DAwkins interviews creationist automaton

[yorkshirelad]

I did? Sorry, really. I don't wish to group people at all, if it came off that way I didn't mean to.

Not a problem mate!!

 

[Xinglu]

Proof presented: God exists.
Proof presented: God does not exist.
No proof presented: God might or might not exist.

Now, there can be no proof of God's non-existance, religion is not falsifiable. Think about it yourself, what scientific experiment could be performed to prove God's non-existence?

So we're left with only:

Proof presented: God exists.
No proof presented: God might or might not exist.

If we cannot prove God exists, then we are left with only one result:

No proof presented: God might or might not exist.

The lack of proof for God does not mean God definitely does not exist. The lack of proof against God does not mean God definitely does exist. All we can say with regard to God is that He may or may not exist.

Those who believe in God do so based on faith.

I get what you are saying and in form it is correct, however "proof presented" would better read as "assertion" since they are statements not proofs.

So we have the following Assertions: G (god exists), -G (Not God, or God does not exist), & A (agnostic or without certainty or ability to conclude). We will use P for emperical proof.

The formulas: -P that -G =G, -P that G =-G are both incorrect in form and function. However, -P that -G = A, P that G = A are valid because they express that no conclusion can be made from the statements made.

The only thing we can logically conclude is that we don't know if God exists or does not exist. Anything outside of logical uncertainty is taken on faith. and should read as either probably G or probably -G because neither can be ruled completely out and to do so is a logical fallacy.

 

[celtic_crippler]

Your notes do not say that. You are reading them as they were apparently given to you, but you clearly do not understand them.

You mean as I wrote them. But since you said they were given to me then that must be what happened because you're never wrong. I must've imagined writing all that. Kind of like how you imagine you're right. LOL

You did not say that. You said that the isolation was the cause of the evolutionary change. The change happens regardless. One environment may favor it, another may not.

More like how you interpretted what I said. By all means don't take any responsibility for being wrong. But then, that assumes you would actually admit that you were wrong and I've never seen you do that.

No. Their beaks did not evolve to adapt. That is incorrect, and Darwin did not say that. They mutated, which resulted in differently-shaped beaks. One mutation was superior to another for whatever type of food was available on any given island. Your description gives an anthropomorphic reason for evolution. Evolution is purely random chance. You say "X happened, and therefore Y adapted to meet the change imposed by X." No. In reality, X happened, and a random mutation resulted in a Y adaptation, which happened to be more successful based on X conditions.

WRONG.

I know you refuse to follow a link, especially since they most often show how wrong you are so I'll post it directly...

Darwin's finches (also known as the Galápagos Finches or as Geospizinae) are 13 or 14 separate combinatory species of Passerine birds (related to American Emberizidae or Tanagers rather than European finches) related to a group that Charles Darwin collected on the Galápagos Islands during the voyage of the Beagle. Thirteen reside on the Galápagos Islands and one on Cocos Island. The term Darwin's Finches was first applied by Percy Lowe in 1936, and popularised in 1947 by David Lack in his book Darwin's Finches.[1][2]
The birds are all about the same size (10–20 cm). The most important differences between species are in the size and shape of their beaks, and the beaks are highly adapted to different food sources.

On the off chance that you actually care to expand your realm of knowledge...and perhaps be right in the future so as not to be a source of entertainment for Omar's buddies, here's the link in case you want to read more.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Darwin's_finches

I have not stated anything regarding the use of an appendix. What I have stated is that humans being born with one or without one (a mutation) confers no survival or reproductive advantage, therefore it is not evolutionary. If it is not evolutionary, one cannot extrapolate that eventually, humans will have no appendixes.

Have you been watching all the X-Men movies? All this talk of mutations...

It would not matter. You defend your statements because you are emotionally invested in them. That is yet another demonstration that they are faith-based.

I don't have to defend them, because they're facts.

I can't decide whether you actually believe the things you post or if you do it just to play Devil's advocate and/or entertainment purposes.

I love those kinds of questions, where any answer given is wrong. Let me try one:

When did you quit beating your wife?

Not really...I'll show you by responding to your question: I'm not married. :moon:

Try again. :bangahead:

 

[Omar B]

Furthermore, Omar, to say that people who admit that they don't know are only trying to appease others is setting up a false dichotomy and it seems clear to me that you are attempting to poison the well so that no one is credible who does take up a agnostic stance. This, my friend, is poor argumentation and a minefield of fallacies.

I hear ya man, but I'm not trying to poison any wells or dykes or dams for that matter. I usually think of this quote in relation to agnostics.
The agnostic miscalculates. He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody. In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect. He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported. So he is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: he equates the groundless and the proved. As such, he is an epistemological destroyer. The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack. The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be. - Leonard Peikoff

 

[celtic_crippler]

It would be if I said that.

You did.

If God were to manifest tomorrow, and everyone accepted it as 'real', would the previous faith of those who believe today no longer have been faith? No, it would still have been faith today. Because faith is not related to facts, it is just faith.

No, then there would be proof and it would be a fact.

I don't, but there are people who do. Faith is not proof, but faith is also not disproof.

Why not? At least the Tooth Fairy gives you cash money. I mean, if you're going to believe in something you may as well get paid! :lol:

I don't get your point on this one.

Replace "alien" with "God" and you will.

Ah, now I see. A statement which cannot be falsified is not necessarily true. It merely cannot be falsified.

So, yet again, you're saying that because God's existance can not be falsified I can not assert he does not exist and you can assert that he does.

Fair enough. I don't begrudge anyone believing in anything they want to believe in; especially since I can't disprove the existance of an invisible man sitting up in the clouds judging me and everything I do. A loving and merciful man that will burn my soul for all eternity if I don't believe in him.

...hmmm...maybe I should rethink this! I mean, what do I have to lose? I'd rather err on the side of caution than risk buring in hell-fire for all eternity.

God is a two-sided coin with respect to reality. He either exists or He does not. There is no reality in which God does and does not exist. One might argue for the existence of a quantum reality in which God has a probability of existing or not, but we can keep this simple.

With respect to reality? :lfao:

One might argue that the Greek Gods are still in charge, but why bother? LOL

Actually, if we're talking probability...it's more probable that your Christian God does not exist. If for no other reason than, considering we group all denominations together including Catholics and Protestants, only about 33% of the entire world is Christian.

However, proof is not a two-sided coin. There is proof, there is disproof, and there is lack of proof. Lack of proof is the equivalent of saying "We do not know." There is neither proof nor disproof for God, so 'we do not know' if He exists or not.

If there's a lack of proof in support of one's belief, doesn't it go without saying that you can't prove it? Therefore, you either can or can't prove a thing...so it's kinda' like a two sided coin ain't it; you either prove it or you don't.

You can't prove God exists. I can't prove that he doesn't.

What we can do is present arguments for and against based on what we do know however. And in that case, most often what we do know tends to lend itself to showing that it's most likely He does not. (Your Christian God that is.)

 

[Archangel M]

Dawkins.

As with all things "human" you cannot leave out the aspect of Ego and wanting to "lord it over" other people.

I have met many snarky, inflated, pompous academics who may be intelligent, may even be right, but are flaming *******s about it.

 

[Makalakumu]

I'm an avowed atheist and I pretty much see things like this as a step toward persecution. Our country used to stay out of the religions business because we learned these lessons the hard way in the Old World.

 

[Xinglu]

I hear ya man, but I'm not trying to poison any wells or dykes or dams for that matter. I usually think of this quote in relation to agnostics.
The agnostic miscalculates. He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody. In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect. He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported. So he is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: he equates the groundless and the proved. As such, he is an epistemological destroyer. The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack. The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be. - Leonard Peikoff

Unfortunately that quote is ad hominem, yet another fallacy (they seem to be popping up everywhere on this thread!). The reality is, it IS the logical position and has nothing to do with not offending anyone, safety, or venerability. I offend a lot of people by using logic. Sometimes I enjoy doing so, but I also believe in being honest and rational. And If I don't know something, the honest thing is to admit it. And in listening to the arguments on both sides, logic cannot conclude one way or the other so one is left with making an emotional decision based on faith or abstaining from an illogical conclusion. I abstain because I value my integrity and I cannot have any certainty in theism or atheism. That does not a coward make just an honest person. As I said - People may speak to the probability of A God or Not A God but to speak to the certainty is illogical, irrational, self-deluded, and to a degree dishonest with themselves. They may want to be certain, they may even think they are, but when we get down to brass tacks they are basing their conclusions on emotions not facts.

 

[crushing]

I hear ya man, but I'm not trying to poison any wells or dykes or dams for that matter. I usually think of this quote in relation to agnostics.
The agnostic miscalculates. He thinks he is avoiding any position that will antagonize anybody. In fact, he is taking a position which is much more irrational than that of a man who takes a definite but mistaken stand on a given issue, because the agnostic treats arbitrary claims as meriting cognitive consideration and epistemological respect. He treats the arbitrary as on a par with the rational and evidentially supported. So he is the ultimate epistemological egalitarian: he equates the groundless and the proved. As such, he is an epistemological destroyer. The agnostic thinks that he is not taking any stand at all and therefore that he is safe, secure, invulnerable to attack. The fact is that his view is one of the falsest—and most cowardly—stands there can be. - Leonard Peikoff

:BSmeter:

I don't know if Mr. Peikoff as an authority we are to find appealing, but this quote just doesn't stand. Considering the strong will and conviction of both the religious fundamentalists and the staunch anti-theists (agnostics don't seem to bother the more moderate atheists too much), the agnostic seems to be the only one with the courage to admit he does not know and that presently there is no way of knowing, and this DOES antagonize many from both sides, including yourself, despite the claims to the contrary by Mr. Peikoff.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I think Bill was commenting on you presenting evolution as a guided process. "People are born without an appendix because they're no longer needed." Makes it sound like the evolutionary process is picking and choosing traits in a conscious manner.

Sorry I missed your response. Yes, that's it exactly.

If people are born with an appendix and live to reproduce, they've made it. If they're born without an appendix and live, they're also viable. (Though they might not be as good at survival as someone with an appendix since the new theory is that the appendix is used as a place to store extra digestive bacteria to repopulate the digestive tract in the event of a disease killing off most of the e coli etc that facilitates digestion.) That's all evolution is. Does a trait aid survival of a line or not? If the trait's undesirable or not as good relative to environment the organism is in, the line may die off. If the trait is beneficial, the line doesn't die.

One can take it farther - in order for the mutation to become an evolutionary change, it not only give an edge in survival, but it has to do so before reproduction. If people reproduce first and then die of appendicitis, then being born without an appendix is no advantage at all, just another mutation that may or may not become common.

And yet more - as we humans tend to interfere with what would otherwise be natural selection, most of the old rules no longer apply. We don't let people with appendicitis die, which *might* give people born without an appendix a survival / reproduction edge. So there goes that advantage again. Just a mutation, not evolutionary change.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

I get what you are saying and in form it is correct, however "proof presented" would better read as "assertion" since they are statements not proofs.

So we have the following Assertions: G (god exists), -G (Not God, or God does not exist), & A (agnostic or without certainty or ability to conclude). We will use P for emperical proof.

The formulas: -P that -G =G, -P that G =-G are both incorrect in form and function. However, -P that -G = A, P that G = A are valid because they express that no conclusion can be made from the statements made.

The only thing we can logically conclude is that we don't know if God exists or does not exist. Anything outside of logical uncertainty is taken on faith. and should read as either probably G or probably -G because neither can be ruled completely out and to do so is a logical fallacy.

Thank you, you said it much better than I did. I played with that language in college, admittedly I am not good enough with expressing it, although I am clear on the concepts.

 

[Bill Mattocks]

So, yet again, you're saying that because God's existance can not be falsified I can not assert he does not exist and you can assert that he does.

Not at all, you can assert that God does not exist. There is no proof that God does not exist, and so if you assert that, you have faith that it is true - not proof. This sort of belief is common, but indistinguishable from religion - believing something to be true that cannot be proven.

When I assert God exists - I am engaging in faith because there is no proof.

When you assert God does not exist - you are engaging in faith because there is no proof.

The only statement that can be made about God that is based on fact and not faith is that we do not know if God exists or not.

Fair enough. I don't begrudge anyone believing in anything they want to believe in; especially since I can't disprove the existance of an invisible man sitting up in the clouds judging me and everything I do. A loving and merciful man that will burn my soul for all eternity if I don't believe in him.

...hmmm...maybe I should rethink this! I mean, what do I have to lose? I'd rather err on the side of caution than risk buring in hell-fire for all eternity.

Pascal's Wager. It's basic philosophy. Has holes in it.

Actually, if we're talking probability...it's more probable that your Christian God does not exist. If for no other reason than, considering we group all denominations together including Catholics and Protestants, only about 33% of the entire world is Christian.

Personally, I don't know what the probability is that God exists or does not exist. I would accept as axiomatic that if God exists, He is not as I had pictured Him or as the Catholic Church holds Him to be.

If there's a lack of proof in support of one's belief, doesn't it go without saying that you can't prove it? Therefore, you either can or can't prove a thing...so it's kinda' like a two sided coin ain't it; you either prove it or you don't.

Side one: Prove
Side two: Disprove
Side three: Cannot prove or disprove

Three sides.

You can't prove God exists. I can't prove that he doesn't.

Correct.

What we can do is present arguments for and against based on what we do know however. And in that case, most often what we do know tends to lend itself to showing that it's most likely He does not. (Your Christian God that is.)

Subject to debate, but that's not the debate we were having. If you want to have that debate, it's OK with me. Doctor Stephen Unwin used Bayes Theory to calculate a 67% chance that an omnipotent being exists. That says nothing about 'my Christian God' of course, it merely posits that the chances are higher that a God exists than that a God does not. I don't think I believe that statistic, but it's interesting.

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

Santa is real... traps set on Christmas Eve...

I like the way you think, sir!

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

Evolution therefore is not a matter of faith, as it is a provable concept, whether or not an individual has taken the time to gain an understanding themselves, it can be proven, and has been to gain it's established place within science. At best, you are saying that people have an uneducated belief that evolution is correct, but that is still not the same as faith.

And in this, belief in evolution is like belief in DNA. Not faith, belief.

+1

Chris explained my thinking on this subject in a much more articulate way than I did. Thanks buddy.

 

[arnisador]

Einstein wasn't an atheist and rebuked those who said he was.

Einstein's views on religion were complicated, but he generally referred to himself as an agnostic and always denied the notion of a personal deity:

"My position concerning God is that of an agnostic."

"I have repeatedly said that in my opinion the idea of a personal God is a childlike one. You may call me an agnostic, but I do not share the crusading spirit of the professional atheist whose fervor is mostly due to a painful act of liberation from the fetters of religious indoctrination received in youth."

"The word God is for me nothing more than the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of honourable, but still primitive legends which are nevertheless pretty childish."

He disliked being called an atheist for several reasons, including that "the doctrine of a personal God interfering with natural events could never be refuted ... by science, for [it] can always take refuge in those domains in which scientific knowledge has not yet been able to set foot", but he was not a religious man either--and most certainly not organized religion.

 

[Archangel M]

Has evolution become a "law" while I wasn't looking?

 

[Jenny_in_Chico]

Tell you what, produce proof of your PhD in Biology and perhaps I will entertain your assertion that I am wrong.

Celtic, if I show you my degree will you become my lackey and do my evil bidding?

 

[Sukerkin]

More of an underlying organising principle of chemical bonding than anything else.

EDIT: In response to Angel there - Jenny popped a post in whilst my fingers slept laggardly on my keyboard

 

[Bill Mattocks]

Has evolution become a "law" while I wasn't looking?

Yes, perhaps.

Evolution is both a theory and a fact. The fact is that organisms change over time. The theory is what is currently believed about the mechanisms that bring that about.

When people say "The theory of evolution," there is often a basic misunderstanding of the term. Many think it means evolution itself has not been proven. It has.

 

[arnisador]

But I know there is evidence for string theory, etc. I just haven't evaluated the evidence firsthand.

Heh, string theory may not be the best example of something for which there is evidence--more and more other physicists complain that it's just mathematical masturbation.

Hawkins doesn't necessarily want to interview or be interviewed by them because once you get past the argument of evolution, there is no way of knowing if there is or isn't a deity.

Agreed--strictly speaking, scientists should (in their professional roles) be agnostics, not atheists. Similarly, the same would be true of unicorns, vampires, Counter-Earth, and whether or not we're all just brains in vats--these aren't disproven, it's just that evidence to support such contentions are lacking. But there comes a point where one stops drawing such a strict distinction between lack of evidence and evidence of lack, at least when not speaking formally and carefully. After all this time without evidence of supernatural entities, serious doubt in their existence is justified.