This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← Refuting supernatural

Jos Gibbons's Avatar Jump to comment 47 by Jos Gibbons


Firstly, format your quotations properly or it looks very confusing. Secondly, you said you’d only post 1 comment at a time, and then you posted comments 41 and 42. Thirdly, you’re wrong for all the reasons I’m about to say (not to mention what others have said while I was sleeping). Fourth (added after the rest of this post was drafted), if I’m ruder than previously, it’s because you’re dumber than previously. Seriously – you’re on a decline.

Please provide an example.

Why don’t I let the master himself do it? You seem uneager to read his book, so here’s a much shorter list of examples he provides.

science undermines any unevidenced hypothesis even if only some versions of it are falsifiable, because of the epistemic obligations in tow.
Again, please provide an example.

That response proves you didn’t understand what I was saying. One of the principles of science is we should only believe what evidence supports. As long as no evidence supports a claim, I don’t need evidence against it to justify not believing it. If you don’t think such is so, I don’t know what you even think the point of science is.

You could start by looking at a Wikepedia [sic] entry on mathematical Platonism.

I suspected when you first said you expected a philosophical dictionary would prove your point when you blatantly hadn’t looked at one to check first that you like to recommend others do research you yourself haven’t. Now I’m more confident of this than ever. Upon searching Wikipedia for mathematical Platonism, one is redirected to the page Philosophy of Mathematics, which has a subsection on that topic. But “%”, “percent” and “per cent” are all absent from the article, and so it doesn’t say anything about this. If you think Wikipedia does contain this information I invite you to prove it. But what’s the point? Any reputable source will do. But what would be the point even of finding out how popular Platonism is? Make a case for it!

Where do I say that? Please provide an exact quotation. I explained very precisely how your claim was self-undermining without making any such reference.

So you literally don’t understand the structures of your own arguments. Ironic, considering your love of pointing out perceived fallacies in others’ arguments (about which you’re often wrong due to not understanding their subtle definitions). In this case A = my principle about evidence & B – your claim that no evidence supports A.

If you wish to claim that a belief is irrational, you will need to provide a definition of "irrational"

Why? I’m not going to define every English word I ever use in talking to you. You should know what rationality is – you’re posting on! If you were posting on a physics forum, I’d expect you to know what energy is. But then you did only start posting on this site to take the dumb side on this thread. This is yet another reason not to trust your terrible analyses.

What "broader method"? Please outline your method in a concise statement and provide some examples of "irrational" beliefs.

Do you have comprehension difficulties? My method is the one I’ve mentioned repeatedly – if evidence supports it, accept it. You want examples of irrational beliefs? I’d be amazed if you couldn’t list many of them yourself, and it would be very revealing if, upon attempting to do so, something went wrong. Let’s hear your examples, since you seem so confident even supernatural claims don’t qualify as irrational.

Godel, Frege and Plantinga would be just three counterexamples to this

If they’re ghosts. Can you prove these men exist now as ghosts?

Craig has thrashed numerous atheist opponents in debate.He seems to be a very astute logician. Lets not forget that Richard Dawkins has declined to debate with him. Why exactly is that in your opinion?

Firstly, debate doesn’t have the right format to find truth, so Craig’s debating skills don’t make him right. He only “thrashes” opponents by (a) the judgement of his fans and (b) (insofar as he does so) because he has rhetoric skills.
But secondly, to say he “seems to be a very astute logician” proves you don’t know much about logic yourself. For example, he still thinks versions of the ontological argument work, even though that contradicts the fact that “there’s an x such that x equals x”, and hence all statements of the form “there’s an x such that phi(x)”, aren’t tautologies. Then he says such arguments make their conclusions likely, even though as an argument for what is necessarily true its quality is all-or-nothing! And he uses Moore’s open-question argument, which proves he doesn’t understand the difference between attributes and essences. And so on for a depressingly long list of other examples. If you want to gain an encyclopaedic knowledge of them, search YouTube for “William Lane Craig is Not” to look at him proving his incompetence at various disciplines he pretends support his beliefs.
Thirdly, Dawkins made very clear why he wouldn’t debate Craig: because (a) Craig is a creationist and so it would violate a standing policy Dawkins announced years ago to avoid giving them the oxygen of respectability, (b) debates have trouble enough as it is illuminating thought and a guy who makes it his profession automatically ruins it, and (c) at the time the challenge was thrown out Craig had proven himself to be a supporter of genocide and even sharing a stage with him would be disgusting. If you want to know why Dawkins won’t debate William Lane Craig, do you know what you could have done – and therefore clearly didn’t do? Google “Why I won’t debate William Lane Craig” – it’s a well-trodden topic on this very website!

Don’t you do any research?

state the theistic definition of the impossible and contrast it with the atheistic one

Firstly, there are several kinds of impossibility, whether you’re a theist or an atheist. The first is logical impossibility. If you don’t know what that means, please don’t come back until you do. After that, things can be “impossible” in lesser senses – but will they be? On theism, just about nothing will be because God’s omnipotent so could make it happen. A couple of exceptions might be made because “doing that would be contrary to God’s nature”, though in the examples I’ve heard they’re things someone else can and often does do, and which He doesn’t interfere to stop. By contrast, naturalists say that which contradicts physical law is impossible. Some atheists aren’t naturalists, and that’s deplorable of them, just as it is to be that other subspecies of non-naturalist, the theist.

This makes no sense: since the word "God" does not state a proposition how can it be a premise, hidden or otherwise?

It’s like you’re deliberately not understanding shorthand to throw up obstacles. Here the proposition would be “God exists”.

Steve Zara has already thrashed how your comment 42 ends, where you basically ask us to give evidence for the nonexistence of evidence for the existence of God. I don’t have to prove there’s no evidence for something – if you think there is, give it! Are you going to actually give evidence for some supernatural claim, or are you going to do literally anything else, i.e. waste all our time? In fact, God wouldn't even be the most fun one any more - I want proof Frege et al now exist as ghosts; or, less ambitiously, just proof any ghost exist.

Sat, 14 Jul 2012 07:21:28 UTC | #949158