| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/28/2011 06:27:45 PM · #2126 |
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
Originally posted by Cory:
Originally posted by johnnyphoto:
.. In some cultures, trying to get the last word in can be really disrespectful. ... |
Hmmm...
I see a conundrum. If getting in the last word is a bad thing, wouldn't it be seen as a kindness to others to always make sure you got in the last word? Ya know, so as to prevent them from having to shoulder the shame of getting in the last word... ;) |
Well, it's only disrespectful for one person to get the last word in. The other person is often expected to get the last word in. It's usually an age or gender thing. |
...and sometimes with age and experience one learns that the last words can consist of "You are absolutely right"
Ray |
|
|
|
07/28/2011 07:22:22 PM · #2127 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
...and sometimes with age and experience one learns that the last words can consist of "You are absolutely right"
Ray |
Or, as we say south of the border, "Yes, dear." |
|
|
|
08/20/2011 09:51:13 AM · #2128 |
|
|
|
08/20/2011 10:10:33 AM · #2129 |
Craig on UK tour with few debating oponents - article
WARNING - FOX news article - do not read if you are hypersensitive to anything FOX. |
|
|
|
08/20/2011 06:13:12 PM · #2130 |
Read it...really does not say much...actually is says nothing at all.
Ray |
|
|
|
08/20/2011 06:35:02 PM · #2131 |
After 3 1/2 years of going around in circles (at best) and nowhere (probably), it's time to ...
Don't bother to respond with flames or agreement. I'm no longer watching. |
|
|
|
08/21/2011 09:31:56 PM · #2132 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Read it...really does not say much...actually is says nothing at all.
Ray |
Only that there seems to be a lack of athiests in the UK choosing to publically challenge Dr. Craig and his views. Namely one Richard Dawkins. In the link above Craig vs Dawkins = no, Dawkins is taking some flak from fellow athiests for not stepping up. All kinds of reasons from Dawkins, but still no Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens challenged Craig as did other members of the "Four Horsemen" but no Dawkins. I would have thought the foregoing atheists here, Matthew, Louis or Scalvert would at least defend Dawkins and point out the terrible person Craig is. Afterall, being a believer is akin to utter ignorance and foolishness. Surely Craig's fallacies can be illuminated by the likes of Dawknis or his diciples.
I noted its relation to FOX merely as an acknowledgement up front - so those who become ill when stumbling upon such articles could avoid it. |
|
|
|
08/21/2011 10:32:41 PM · #2133 |
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Read it...really does not say much...actually is says nothing at all.
Ray |
Only that there seems to be a lack of athiests in the UK choosing to publically challenge Dr. Craig and his views. Namely one Richard Dawkins. In the link above Craig vs Dawkins = no, Dawkins is taking some flak from fellow athiests for not stepping up. All kinds of reasons from Dawkins, but still no Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens challenged Craig as did other members of the "Four Horsemen" but no Dawkins. I would have thought the foregoing atheists here, Matthew, Louis or Scalvert would at least defend Dawkins and point out the terrible person Craig is. Afterall, being a believer is akin to utter ignorance and foolishness. Surely Craig's fallacies can be illuminated by the likes of Dawknis or his disciples. |
Well, I think Dawkins' point (and I'm pretty much in agreement with him on this) is that the mere act of debating Dr. Craig lends an air of legitimacy to his position. From what I've seen, Craig doesn't "debate", he engages in polemics. It's the same ol', same ol', nothing's changed in years. Kind of like this thread, don't you think?
And before anybody brings it up, I'm well aware you could argue that Dawkins is guilty of the same thing :-) But I can't really blame the man for refusing to become a part of Dr. Craig's personal publicity machine.
R. |
|
|
|
08/22/2011 09:42:49 AM · #2134 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by Flash:
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Read it...really does not say much...actually is says nothing at all.
Ray |
Only that there seems to be a lack of athiests in the UK choosing to publically challenge Dr. Craig and his views. Namely one Richard Dawkins. In the link above Craig vs Dawkins = no, Dawkins is taking some flak from fellow athiests for not stepping up. All kinds of reasons from Dawkins, but still no Dawkins. Christopher Hitchens challenged Craig as did other members of the "Four Horsemen" but no Dawkins. I would have thought the foregoing atheists here, Matthew, Louis or Scalvert would at least defend Dawkins and point out the terrible person Craig is. Afterall, being a believer is akin to utter ignorance and foolishness. Surely Craig's fallacies can be illuminated by the likes of Dawknis or his disciples. |
Well, I think Dawkins' point (and I'm pretty much in agreement with him on this) is that the mere act of debating Dr. Craig lends an air of legitimacy to his position. From what I've seen, Craig doesn't "debate", he engages in polemics. It's the same ol', same ol', nothing's changed in years. Kind of like this thread, don't you think?
And before anybody brings it up, I'm well aware you could argue that Dawkins is guilty of the same thing :-) But I can't really blame the man for refusing to become a part of Dr. Craig's personal publicity machine.
R. |
I might agree with your point if Dawkins was a lecturer and educator and philosoher and chose not to debate anyone - however that is not the case. Dawkins seems eager to debate some but not Dr. Craig. That is the element that is being scrutinized - even by some athiests. Just seems kind of...well kind of...like...well maybe his arguments aren't all that strong or maybe a bit of lack of conviction. Hitchens didn't mind debating Craig. But perhaps the outcome is what has Dawkins choosing to "not be part of Craig's personal publicity machine". Or at least that is how it reads to some. Dr. Craig's "style" is now being the focus of examination. Strange. That could be said of several regular posters in RANT. |
|
|
|
08/22/2011 10:36:07 AM · #2135 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
the mere act of debating Dr. Craig lends an air of legitimacy to his position. |
Right. The delusions of fanatics need not be dignified with a response, particularly when they've already been demonstrated as fallacious by others. If declining to debate amounts to a weak position, then surely Flash can direct us to all the popes and bishops who have accepted repeated invitations to debate Dawkins, who by the way DID debate Craig late last year in Mexico.
Message edited by author 2011-08-22 13:02:47. |
|
|
|
08/22/2011 01:51:13 PM · #2136 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Well, I think Dawkins' point (and I'm pretty much in agreement with him on this) is that the mere act of debating Dr. Craig lends an air of legitimacy to his position. From what I've seen, Craig doesn't "debate", he engages in polemics. It's the same ol', same ol', nothing's changed in years. Kind of like this thread, don't you think?
And before anybody brings it up, I'm well aware you could argue that Dawkins is guilty of the same thing :-) But I can't really blame the man for refusing to become a part of Dr. Craig's personal publicity machine.
R. |
It's an interesting point you raise. I found a link on the wiki for Craig which had an article by him "God is not dead" which didn't strike me as polemics. I don't know how he "debates" though. Such a conversation between the two (Craig and Dawkins) would probably be similar to a debate between republicans and democrats with both sides talking past the other and neither addressing the other's points. Dawkins is a scientist and Craig is a philosopher. I doubt either is specialized in the other's field.
Still, the "battle" seems to be over the young minds in the audience and I would think that Craig should have a fair shake at winning them over. Perhaps a better format would be to allow each to present their "case" in an unopposed lecture to the same audience. Again, I don't think Dawkins has the ability to address philosophic arguments in a rigorous manner while Craig would unlikely have the knowledge to address Dawkin's points on evolution.
I do object to your "air of legitimacy" comment if you haven't investigated him at all. He strikes me as much more than Shannon's ascribed moniker of "fanatic".
God is not Dead Yet (The article is far from thorough and is not meant to be as it is written for a popular lay-audience, but it doesn't strike me as unsound or polemics.)
Message edited by author 2011-08-22 13:55:50. |
|
|
|
08/22/2011 02:03:20 PM · #2137 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
(The article.. it doesn't strike me as unsound or polemics.) |
Each of the arguments made in that article are glaring logical fallacies. |
|
|
|
08/22/2011 03:13:16 PM · #2138 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
(The article.. it doesn't strike me as unsound or polemics.) |
Each of the arguments made in that article are glaring logical fallacies. |
That doesn't make it polemics does it? I wasn't expecting you to suddenly see the light and as I said the article isn't thorough at all.
To me, signs of polemics are constantly denigrating opposing views or presenting your own view as obviously the only correct choice. I see none of those signs. |
|
|
|
08/22/2011 03:22:19 PM · #2139 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
(The article.. it doesn't strike me as unsound or polemics.) |
Each of the arguments made in that article are glaring logical fallacies. |
That doesn't make it polemics does it? |
It makes the arguments unsound. |
|
|
|
08/22/2011 03:31:34 PM · #2140 |
| If you are requiring an airtight case, then it is not going to be found. But, of course, the intelligent will find the same lack of airtightness in Dawkins arguments. Why not allow the intelligent university audience member to make up their own mind? If the arguments are as poor as you imply, it should be easy for them to see through to the truth. |
|
|
|
08/22/2011 03:57:24 PM · #2141 |
"Polemics" is not a negative word, and it is not a criticism of Craig when I attach the word to him, or not in any case an extreme one.
"A polemic is a form of dispute, wherein the main efforts of the disputing parties are aimed at establishing the superiority of their own points of view regarding an issue. Along with debate, polemic is one of the more common forms of dispute. Similar to debate, it is constrained by a definite thesis which serves as the subject of controversy. However, unlike debate, which may seek common ground between two parties, a polemic is intended to establish the supremacy of a single point of view by refuting an opposing point of view."
Polemic theology is a recognized category:
"Polemic theology is the branch of theological argument devoted to the history or conduct of controversy on religious matters. As such, it is distinguished from apologetics, the intellectual defense of faith. Martin Luther's "On the Bondage of the Will" is an example of polemic theology, written against and in answer to "The Freedom of the Will" by Desiderius Erasmus."
On the secular front, Jonathan Swift, Daniel Defoe, Samuel Butler, George Orwell, and Jack London were all considered polemicists.
My point is, I don't think Dawkins is interested in polemics-disguised-as-debate. I recognize that Dawkins might rationally be considered a polemicist himself. OK? And when I used the word "legitimize", it wasn't implying a judgment on my own part as to the relative positions in the God debate, but rather to express what I take to be DAWKINS' position...
R.
Message edited by author 2011-08-22 15:58:02. |
|
|
|
08/22/2011 04:24:11 PM · #2142 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you are requiring an airtight case, then it is not going to be found. |
Not airtight, just sound. Example from his first claim:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. (Exception Fallacy- the purported existence of God refutes the premise)
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. (Argument from Ignorance- an explanation could certainly be natural)
3. The universe exists. (Wooo... he got one out of four)
4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God. (Non-Sequitur and a Fallacy of Necessity- ignoring countless incompatible Gods and physics)
He goes on to declare that the argument is logically valid (Bare Assertion). Premise 3 is true, although his conclusion does not follow from this fact. Premise 1 is a hasty generalization (Fallacy of Composition) and Premise 2 is both Argument From Ignorance and self-refuting on many levels. It ignores his own assertion of "the necessity of its own nature" and goes straight to "external cause" (a Fallacy of Necessity). He also ignores that an intelligent mind does not create anything by mere thought, nor does it exist without cause- the very thing he's claiming to explain! Craig's modus operandi is to use these syllogisms to make many claims that sound better than they are sound. |
|
|
|
08/22/2011 04:38:13 PM · #2143 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you are requiring an airtight case, then it is not going to be found. |
Not airtight, just sound. Example from his first claim:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. (Exception Fallacy- the purported existence of God refutes the premise)
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. (Argument from Ignorance- an explanation could certainly be natural)
3. The universe exists. (Wooo... he got one out of four)
4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God. (Non-Sequitur and a Fallacy of Necessity- ignoring countless incompatible Gods and physics)
He goes on to declare that the argument is logically valid (Bare Assertion). Premise 3 is true, although his conclusion does not follow from this fact. Premise 1 is a hasty generalization (Fallacy of Composition) and Premise 2 is both Argument From Ignorance and self-refuting on many levels. It ignores his own assertion of "the necessity of its own nature" and goes straight to "external cause" (a Fallacy of Necessity). He also ignores that an intelligent mind does not create anything by mere thought, nor does it exist without cause- the very thing he's claiming to explain! Craig's modus operandi is to use these syllogisms to make many claims that sound better than they are sound. |
Not to mention bifurcation and a whole lot of begging the question. This thread reads like a philosophy lecture on fallacy- and I like it! |
|
|
|
08/22/2011 09:33:09 PM · #2144 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If you are requiring an airtight case, then it is not going to be found. |
Not airtight, just sound. Example from his first claim:
1. Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence, either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause. (Exception Fallacy- the purported existence of God refutes the premise)
2. If the universe has an explanation of its existence, that explanation is God. (Argument from Ignorance- an explanation could certainly be natural)
3. The universe exists. (Wooo... he got one out of four)
4. Therefore, the explanation of the universe's existence is God. (Non-Sequitur and a Fallacy of Necessity- ignoring countless incompatible Gods and physics)
He goes on to declare that the argument is logically valid (Bare Assertion). Premise 3 is true, although his conclusion does not follow from this fact. Premise 1 is a hasty generalization (Fallacy of Composition) and Premise 2 is both Argument From Ignorance and self-refuting on many levels. It ignores his own assertion of "the necessity of its own nature" and goes straight to "external cause" (a Fallacy of Necessity). He also ignores that an intelligent mind does not create anything by mere thought, nor does it exist without cause- the very thing he's claiming to explain! Craig's modus operandi is to use these syllogisms to make many claims that sound better than they are sound. |
We've been back and forth many times, but I'll at least respond once and perhaps give you the last word, but the argument is not as bad as you make it out to be.
1) Not an exception fallacy. You missed the clause "in the necessity of its own nature". The paraphrase, by my reading, would be "all things have an explanation for their existence, except one, the first (aka "the Prime Mover")." We know from all our scientific data that our universe is not this Prime Mover as it has a clear beginning.
2) This one is tricky and I think you are not irrational in your attack. Your response, however, is incorrect and a fallacy of itself. "Natural" by any conventional, scientific terminology does not include uncaused events or causes outside our physical universe. The origin of the universe itself, therefore, whatever it is, is not "natural". (I agree, however, this does not mean it is therefore God.)
However, listen to Craig's explanation. Premise (2) might at first appear controversial, but it is in fact synonymous with the usual atheist claim that if God does not exist, then the universe has no explanation of its existence. This seems to clear it up. Wouldn't you agree with the premise "If God does not exist, then the universe has no explanation." is true, especially if we substitute "multiverse" for "universe"? He is taking the phrase "If not A, then not B" and turning it into "If A, then B". I'm guessing much could be written here and was glossed over. I'm also sure there is wiggle room as I mentioned that there is no airtight case for God that I'm aware of.
3) I'm glad we agree on one thing. :)
4) My guess (or hope) would be he is arguing for a Deist, generic God and not the Christian God.
As far as Roberts comment, I may agree, although I do see "polemics" used in a negative sense. The dictionary gives the example sentence of "not having to resort to polemics" which is decidedly negative. Seeing as theism and atheism are mutually exclusive, I'm not sure what type of debate, other than polemics (in the sense you provide) could be had?
Message edited by author 2011-08-22 21:42:56. |
|
|
|
08/22/2011 11:12:40 PM · #2145 |
"Not Yet Dead" is a wonderful song in Spamalot, which is something I'd dearly love to see one of these days. The soundtrack is delightful!
Carry on.
Message edited by author 2011-08-22 23:17:01. |
|
|
|
08/22/2011 11:16:50 PM · #2146 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) Not an exception fallacy. ...all things have an explanation for their existence, except one |
Bingo, classic exception fallacy.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We know from all our scientific data that our universe is not this Prime Mover as it has a clear beginning. |
Strike 2, argument from ignorance. "Clear beginning" is a misnomer in terms of the Big Bang since that theoretically marks the formation of time itself, and losing the point of reference doesn't preclude a cause (just because we can't describe north beyond the North Pole doesn't mean there's nothing beyond that point). Note that the Biblical account of creation is chronological (not outside of time).
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Natural" by any conventional, scientific terminology does not include uncaused events or causes outside our physical universe. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Quantum fluctuations are naturally uncaused. |
More argument from ignorance. Not understanding a cause does not mean one does not exist. As Craig noted, a translucent ball in a forest couldn't just exist on its own accord because experience tells us that doesn't happen. With the same reasoning, we can refute supernatural causes since nothing has ever turned out to have anything other than a natural explanation. We wouldn't reasonably conclude that a translucent ball just appeared in the forest because that would be supernatural, yet if a God can will the entire universe into existence, then poofing a little ball into the woods is a trivial exercise that shouldn't surprise the faithful at all!
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wouldn't you agree with the premise "If God does not exist, then the universe has no explanation" is true |
ROFL, no. Same principle: If Zeus does not exist, then lightning has no explanation.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
My guess (or hope) would be he is arguing for a Deist, generic God and not the Christian God. |
Wishful thinking. Craig is devoted to supporting an evangelical Christian concept of God. I watched a Craig-Hitchens debate on morality where Craig asserts that only divine morality can motivate decent behavior because God will judge those who behave immorally, and then he turned right around and declared that murderers can go to heaven because only faith in Jesus is necessary (thus eliminating the aforementioned threat of punishment for immoral behavior). Hitchens called him on it, and Craig's response was along the lines of 'no true Christian would believe [what Craig had just said].' The audience laughed out loud. |
|
|
|
08/22/2011 11:29:38 PM · #2147 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
1) Not an exception fallacy. ...all things have an explanation for their existence, except one |
Bingo, classic exception fallacy. |
Come on. Use your head here. Are you saying the fallacy automatically makes it false? "All positive intergers are greater than 1, except 1." Is that an exception fallacy? Is it false? You love to name things, but you don't think them through.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
We know from all our scientific data that our universe is not this Prime Mover as it has a clear beginning. |
Originally posted by Shannon:
Strike 2, argument from ignorance. "Clear beginning" is a misnomer in terms of the Big Bang since that theoretically marks the formation of time itself, and losing the point of reference doesn't preclude a cause (just because we can't describe north beyond the North Pole doesn't mean there's nothing beyond that point). Note that the Biblical account of creation is chronological (not outside of time). |
Nonsensical. You've made this argument many times before. Basically you are claiming that the universe could have existed enterally in its "pre-big bang" form but that is beyond our ken because it is beyond time. Placed in a natural framework it is impossible. Well trod territory.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"Natural" by any conventional, scientific terminology does not include uncaused events or causes outside our physical universe. |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Quantum fluctuations are naturally uncaused. |
Originally posted by Shannon:
More argument from ignorance. Not understanding a cause does not mean one does not exist. As Craig noted, a translucent ball in a forest couldn't just exist on its own accord because experience tells us that doesn't happen. With the same reasoning, we can refute supernatural causes since nothing has ever turned out to have anything other than a natural explanation. |
Sigh. I never said the cause didn't exist, but I never said it was "natural". If you read the rest of where you yanked my quote (or subsequent posts) you would see that I termed quantum fluctations to be "subnatural". (or perhaps you yanked a quote from many years ago in which case I've evolved my position.) Quantum fluctuations are not "natural" in the conventional sense.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Wouldn't you agree with the premise "If God does not exist, then the universe has no explanation" is true |
Originally posted by Shannon:
ROFL, no. Same principle: If Zeus does not exist, then lightning has no explanation. |
Your analogy makes no sense at all. The proposition has to do with the fact there are two groups of explanations; ones that are natural and ones that are not. Because that set is complete all explanations fall into one or the other (or there is no explanation). He is saying, "if there is no natural explanation, the explanation is supernatural or there is no explanation at all".
|
|
|
|
08/22/2011 11:32:05 PM · #2148 |
| I will let you have your notions. That's fine. Arguing with you is a futile waste of time. |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 12:15:50 AM · #2149 |
|
|
|
08/23/2011 12:30:45 AM · #2150 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Are you saying the fallacy automatically makes it false? |
The argument is unsound because it provides no rational basis for the exception. If I said, "An object at rest will remain so until a force is applied, except flying reindeer which aren't subject to the laws of physics," that's simply not good enough.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
"All positive intergers are greater than 1, except 1." Is that an exception fallacy? |
Nope. There is a clear, rational basis for the exception.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Basically you are claiming that the universe could have existed enterally in its "pre-big bang" form but that is beyond our ken because it is beyond time. |
DrAchoo, meet conservation of mass/energy. Note that being beyond time only prevents direct observation, not understanding.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
I never said the cause didn't exist, but I never said it was "natural". |
Your own explanation for the post: "If you believe truly random quantum fluctuations are uncaused and occur in a materialist universe, then you have allowed a large exception to the otherwise steadfast rule of cause-and-effect materialism."
So either quantum fluctuations are "uncaused in a materialist universe" or they are "caused in a materialist universe." The first option eliminates a prime mover and the second allows for a natural explanation- no reason to invoke magic either way. You set your own trap and jumped in it with both feet.
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
He is saying, "if there is no natural explanation, the explanation is supernatural or there is no explanation at all". |
He is saying, "if there is no natural explanation, then God." We have no reason to think there ISN'T a natural explanation, and the conclusion does not follow any more than, "If there is no natural explanation, then genies." Assuming there isn't a natural explanation is not evidence for genies. |
|
