• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Some questions for Dawkins

KingMerv00 said:
I'm not saying that such a theory is right, I am merely suggesting that naturalism could possibly explain the origin of the universe some day.
Click to expand...
Quite. What science hasn't done is run up against a problem, a barrier, that can only be explained by the supernatural. Science advances, woo-woo retreats. Not in opinion polls, of course, but who cares about the proles?
 
stillthinkin said:
He gives his reasoning:
1. All intelligent things are complex.
2. Complex things come late.
3. God is intelligent.
4. God cannot have been first cause.

The first premise is false, at least for Aquinas. Intelligence as it exists in God is not complex, nor is God himself complex.
Click to expand...
Premise 2 is also easily discarded. "Complex things come late" is a generalization, and it need not be true in every case.
 
stillthinkin said:
He gives his reasoning:
1. All intelligent things are complex.
2. Complex things come late.
3. God is intelligent.
4. God cannot have been first cause.
Click to expand...

These just beg the question though.

1) Intelligent compared to whom? To Dawkins? How is he judging this?

2) How is Dawkins judging "complex"?

3) What properties of god(s) is Dawkins using? No matter he uses that is written about various god(s) in holy texts, etc., no one is able to debunk the general notion of god(s) existing, or the 'designer' being a non-god alien life form.

4) No matter what logic one uses, that doesn't allow us to say "cannot" with any certainty, as many want to attempt to put forth.
 
T'ai Chi said:
These just beg the question though.

1) Intelligent compared to whom? To Dawkins? How is he judging this?

2) How is Dawkins judging "complex"?

3) What properties of god(s) is Dawkins using? No matter he uses that is written about various god(s) in holy texts, etc., no one is able to debunk the general notion of god(s) existing, or the 'designer' being a non-god alien life form.

4) No matter what logic one uses, that doesn't allow us to say "cannot" with any certainty, as many want to attempt to put forth.
Click to expand...
It follows. If you assume complexity requires intelligence then the question arises from whence did an intelligent god come from?
 
T'ai Chi said:
These just beg the question though.

1) Intelligent compared to whom? To Dawkins? How is he judging this?

2) How is Dawkins judging "complex"?

3) What properties of god(s) is Dawkins using? No matter he uses that is written about various god(s) in holy texts, etc., no one is able to debunk the general notion of god(s) existing, or the 'designer' being a non-god alien life form.

4) No matter what logic one uses, that doesn't allow us to say "cannot" with any certainty, as many want to attempt to put forth.
Click to expand...

My understanding is that "Intelligent compared to whom" doesnt really matter, the idea is that IF God is intelligent, then he must be complex. In the modern mythology, intelligence is a function of complexity. This is the premise for a materialist explanation that human beings are intelligent only because our brains are complex. Aristotle and the scholastics like Aquinas thought that an intelligent thing, to be intelligent, had to be simple. A "mind", a "subject", a "person", an "intellect" is not a gadget needing lots of parts. Humans have sense organs, and these might need to be gadget-like things with parts and complexity, but not the intellect.

I think the modern mythology is wrong on this point.

2) Excellent question.

I had stated that "complex comes late" is a generalization; let me suggest a possible scientific counterexample: entropy. This indicates that simple comes late (last, in fact).
 
stillthinkin said:
This is the premise for a materialist explanation that human beings are intelligent only because our brains are complex. Aristotle and the scholastics like Aquinas thought that an intelligent thing, to be intelligent, had to be simple. A "mind", a "subject", a "person", an "intellect" is not a gadget needing lots of parts. Humans have sense organs, and these might need to be gadget-like things with parts and complexity, but not the intellect.
Click to expand...
It is empirical that a reduction in the complexity of the brain reduces intellectual capacity. The greater the reduction in complexity the greater reduction in intellectual capacity. The correlation is direct. We even know which centers of the brain are responsible for various functions and therefore can target how to reduce capacity.

I'm a former dualist and this was always my most difficult argument to overcome. I never could. It was this reason I ceased being a dualist.

You will have a very hard time convincing neuroscientists that their work is mythology.
 
T'ai Chi said:
These just beg the question though.
Click to expand...

If you think you are entitled to ask people questions, how about answering some yourself?

T'ai Chi said:
1) Intelligent compared to whom? To Dawkins? How is he judging this?
Click to expand...

Do we find intelligence in non-complex things?

T'ai Chi said:
2) How is Dawkins judging "complex"?
Click to expand...

Why don't you ask him? Or, perhaps read up on him?

T'ai Chi said:
3) What properties of god(s) is Dawkins using? No matter he uses that is written about various god(s) in holy texts, etc., no one is able to debunk the general notion of god(s) existing, or the 'designer' being a non-god alien life form.
Click to expand...

Again, ask him. Or, read up on him. I know, it requires that you do the legwork (for once)...

T'ai Chi said:
4) No matter what logic one uses, that doesn't allow us to say "cannot" with any certainty, as many want to attempt to put forth.
Click to expand...

What is wrong with the logic? You merely say it is false, but you don't explain why.

Is it because:

1) You won't explain why?

or

2) You don't know how to explain why?
 
T'ai Chi said:
These just beg the question though.

1) Intelligent compared to whom? To Dawkins? How is he judging this?

2) How is Dawkins judging "complex"?

3) What properties of god(s) is Dawkins using? No matter he uses that is written about various god(s) in holy texts, etc., no one is able to debunk the general notion of god(s) existing, or the 'designer' being a non-god alien life form.

4) No matter what logic one uses, that doesn't allow us to say "cannot" with any certainty, as many want to attempt to put forth.
Click to expand...
God could have appeared by magic. But don't confuse could with any probability that doesn't have lots and lots of zeros after the decimal point.

Dawkins, in interviews, does not rule out the possibility of God springing into existence out of nothing but points out there is no reliable evidence of it.

In saying that the first cause was not an intelligence is a bit like saying that a tossed coin will come down heads or tails. Yes the coin could be vaporised by a passing ufo’s laser but it is so unlikely that we may as well discounted for the purposes of a serious discussion.

However if you have some evidence that God suddenly appeared by magic like a watch in the desert there are a lot of people that would like to see it.
 
Say T'ai, Richard Dawkins has a new forum on his site and he is a registered user. It has been explained that he is rather busy with preparations for his book tour but that he may answer questions from time to time. Since these are "some questions for Dawkins" perhaps you should post them over there.

Steven
Click to expand...

Waddaya chicken? Buk buk buk.

Steven
 
stillthinkin said:
He gives his reasoning:
1. All intelligent things are complex.
2. Complex things come late.
3. God is intelligent.
4. God cannot have been first cause.

The first premise is false, at least for Aquinas. Intelligence as it exists in God is not complex, nor is God himself complex.
Click to expand...

Hmmm...I'm pretty sure that an intelligent being with enough power to create an entire universe is pretty complex...and several degrees more complex than even humankind.

I guess you could propose that eventually life in this universe could become some complex and intelligent that at the end of our days we travel back in time a create the universe all over again. That's a fun paradox to think about...but the definition of "god" becomes so meaningless as to be useful.
 
Lothian said:
Yes really. When you factor into the old readings the effects of Pluto not actually being a planet it realigns the signs with their original dates. I can prove this with a map of the heavens, a dowsing crystal pendulum and a Ouija board.
Click to expand...

I'm convinced.
 
Jerry_ex_machina said:
Hmmm...I'm pretty sure that an intelligent being with enough power to create an entire universe is pretty complex...and several degrees more complex than even humankind.

I guess you could propose that eventually life in this universe could become some complex and intelligent that at the end of our days we travel back in time a create the universe all over again. That's a fun paradox to think about...but the definition of "god" becomes so meaningless as to be useful.
Click to expand...
Well, if you are sure that an absolute power, a "causa sui", has to have at least two gears... who could argue with that. I wonder which gear actually does the thinking?

Your proposal is already the plot of a short story by Isaac Asimov, where God evolves from a computer. If i recall correctly the computer is asked to solve the problem of entropy, and eventually, long after human beings have expired, it solves the problem. The computer then says "let there be light".
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom