|
Author
|
Topic: The God Delusion Debate
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18541 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 2.0
|
|
Message 16 of 99 (885859)
04-28-2021 9:06 AM
|
Reply to: Message 1 by PaulK
04-28-2021 3:36 AM
|
|
PaulK writes: I intend to go through the transcript evaluating the arguments on each side. Rhetoric will be a secondary concern - insofar as the transcript reveals it. Sounds like a good plan with which to build this topic. Do you basically agree with my point that each side interprets relevance and importance differently? As an example, jar often brings up SOURCE vs CONTENT as an approach towards thinking. Secular science would tend to focus on CONTENT more than they would SOURCE as to them, SOURCE would be nothing more than materialistic and objective. Am I right or wrong?
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 1 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2021 3:36 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 19 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2021 9:12 AM | | Phat has replied | | | Message 20 by Percy, posted 04-28-2021 9:16 AM | | Phat has replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18541 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 2.0
|
|
|
Message 17 of 99 (885860)
04-28-2021 9:08 AM
|
Reply to: Message 15 by dwise1
04-28-2021 9:05 AM
|
|
dwise1 writes: If Lennox' opponent is not allowed to rebut, then there cannot be any rebuttal. That is not because Lennox' points have any merit (he does certain misrepresent evolution, so that demonstrates that his "points" have no merit). It's the same pattern we saw in the infamous creationist debates which were rigged to allow the creationist to win. It is very telling that when creationists are confronted with most honest debate formats, they absolutely refuse to participate. Note where the debate is being held, also. While some debates are held in neutral grounds, many debates (and moderators) are partisan towards one "side" or the other.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 15 by dwise1, posted 04-28-2021 9:05 AM | | dwise1 has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22836 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.5
|
|
|
Message 18 of 99 (885861)
04-28-2021 9:09 AM
|
Reply to: Message 9 by robertleva
04-28-2021 8:44 AM
|
|
robertleva writes: Here I will throw on a few others issues I have had rattling around for a while since were at it:
- Entropy runs contrary to naturally organizing lifeforms
- "Primordial soup" that naturally occurring origins of life story we were all taught has been debunked
- sea floor spreading doesn't create any cracks in hard rock that spreads out over thousands of miles
- the earth's mantle is solid and prevents "subduction" of the plates
I received the impression that the issues in your earlier list were from the Lennox/Dawkins debates, but now you seem to be moving on to other issues from the creation/evolution debate that you're interested in but that they didn't discuss. PaulK made it pretty clear in the OP that the topic was one of the Lennox/Dawkins debates. If Lennox and Dawkins discussed these issues then the next step should be to describe what they said, and if they didn't discuss them but you would like to discuss them here then threads for them can be proposed, or you can seek out existing threads. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 9 by robertleva, posted 04-28-2021 8:44 AM | | robertleva has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17877 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 5.7
|
|
|
Message 19 of 99 (885862)
04-28-2021 9:12 AM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by Phat
04-28-2021 9:06 AM
|
|
I really don’t know what to say about your strange ideas on source versus content. Do you mean that you would give Lennox’ arguments more weight because he’s on your side? That would just be bias, and an unfair bias at that.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by Phat, posted 04-28-2021 9:06 AM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 21 by Phat, posted 04-28-2021 9:22 AM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22836 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.5
|
|
|
Message 20 of 99 (885863)
04-28-2021 9:16 AM
|
Reply to: Message 16 by Phat
04-28-2021 9:06 AM
|
|
Phat writes: Sounds like a good plan with which to build this topic. Do you basically agree with my point that each side interprets relevance and importance differently? As an example, jar often brings up SOURCE vs CONTENT as an approach towards thinking. Secular science would tend to focus on CONTENT more than they would SOURCE as to them, SOURCE would be nothing more than materialistic and objective. Am I right or wrong? I have the same reaction as PaulK - this sounds pretty weird. Are you maybe thinking of argument from authority versus argument from evidence? --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 16 by Phat, posted 04-28-2021 9:06 AM | | Phat has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 22 by Phat, posted 04-28-2021 9:37 AM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18541 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 2.0
|
|
|
Message 21 of 99 (885864)
04-28-2021 9:22 AM
|
Reply to: Message 19 by PaulK
04-28-2021 9:12 AM
|
|
Bias is unavoidable?
PaulK writes: I really don’t know what to say about your strange ideas on source versus content. They are taken from Language In Thought & Action, a book which jar introduced to me long ago. Perhaps he can chime in here in a minute.
Do you mean that you would give Lennox’ arguments more weight because he’s on your side? I think that to some degree bias is unavoidable, though mainstream science is taught to avoid it.
Debate Outline writes: First thesis: “Faith is blind; science is evidence based. Second thesis: “Science supports atheism not Christianity.” Third thesis: “Design is dead otherwise one must explain who designed the designer. Fourth thesis: “Christianity is dangerous.” Fifth thesis: “No one needs God to be moral.” Sixth thesis: “Christian claims about the person of Jesus are not true.”. Concluding statements Just to frame my bias before actually listening to this debate, here are my quick answers to the debate format. We can see if I change my mind or if I dig in my heels like a stick-in-the-mud. 
First Thesis. “Faith is blind; science is evidence based. I realize that science is evidence based and ideally unbiased. Faith is blind in the way that Love is blind. Strong believers are in love with Jesus and will show some bias based in part on defending Him or attempting to. The more mature we get, the more we realize that our number One Love needs no defending.
Second thesis: “Science supports atheism not Christianity.” Off the cuff? I agree based on my reasoning from the first thesis.
Third thesis: “Design is dead otherwise one must explain who designed the designer. This one is above my pay grade. No comment so far.
Fourth thesis: “Christianity is dangerous.” AZ Paul3 and Tangle writ large. Ive never agreed with this assertion though I know that many bad things were done using Christian beliefs as a justification. I'll continue in a minute. Edited by Phat, : No reason given.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 19 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2021 9:12 AM | | PaulK has not replied |
|
Phat
Member Posts: 18541 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: 12-30-2003 Member Rating: 2.0
|
|
|
Message 22 of 99 (885866)
04-28-2021 9:37 AM
|
Reply to: Message 20 by Percy
04-28-2021 9:16 AM
|
|
In General
I have the same reaction as PaulK - this sounds pretty weird. Are you maybe thinking of argument from authority versus argument from evidence?
Off the cuff, I would say that Believers/creationists would tend to use the argument from authority whereas Evolutionists/Science Based Critical Thinkers would use the Argument from Evidence. This is a generalization, though.
"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain " *** “…far from science having buried God, not only do the results of science point towards his existence, but the scientific enterprise itself is validated by his existence.”- Dr.John Lennox “The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.”
- Criss Jami, Killo “The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” — Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You
(1894).
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 20 by Percy, posted 04-28-2021 9:16 AM | | Percy has seen this message but not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6479 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 6.8
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 23 of 99 (885870)
04-28-2021 10:19 AM
|
Reply to: Message 4 by robertleva
04-28-2021 7:19 AM
|
|
I watched this debate before
I didn't. And I don't intend to watch it now. I find it hard to think of anything worse than listening to Dawkins attacking religion. But I managed to think of one thing that could be worse, and that's Lennox defending religion.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 4 by robertleva, posted 04-28-2021 7:19 AM | | robertleva has not replied |
|
nwr
Member Posts: 6479 From: Geneva, Illinois Joined: 08-08-2005 Member Rating: 6.8
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 24 of 99 (885871)
04-28-2021 10:28 AM
|
Reply to: Message 6 by robertleva
04-28-2021 7:46 AM
|
|
Something from nothing
A bullshit argument. It is an evidence free argument, so cannot actually demonstrate anything. And, at most, it can make a weak case for deism. But the dishonest apologists then try to turn that into an argument for Christianity.
fine tuning everywhere we look for it
Another bullshit argument. The Douglas Adams "puddle" argument answers it very well.
evolution is actually just stacking more improbability on the already astounding improbability of the something from nothing "explanation" currently given
That's an argument based on ignorance of evolution.
evolution's mechanism is incremental change, but the DNA molecule cannot be improved upon incrementally
Also based on an all too common misunderstanding.
Fundamentalism - the anti-American, anti-Christian branch of American Christianity
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 6 by robertleva, posted 04-28-2021 7:46 AM | | robertleva has not replied |
|
robertleva
Member (Idle past 1253 days) Posts: 35 From: Seminole Joined: 04-23-2021
|
|
|
Message 25 of 99 (885872)
04-28-2021 10:35 AM
|
|
|
I think I see where the thread is going so I will try to summarize / predict the overall outcome: Dawkins fails to convince the faithful. Lennox fails to convince the unfaithful. The above two points must surely be taken for granted. With that in mind can someone please explain to me why on earth I would ever listen to the arguments of some random unqualified poster on a forum like this? I maintain it is completely pointless to debate such concepts in a forum like this. I understand its EvC but I don't have to like it or agree with the pre-baked in conflict that this board creates. These types of low-level debates add nothing to the larger discussion, thus only serve to create division and discord between both sides. We are not Dawkins and Lennox level thinkers. It's time to get realistic about that and stop arguing with each other. Edited by robertleva, : No reason given.Edited by robertleva, : No reason given.
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 26 by Tangle, posted 04-28-2021 10:48 AM | | robertleva has replied | | | Message 30 by Percy, posted 04-28-2021 3:27 PM | | robertleva has not replied | | | Message 36 by Phat, posted 04-29-2021 7:51 AM | | robertleva has not replied |
|
Tangle
Member Posts: 9564 From: UK Joined: 10-07-2011 Member Rating: 5.1
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
robert writes: With that in mind can someone please explain to me why on earth I would ever listen to the arguments of some random unqualified poster on a forum like this? Because you claimed "I've seen those types, the so called "champions of atheism", be hilariously destroyed in public debates by Lennox for example" Which should make it really easy for you. With the exception of Phat we're pretty much rationalists here, we WILL change our minds if there is such strong evidence that people like Dawkins, Hitch, Dennet etc are so easily 'destroyed' by it.
Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. I am Mancunian. I am Brum. I am London.I am Finland. Soy Barcelona "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.
Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved."
- Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by robertleva, posted 04-28-2021 10:35 AM | | robertleva has replied |
|
robertleva
Member (Idle past 1253 days) Posts: 35 From: Seminole Joined: 04-23-2021
|
|
|
Message 27 of 99 (885887)
04-28-2021 1:04 PM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by Tangle
04-28-2021 10:48 AM
|
|
quote:
Which should make it really easy for you. With the exception of Phat we're pretty much rationalists here, we WILL change our minds if there is such strong evidence that people like Dawkins, Hitch, Dennet etc are so easily 'destroyed' by it.
How could it be easy for me if Lennox does nothing for you? Look I fully admit my inability to convince people of things. It really is not even my place to be having these types of discussions because: 1. No new info will be presented from either side, so there is no rational reason to justify: 2. The discussions themselves are divisive and toxic and are yet another vehicle for the enemy to spread hate and discord All I can do is deliver the following message: All you need to do is accept Christ. This message is open to literally anyone of any creed faith orientation / anything. For those who refuse to hear, I give them my prayers and let almighty God do His work.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by Tangle, posted 04-28-2021 10:48 AM | | Tangle has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 32 by Tangle, posted 04-28-2021 5:33 PM | | robertleva has not replied | | | Message 33 by AZPaul3, posted 04-28-2021 9:11 PM | | robertleva has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17877 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 5.7
|
|
|
Message 28 of 99 (885888)
04-28-2021 1:06 PM
|
Reply to: Message 26 by Tangle
04-28-2021 10:48 AM
|
|
He’s obviously aware that Lennox’s arguments aren’t that good. The attempt at poisoning the well in his first post to this thread was a pretty obvious sign.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 26 by Tangle, posted 04-28-2021 10:48 AM | | Tangle has not replied |
|
PaulK
Member Posts: 17877 Joined: 01-10-2003 Member Rating: 5.7
|
(2)
| |
| |
| |
|
|
Message 29 of 99 (885891)
04-28-2021 1:27 PM
|
Reply to: Message 3 by PaulK
04-28-2021 4:38 AM
|
|
“Faith is blind; science is evidence based”
I have skipped the introductions to get onto the debate. This post will cover the first part, including the rebuttal Dawkins included in the time allotted to the second point. The point is illustrated by the quote:
One of the truly bad effects of religion is that it teaches us that it is a virtue to be satisfied with not understanding. I have certainly seen believers who were determined not to understand, so there may be something to that. Then again, a correlation is not sufficient to show causation. Dawkins’ point is a paean of praise for science, and the understanding it has brought us asserting that religion opposes such knowledge. Lennox effectively counters that point by pointing to the many examples of religious scientists. While religion undoubtedly can stifle enquiry in the way Dawkins suggests it does not have to (and - as the Lysenko affair shows - other belief systems can be as bad). The rest of Lennox argument is not so good. He argues that faith is often based in evidence, though as Dawkins points out in his rebuttal he doesn’t really explain why that should be considered “faith” as a thing apart from other evidence-based beliefs. He asserts that his own belief in Jesus is rational and evidence-based but - understandably - doesn’t go beyond assertion. He argues that science cannot make aesthetic or moral judgements or provide an external purpose for our existence - which seems true enough but he doesn’t really tie it to the point. Lennox interrupts Dawkins rebuttal to ask Dawkins has faith in his wife and if Dawkins has evidence. Dawkins replies that he has lots of evidence. The point reduces to another disagreement on the meaning of “faith”. I’ll give Lennox a narrow edge on this exchange, since he did answer Dawkins’ major point. However he only showed it to be a partial truth and his arguments on other points were at best unclear.
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 3 by PaulK, posted 04-28-2021 4:38 AM | | PaulK has replied |
| Replies to this message: | | | Message 40 by PaulK, posted 04-29-2021 8:54 AM | | PaulK has replied |
|
Percy
Member Posts: 22836 From: New Hampshire Joined: 12-23-2000 Member Rating: 5.5
|
(1)
| |
| |
| |
robertleva writes: I think I see where the thread is going so I will try to summarize / predict the overall outcome: Dawkins fails to convince the faithful. Lennox fails to convince the unfaithful. The above two points must surely be taken for granted. If by "must surely be taken for granted" you mean must be assumed true then I have to disagree, due to ambiguity for now, and undoubtedly for other reasons once you remove the ambiguity. I'm referring to the terms "faithful" and "unfaithful." Does faithful refer to fundamenatlist Christians? All Christians? All members of Judeo-Christian faiths? All believers in God? And does unfaithful refer to atheists? Non-Christians? Judeo-Christians? Non-fundamentalist Christians? I'm also not completely certain of the debate's topic, but from what I've heard so far I gather they were debating whether God exists.
With that in mind can someone please explain to me why on earth I would ever listen to the arguments of some random unqualified poster on a forum like this? I maintain it is completely pointless to debate such concepts in a forum like this. How are people here different from anyone you might meet at church, work, social events, etc?
These types of low-level debates add nothing to the larger discussion, thus only serve to create division and discord between both sides. We are not Dawkins and Lennox level thinkers. I don't know that Dawkins or Lennox are the quality thinkers you think they are. I'm not familiar with Lennox, but I've seen lots of bullshit from Dawkins, especially in The God Delusion, which is why I stopped reading it. Discussions here are only "low-level" in that no one here is well known. Discussion here is often highly informed.
It's time to get realistic about that and stop arguing with each other. If the arguments and evidence for Lennox's point of view are so strong (I think you used the word "destroy" at one point) then I don't understand why you don't believe their weight will carry the day once presented here. --Percy
| This message is a reply to: | | | Message 25 by robertleva, posted 04-28-2021 10:35 AM | | robertleva has not replied |
|
™ Version 4.2