Who won the Collins-Dawkins Debate?

Good post TL.I've heard Dawkins a lot now, mainly on TV. His arguments are intelligent, and usually correct but when it comes to God he won't observe the true importance of the agnostic position. He seems to put technically logically correct positions in a mediocre light, in favour of putting his own spin on the God-concept. i.e. persuasive argumentation in order to negate logial argumentation. For that reason he isn't an objectivite, IMHO.I think the problem is that people think science owns truth.The truth is that some truth has been found by science, successfully, but also, falsity has been found. So science is at best a torch in the dark.So this following reasoning will be fallacious;Because science is the only successful finder or truth, there can be no other or we can use science as a subject that disproves faith and any other notions.The correct inference, is that science CAN reveal truth, but because of the UNKNOWN amount of truth faith consists of, and any other subjects then this infact doesn't mean that science owns truth or can have an opinion about other subjects.And so the variables;1--Science can uncover SOME truth.
2--It is unknown as to the capacity of truth, faith holds.
3--How much truth has been uncovered, is unknown, but is highly likely to be little truth when weighed on the scales of full truth.As you can see, number 2 means that it is illogical to dismiss a subject based on ignorance.I admitt that science is the King-shit in this modern era, but I think that it ends at describing how the chocolate bar is made, and should never try to explain why it's so tastey.

My point was that the taste of chocolate cannot be adequately met in any explanation. I should have made that clearer. A scientific explanation of the taste of chocolate, is not required or wanted, in order to taste chocolate. The science will never fully describe/meet the experience.My argument isn't that there isn't a scientific explanation, but that it's irrelevant.The point of this analogy, is to show that logically, science doesn't own truth. The example shows that the tastiness of chocolate lived before science, and independent of it. And also, that science will never describe the "feeling", or be adequate.This logically proves that science doesn't have the say-all on truth, or reality.Th truth of the tastiness of chocolate, only needs to be an experienced feeling, and no more. The tastiness of food was known before science, and is true.Also, this argument is fallacious;science alone reveals truth.
THEN tasty chocolate proves otherwise,
therefore tasty chocolate is science, therefore only science
reveals truth.It's fallacious because if you try and say that our senses are "science" therefore science alone reveals truth, then you're arguing that something that didn't exist, caused it. i.e. the "truth" was known before man-made science ergo science didn't discover it, feeling did.Unfortunately that argument would be pre hoc ergo propter hoc nonsense, which I have came across before. For if feeling was valid to science, then feelings such as the Holy Spirit experience for example, would be deemed as valid.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

This doesn't mean that the tastiness of chocolate is any less true. It's true, it's there, and it was "found" by sensation. Lol. No offense, but in this case, the taste matters more than the science. You see, essentially, this belief can be called a personal bias, but it still revealed truth. That's my point.As you can see, truth can be known, and other things can "illuminate" it, other than science. That's true. But that's all can be said. You can describe the chocolate, why it's tastey, how it happens, etc..but the tastiness of it is not met by any of that. Unless the person tastes it, then reading the book about it is a far cry from the real thing.I understand that boffins might want to get at the details, as to how and why there is a chocolatey joy experienced, but my point is that;1. Chocolate is tasty, an illuminated truth, without science.
2. The experience of it makes science look silly.This is why I occasionally feel sorry for those who don't have faith, and explain it away. The only way I can describe this is to give this example of the chocolate bar.It's quite possible that faith might be the only way to illuminate the truth that God exists.If chocolate had never been tasted, and you done your experiments and told me it must be tastey - then fine. But you and I know that the actual full truth of the experience could only be known via sensation. That could be the same with God, perhaps there is no way to fully acknowledge the truth of God except through experience.Forgive me if I am irrefutable/

That doesn't equate to the fullness of a person's faith. I, for example, haven't had a religious experience that could be replicated, as I haven't had one as such. But the whole experience of a person's faith, cannot be replicated, as that is a unique causal chain of events. You can make experience look inconsequential and mediocre if you try, ofcourse. But I'm suggesting that faith might be the feeler that findeth God, rather than the science-feeler. I'm not saying that you're saying that but you seem to incessantly throw-out scientific data. I'm not against you doing this, but I'm just wondering what you're trying to get at. I'm not really questioning you, if anything I'm trying to prove to you, an epistemological point.When I refer to "truth" I'm defining it in the logical notation. True, valid, false. This is easiest because then we don't have to toy with semantics.In this case, my syllogism would thus be;- I have tasted chocolate(true)
- I experienced chocolatey joy, yum.(oh that's true)
- Therefore chocolate is tastey to me.I'm looking at this from a philosophical position. Atleast SOME internal knowledge is valid, AND CAN BE VERIFIED by science, if anything. Usually my eyes work fine - ergo we should assume that just because I see something amazing, doesn't mean I didn't see it.I think personally, that you think I'm arguing that science cannot be applied to tasting chocolate, and the biological effects thereof.My argument is that science is not necessary in some areas, according to parsimony, whence concerning the tastiness of chocolate.

The statement was obviously allegorical.I am saying that in some cases, experience matters more than science, and can reveal truth.So my point is that truth can be known, from internal knowledge.It's the pragmatics of my assertion that matters in this case, not how literal it's taken. I would obviously not mean that there isn't a biological explanation for sensations. Lol!Patronising from Larni, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt in the hope that you believe that I have some brains.

That's why I said, "some". All it takes is that one example of experience is true, in order to fulfill the premise;Experience can reveal truth.Therefore, it might be true that only faith can find out the truth about God in the same manner that only tasting a chocolate can reveal it's tastiness.It is rare that there is an optical illusion.Should we assume a religious experience is an illusion or a hallucination, in all cases?Just because you're lost doesn't mean your compass is broken.

So if I experience that chocolate is tastey, it's not true that it's tastey to me?I'm afraid that's not logically correct.Experience, as in this example, very much can reveal truth. And it's begging the question to assume a conclusion.Sure, if we KNOW it's a hallucination or illusion, then fine, but that's self-evident. Yet let's pretend that 100% of the time, the person's eyes work fine and s/he doesn't hallucinate? Is it reasonable to assume s/he then hallucinates because of this experience?I'm not sure that's an entirely concrete assumption.

It doesn't have to, to be true.It is factual that chocolate is tastey to me. That IS true. It's not a matter of subjectivity or objectivity. It fulfills both.Who would actually be so silly as to say that chocolate being tastey to me, isn't true? Why on earth would I disbelieve reality?Trying to undermine this for peace of mind, by pretending it's a subjective irrelevance, won't make it any less true than a scientific fact. Talk about cognitive dissonance.It is logically true and real, that chocolate is tastey to me. Get over it guys.Any attempted refutation of these facts can only be met with derision.All that matters is that it's true, because of experience alone.At this stage I must claim that I am irrefutably unrefuted, and that you and Larni aren't willing to learn from the Master of irrefutability.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.Edited by mike the wiz, : No reason given.

You're quite correct. That's why I don't claim that experience shapes the world around us.My only point is that if an experience CAN reveal truth, then science isn't the only thing that can reveal truth.So then if you said;Only science is the authority on truth.That would be incorrect.It's all very complicated. To show how omplicated it is, science will uncover truth potentially, but also, theories can be false. Experiences can reveal truth, and experience can produce falsehood.It is still my opinion, (as I said earlier), that science is the best, so far, at revealing truth.At best, at very, very most, I am suggesting that there is a very small possibility that a faith experience might reveal truth about God, and to therefore try and find that truth about God, through science, might be totally misplaced.Such as a chocolate bar. My example.There is no way to reveal the truth about the taste of a chocolate bar, except the experience.Like trying to explain colour to a blind man. Would he prefer an explanation of what colour is, or would he prefer to see.Then heed my wisdom, I request.

Something subjective can be verified objectively. That's what I meant. "Only" implies that there is less worth in one truth, over another truth. There isn't. Something is either true or false according to the law of the excluded middle, unless there are exceptional mitigating circumstances that render the argument an exception to bivalence.(Such as the famous ship example; "in exactly twenty years a yellow and pink ship will sink in the Mersey". -- Neither true nor false, at this stage)So I can understand true, false or neither, but I can't understand something being less true, or of less worth that another truth. It simply is, or is not.I know you want to undermine this as something less than a scientific truth. That is not so. I refer to "truth" in a logical capacity, wherein there are no bias circumstances. It can be objectively verified, that I have sensations when I taste, according to Larn's earlier explanations of those biological effects. The difference is that it IS TRUE that to me, chocolate is tastey, because that's a reality, whereas I only believe God exists.It's a truism, that foods are tastey. It is not a truism that God exists. In that sense, I take the agnostic position, because I don't know if God exists. God is also an exception to bivalence.

Neither does the universe care who gets killed.Theists know this too.If I make a room ready for a new child, the room won't care about the child. I shall make that room, nevertheless, and I do care about the child within it.But what if I make a large room for many children? Perhaps then I will choose to get builders in. It is therefore my decision, if I know that the workers could be cowboys, that can't do the work as good as me, for I have foreseen that this room will have evil children, therefore I shall make those children the victims of chance. Later on I will, when I choose, me being in charge, remove the evil children, and rebuild the house with my own hands, and only good children shall remain.

Lets say it's 90 misses and 10 hits. What can you infer?You still couldn't infer that prayers are false, because of trump-factor and the fallacy of exclusivity thereof.One amazing proof can trump 99% of induction.Example; Ali can't hit hard, he's won most of his fights by means of rope-a-dope and jab. He dances, and avoids being hit.That's true - most of his fights were like that. BUT, (the exclusive evidence) he did knock people out, including one of the most powerful boxers, George Foreman.Aha! So that information wasn't considered! You see the problem?I mention these things, because you yourself have biases, and have repeated many skeptical terms ad nauseum. Terms like confirmation bias and wishful thinking.Do you never change your opinions? It seems that you have your own opinions, and you then GATHER information that favours and confirms those opinions, such as these biases you mention so often, even when they might not even be that influential at all.Many times, prayer requests happen in an exterior context.That is, things we couldn't possibly influence, come to pass. That has a certain trump-factor that you have to experience.Things in life are so complicated, and so far from black and white, as you know, that even our very own trajectories in life are so complex, that these terms might not even apply. You can't repeat a person's life in a lab experiment. Sometimes, a believer can't even articulate why they believe their prayers are answered, overall.Just think of the different premisses!If you have a Hindu religion, you start with premisses from an interpreted theology, that you yourself could be wrong about.If you're Christian, you start out with a completely different set of premisses. Those premisses could all be cleverly crafted to make God unfalsifiable, OR they could be genuine. So then what?For example;"Ask anything in prayer and if it is the father's will, it shall be added unto you. --Jesus Christ. (similar words).You see. An impossible postion already, because if a prayer is a miss, it could be the father's will. Now start with that premise and add another hundred that I have come up with because my theology requires it, and THEN calculate and add up the impossible variables, and then at best you've just begun. For I have had MANY misses, only to find that if that prayer had come to pass, then it would have been disastrous. Now what shall we consider in this endlessly complex futile attempt to test prayer? Let's say that all of the bad world events, such as the tsunami, are huge negatives for God, B U T, what if God DID save 3 million people, and we simply had no way of knowing BECAUSE they didn't die? Then we have unwittingly partaken in gross slothful induction. What if God deflected a meteor that would have hit earth a hundred years ago, and so he saved 6 billion lives?Have you considered all of this? These are a few things I have considered during my compulsive over-thinking bouts.

An unworthy ad hominem irrelevancy. Also begging the question because it assumes that our knowing this would make us agree with you. It also assumes that this makes you correct, AUDIATUR ET ALTERA PARS.Everything I said was sound.You seem to argue from arrogance Shraff. Making out that you're the great educated one, and we're the uneducated theist-twurps, and therefore you're correct.

Yes. That's about it. Personally, I have witnessed what I qualify as "miracles" or more adequately, answered prayers. That would be a sound modus ponen, but I don't think you can rely on it, because of the possibility that God doesn't want to be a guinea pig for arrogant humans. That particular ponen would have to be tested, and the complexities of the individual's faith render experiment insufficient to say the least. My whole point in this thread, is to voice how silly it is, to apply science to God in anyway. Here's an example of some problems with my own personal beliefs, which are not considered in prayer experiments, for example. You see, God is not a vendor machine. He doen't dole out prayer goodies; Problem 1. What if do disbelieve somewhat, or you doubt? What if the majority of people pray in a disbelieving manner, because they think it's the right thing to do. You know, goup pressure. There are lots of people who have faith, or believe they have faith but don't seriously consider that a prayer COULD be answered. Very few I know actually believe in the power of prayer. Problem 2. What if you're not in good standing with God?Now these factors start to add up. Add these factors to my penultimate post to Shraff, and you have a hell of a job. So atleast for a Christian, it would be unlikely that that Christian would believe that prayer experiment would reveal much about their God.I personally would say that out of all of my prayers, prayer requests make up about 10% of my prayers.In the past, I have also told Shraff and others that based on my own theology, I believe that prayer might only be relevant to the individual and God.No matter how immoral it sounds, if a person is trapped and I don't pray, they might die - but based on my personal experience, God will save/heal people, if I request it.Also, I have noticed that I only see great evidence of God WHEN I CARE TREMENDOUSLY.This would usually equate with genuine depression, and what I call the fervour, which is a kind of rush of selfless firey passion within me. So when I really care, more than anything, I see results.Last Christmas, a baba was in a coma...and that did genuinely spoil my Christmas. Three and four and five times I prayed with spirit, and the baba was healed. Now I see her run up and down the street happy.Now, what fool would concentrate on a silly science evaluation, rather than the reality of tasting that chocolate bar? A very sad and cold fish!THESE are my final words. Thanks.

Vacuous evasive epithets. No offense meant.Shraff please, you're all over the place. You didn't even address one point from message #125.I don't need courses. Hell I haven't even mentioned statistics or four categories. Are you sure you're not reading other people's posts accidentally???Shraff, please, you're up against God here, you can't beat God's lawyer, he's irrefutable.Listen, Rambo says, "you drew first blood, not me", to Brain Dennehy.I'm going to have to say that "you drew first mud, not me."