrible.

For example, one of his commonly repeated arguments is to ask whether naturalism is true. Naturalism is a conclusion. Conclusions cannot be rated true or false, they are the product of the premise that the conclusion rely on. An analogue again, imagine a calculation; there are two apples and 3 oranges in the bag, how many fruits is in the bag? 2+3=5. 5 is the conclusion while "2" and "3" are the premises that 5 rely on. You cannot change 5 or discuss the truth of 5, it's automatically true if there are actually two apples and 3 oranges in the bag. The scientific debate, if any, is if there are actually 2 apples and 3 oranges in the bag.

WLC dont. He argues whether or not 5 is true, without discussing the 2 or 3 that the 5 is based on. He argues whether or not naturalism is true, not the facts that if true lead to naturalism. When he construct the sentence "whether naturalism is true", anyone with some philosophical understanding collapse in their brain, because that sentence makes no sense.

When you know the philosophical definitions of these words, you are bothered when WLC spend half an hour arguing something similar to whether or not a hammer or the color red is true. It makes no sense. It might sound decent for someone without the philosophical understanding of the words though, which is why there's rhetorical power to it. To someone who understand the philosophy you get frustrated how someone can be so intellectually dishonest.

Originally Posted by JemyM
The bold sentence you quoted describes the understanding of empirical science established within the Christian world in the 13th and 14th century, credited to Thomas of Aquino and William of Ockham. This understanding of science was a key to bring forth the scientific revolution. The muslim world were lead to another conclusion which makes science and theism much more difficult to coexist.

I will explain some of the key reasons how WLC can be debunked below.



It works within itself. Math in its entirety is a human construct that inheritly rely on itself, but because of it's precision within itself we can try to apply math to the natural world. If we properly use math on a natural event that we can study in a lab, we can also establish/guess how the same natural event when multiplied make up the fabric of reality beyond our labs. It's this way we can know with precision we can know the weather of tomorrow without a timemachine, or whether or not a bridge will collapse within the next 50 years. But if we make the slightest mistake within our lab, we are going to make the wrong conclusions about tomorrow.

Now back to Craig. His arguments are based on a foundation of misrepresenting the subjects he rely on. For example, he change established philosophical standpoints, science and history and go from there.

To understand the philosophical background to those subjects you need to have a basic education in philosophy, requiring you to sacrifice the time and effort to grasp the philosophy. There are no crash courses for those. It took me years of study to grasp these standpoints. If I speak in front of someone who do not have the education I do, it's easy for me to manipulate who ever trust me in what I have to say. This is also why scientists find it so frustrating to hear someone do this, because the consequences of misconstruing or misrepresenting high-level ideas are terrible.

For example, one of his commonly repeated arguments is to ask whether naturalism is true. Naturalism is a conclusion. Conclusions cannot be rated true or false, they are the product of the premise that the conclusion rely on. An analogue again, imagine a calculation; there are two apples and 3 oranges in the bag, how many fruits is in the bag? 2+3=5. 5 is the conclusion while "2" and "3" are the premises that 5 rely on. You cannot change 5 or discuss the truth of 5, it's automatically true if there are actually two apples and 3 oranges in the bag. The scientific debate, if any, is if there are actually 2 apples and 3 oranges in the bag.

WLC dont. He argues whether or not 5 is true, without discussing the 2 or 3 that the 5 is based on. He argues whether or not naturalism is true, not the facts that if true lead to naturalism. When he construct the sentence "whether naturalism is true", anyone with some philosophical understanding collapse in their brain, because that sentence makes no sense.

When you know the philosophical definitions of these words, you are bothered when WLC spend half an hour arguing something similar to whether or not a hammer or the color red is true. It makes no sense. It might sound decent for someone without the philosophical understanding of the words though, which is why there's rhetorical power to it. To someone who understand the philosophy you get frustrated how someone can be so intellectually dishonest.

But if the 2 and 3 apples are a mistake and there are really 2 and 3 apple pieces or 4 and 6 apples, it would make the statement untrue, so the possibility is still there, so you can still make the statement? So why cant you question a conclusion? What about when people deliberately falsify their data and come to a conclusion that supports the conclusion they want, are you saying that the conclusion cannot be questioned?

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
But if the 2 and 3 apples are a mistake and there are really 2 and 3 apple pieces or 4 and 6 apples, it would make the statement untrue, so the possibility is still there, so you can still make the statement?
So why cant you question a conclusion? What about when people deliberately falsify their data and come to a conclusion that supports the conclusion they want, are you saying that the conclusion cannot be questioned?

The conclusion is the product of the data. Take a calculator, type in 2+3, it will always be 5. You do not question that conclusion, you question whether 2+3 is the correct data. Let's say you open the bag, and found that it contains 6+4 apples (who ever gave you the bag lied). That doesn't change the fact that 2+3 is still 5. The conclusion is still the product of the data, only the data have changed. With 6+4 as the data, the conclusion is now 10. Was the conclusion 5 wrong? No, it was true based on the data at the time.

It's this order that is difficult to grasp for some. In science, logic and math the conclusions are often as true as they can get based on the data at the time, but change as soon as the data changes. Sometimes science is based on flip-flopping, changing their conclusions all the time, or having been wrong, but that is a misrepresentation. Math, science and logic havn't changed, it's still consistent with the data. It's the data that change and grow over time.

Naturalism is the conclusion that the empirical realm is all we can study. Naturalism study only that realm and do not bother with what cannot be empirically studied.

Again about the pancakes, the pancake maker is only interested in the ingredients in the pan and the pancake mix. For the purpose of making pancakes, metaphilosophical questions on origins and existence are meaningless. Should we ask the question whether the chefs conclusion of his/her pancake-making is true or false? Does it matter if the chef is a theist or an atheist? Is the conclusion made moral or immoral?

Naturalism in science is like that chef and the pan. It's not a subject of true or false, it's a conclusion given the situation the chef is in and what the chef is trying to do.

By the way, the rhetoric method used by WLC is sometimes known as the Gish Gallop, shotgun argumentation, debate by attrition or eristic dialectics.

It is easy to win a debate if thats all you want to do. The purpose of each of these is to make sure that the opponent is dumbfounded or frustrated. It's impossible to do this in front of an educated public however.

Sometimes you can get a false conclusion based on data. A mathematician can make a mistake. Naturalism as a conclusion is open to interpretation of the data is it not?

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
Sometimes you can get a false conclusion based on data. A mathematician can make a mistake.

True. This doesn't mean that the math is wrong. When the premise and the conclusion is tested by others, the error is found. It's because of one individuals potential to do wrong we have alot of systems to test conclusions made by other people by recomputing the data. The data and the math, however, only have one true result, unrelated to whether or not someone calculates wrong or use the wrong data.

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
Naturalism as a conclusion is open to interpretation of the data is it not?

Usually it means that the empirical data is compared with empirical data. Non-empirical data can't be collected or studied and is therefore unhelpful.

Originally Posted by JemyM
Usually it means that the empirical data is compared with empirical data. Non-empirical data can't be collected or studied and is therefore unhelpful.

I think you misunderstood me. When it comes to interpretation of data, naturalism is only one possible conclusion, for the naturalist it is the only conclusion that makes sense however it doesnt mean it is the only conclusion possible. Naturalism is not maths is it?

Originally Posted by Damian Mahadevan
I think you misunderstood me. When it comes to interpretation of data, naturalism is only one possible conclusion, for the naturalist it is the only conclusion that makes sense however it doesnt mean it is the only conclusion possible. Naturalism is not maths is it?

Scientific naturalism is the conclusion when faced with the limitations of the human senses. It's the conclusion that the only facts that can be established are the ones that can be empirically studied.

Originally Posted by JemyM
Scientific naturalism is the conclusion when faced with the limitations of the human senses. It's the conclusion that the only facts that can be established are the ones that can be empirically studied.

So you are saying that world views have no impact on scientific naturalism? I disagree.