cybercoma Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 I decided to go back and read what I posted on bambino's endorsement. Contrary to our contradictory approaches to social policy and governance, I believe he does have sound rational arguments for his side. Immediately this quote jumped out at me: As I stressed at the time, I did not come to debate the existence of God, but rather to debate about evidence for the existence of God. I think this is the single most overlooked fact by devotees when they discuss Dawkins and other "Atheists", such as Krauss here. Earlier in the thread I made this very point that Richard Dawkins does not argue that God does not exist. He argues about the evidence for God's existence. The null hypothesis is that God does not exist and his job as a scientist, indeed all of our jobs as rational human beings, is to look for evidence that contradicts the null hypothesis. There is very little evidence to contradict the null hypothesis. Certainly, nothing extraordinary enough to support the extraordinary claim that there is a supernatural creator with an active role answering prayers and otherwise being an intercessory power or that if this entity exists that it is the Christian God at all and not some other being. Dawkins will not debate Craig for the very reason that Craig overlooks this very simple fact. Devotees are already convinced without evidence. They've won the debate before it has even began and it seems this is the problem Krauss ran into. When asked to provide evidence for the existence of God, they resort to begging the question fallacies (ie: [simplified] God is real because he exists) and other such nonsense. Most atheists simply do not believe in the existence of God, but the logical ones, like Dawkins and Krauss, leave the door open for being convinced by evidence that is persuasive. They do not debate that God does not exist because that is not a position that can be proven and for that matter does not need to be proved. It is the devotees that have a rather simple task of showing evidence for God's existence. It's quite easy. Given the monumental effects that God is supposed to have on humanity, there should be mountains of evidence. Unfortunately, they have been unable to produce anything. Until then, rational atheists and agnostics will wait to be convinced. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) Krauss expresses in the article quoted by cybercoma that he was already well aware of where he stood in the minds of the audience before debating even started: "...the 1200 smiling young faces in the audience, who earnestly came out, mostly to hear Craig." That's what he said. That statement alone is quite loaded, don't you think? Why did he have the need to even say that. It's kinda like a sore loser from a contest saying, "I knew beforehand the contest was rigged!" or "I just knew right away the judges were biased!" So, Craig was preaching to the converted. It sounded more like Krauss knew he bombed in his arguments/rebutt (as how William Craig explained in the rebutting article I provided, "Craig on Krauss." Krauss scrambled to write that article trying to save face....or ego.....or his upcoming book! Which leads me back again to my statement: the preacher winning purely because the majority of those he was preaching to were already converts isn't, in any way, a surprise, and thus nothing to brag about. We're not bragging, believe me! But by those numbers that showed how much Craig won the debate.....perhaps we get to understand why someone must be quaking in his boots, so afraid to go one-on-one with William Craig! He won't even come out to defend his own book, God Delusion! Edited June 22, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) Earlier in the thread I made this very point that Richard Dawkins does not argue that God does not exist. He argues about the evidence for God's existence. Then all the more he should come out to debate Craig on that ground! Dawkins will not debate Craig for the very reason that Craig overlooks this very simple fact. Devotees are already convinced without evidence. Pure baloney! If that is so, then why does he insists on debeting only with priests, bishops, cardinals....all of whom are surely already convinced without evidence! Don't tell me the clergy - of all people - wouldn't be debating with views based on faith! If Dawkins wishes to debate with reason, then why is he so afraid of Craig? By the looks of it, Lewontin is quite right in his rebuke about Dawkins! How many unsubstantiated and counter-factual claims did dawkins make in his pop science books - which of course he'll fail to defend with reason! Dawkins want to debate amateurs! Or those who he feels he can fool with his mumbo-jumbo! Anyway, whether Dawkins faces Craig or not.....Craig will critique the God Delusion. The question is: will Dawkins stand behind his book and defend it? ...or will he leave his baby without any defense at all? If so, the only delusion I see is that of Delusion of Grandeur by Dawkins who fancies himself the "light of the New Atheist movement"....with all those grandeur ways of putting all faith believers down, but cannot even defend his own provocative views! There goes the "light" by the looks of it! Snuffed! Face Craig already, I say....and put that mouth where his money is! Edited June 22, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) Can I just say that I didn't actually read what I posted. I confess. And, I'm sorry. I feel ashamed of myself. By the looks of it, that's not the only thing you failed to read. You also didn't read the article I posted, "William Craig on Krauss." Didn't even read the topic title of the debate between Craig and Krauss. IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR GOD? Otherwise you wouldn't use this as your sorry excuse for Dawkins. I think this is the single most overlooked fact by devotees when they discuss Dawkins and other "Atheists", such as Krauss here. Earlier in the thread I made this very point that Richard Dawkins does not argue that God does not exist. He argues about the evidence for God's existence. So what's the point in talking to you? You don't read! Period. Not even with your own cut-and-paste! Therefore you don't even know what you're talking about! This is like talking to a toddler! Come back to me when you've got something! Edited June 22, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Bigger font Betsy... go bigger!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) But by those numbers that showed how much Craig won the debate..... It's a hollow win, however. In the collective judgement of the audience, Criag won before the debate even began; which the very fact Dawkins was aware of. Dawkins had an uphill battle; only an hour or so to convince religious devotees to reverse their life-long beliefs and way of conceiving of the world around them. Had he won, that would've been impressive. And, vice-versa: if the room has been mostly full of scientists, I'd expect Craig to win the least votes; only in that case would a win for Craig be something to brag about. ------- I see cybercoma (again) already partly covered my points: Dawkins will not debate Craig for the very reason that Craig overlooks this very simple fact. Devotees are already convinced without evidence. They've won the debate before it has even began and it seems this is the problem Krauss ran into. [+] Edited June 22, 2011 by g_bambino Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR GOD? Why do you do this? It's juvenile. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Most atheists simply do not believe in the existence of God, but the logical ones, like Dawkins and Krauss, leave the door open for being convinced by evidence that is persuasive. They do not debate that God does not exist because that is not a position that can be proven and for that matter does not need to be proved. Does that not, then, make both of them agnostics, rather than atheists, the label they either apply to themselves or are given by the media (I'm not familiar enough with either to know what the case is)? I thought that an athiest was someone who believed without doubt that there are no divine beings, whereas agnostics were as skeptical of the claim that god(s) exist as they are of the claim that there are no god(s). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 If that is so, then why does he insists on debeting only with priests, bishops, cardinals....all of whom are surely already convinced without evidence! Don't tell me the clergy - of all people - wouldn't be debating with views based on faith! What Dawkins debated with priests, bishops and cardinals is evolution. Many of them are not complete morons, so they don't write off evolution, since it has been proven repeatedly by scientific testing. In fact, many of them believe that there is a divine creator that set off evolution. What he doesn't do is debate the existence of God with clergy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 (edited) Does that not, then, make both of them agnostics, rather than atheists, the label they either apply to themselves or are given by the media (I'm not familiar enough with either to know what the case is)? I thought that an athiest was someone who believed without doubt that there are no divine beings, whereas agnostics were as skeptical of the claim that god(s) exist as they are of the claim that there are no god(s). The labels are stupid. From what I can recall, Dawkins believed in a scale about belief and I think this works best to conceptualize it. Someone who believes in the existence of God would be a 10. This person believes that there is absolutely no probability that God does not exist. A pure Atheist who believes absolutely that God does not exist would be 1. This person believes that there is absolutely no probability that God does exist. A true Agnostic would sit around 5. This person believes that there is an equal probability that God does or does not exist. Now, if you're Dawkins or Krauss, your rational scientific mind would not allow you to score a 1. You know that there is no absolute probability of anything. In this case you might be a 2 (or if you're dealing with fractions, you might say they are a 1.000001). They believe that it is very highly improbable that God exists. There is only the remotest chance of some divine existence. In this case, it would not be proper to be characterized as an agnostic, because that implies that you believe there is an equal probability, rather you would probably call yourself an Atheist, since you think it's highly unlikely that God exists. Of course you can continue along the scale for a range of probabilities. The same works on the other end. Someone that scores a 9 would think it's very highly improbable that God does not exist, but they're not absolutely certain. What's interesting about this way of looking at faith in the existence of God is that religious devotees are almost always a 10. Atheists on the other hand are rarely if ever a 1, but almost always somewhere between 2-4 with 5 being truly agnostic. Edited June 22, 2011 by cybercoma Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 22, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Yada-yada-yada. All lame excuses! face it, Harris invoked the "C-word" corectly! Dawkins wouldn't face Craig out of fear! Especially more so after he saw the result of the Craig-Krauss debate. Dawkins can say what topic they can debate on. Apparently it was Krauss who chose that topic he debated with Craig. So what's the problem? Cybercoma sez Dawkins wants to argue about evidence for God. Well, go ahead and argue about it then? What's stopping Dawkins? Just face Craig! One-on-one! That's what everyone wants to see, by the looks of all the pressure that's mounting! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
M.Dancer Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 aig and Krauss. IS THERE EVIDENCE FOR GOD? no Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 22, 2011 Report Share Posted June 22, 2011 Yada-yada-yada. All lame excuses! I suppose that would be the best retort you can muster; don't address the point, just dismiss it as "lame". I suppose that is the way the unscientific mind works; investigation is off the agenda since it might uncover facts that undermine existing (and comfortable) belief structures. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) I suppose that is the way the unscientific mind works; investigation is off the agenda since it might uncover facts that undermine existing (and comfortable) belief structures. Indeed it's just all lame excuses. You're just going circular with your rebutts! But I agree with your statement above! Evolutionist scientists should look beyond the natural to find answers! Putting parameters in quest for answers regarding origin....trying to come up with myths....trying to fit everything in a tiny box....is not fact-finding at all. And to quote you, "investigation is off the agenda since it might uncover facts that undermine existing (and comfortable) belief structures." To an atheist, it must be scary coming face-to-face to the possibility of Intelligent Design! That there is a Creator. That there could be a God. So they turn tails and say, "Oh no! We won't go there!" Edited June 23, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 23, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 (edited) I hardly watch debates....but I look forward to Craig and the Empty Chair. Whether Dawkins shows up or not, Craig will critique his book, The God Delusion. I eagerly await what Craig has to say....(no I haven't read that pop book - it's meant as a rah-rah-rah kumbaya for the fundamentalist atheists at the expense of God and those who have faith). If Craig is rarin' to have a go at that book - with or without Dawkins - I assume he's got lots of things to say. He'll be ripping it apart! Edited June 23, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g_bambino Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Indeed it's just all lame excuses. You're just going circular with your rebutts! Only because you can't do anything but repeat yourself, and all you're repeating are hollow sneers at what you don't like in the absence of a cognisant retort to it. Evolutionist scientists should look beyond the natural to find answers! A scientist who uses the supernatural as evidence cannot call himself a scientist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Evolutionist scientists should look beyond the natural to find answers! Quoted for posterity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 23, 2011 Report Share Posted June 23, 2011 Quoted for posterity. Yes...quite classic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 A scientist who uses the supernatural as evidence cannot call himself a scientist. Then that means, your view of science is very limited indeed. In modern use, science is "often treated as synonymous with ‘natural and physical science’, and thus restricted to those branches of study that relate to the phenomena of the material universe and their laws, sometimes with implied exclusion of pure mathematics. This is now the dominant sense in ordinary use."[8] This narrower sense of "science" developed as a part of science became a distinct enterprise of defining "laws of nature", based on early examples such as Kepler's laws, Galileo's laws, and Newton's laws of motion. In this period it became more common to refer to natural philosophy as "natural science". Over the course of the 19th century, the word "science" became increasingly associated with the disciplined study of the natural world including physics, chemistry, geology and biology. This sometimes left the study of human thought and society in a linguistic limbo, which was resolved by classifying these areas of academic study as social science. Similarly, several other major areas of disciplined study and knowledge exist today under the general rubric of "science", such as formal science and applied science.[9] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 Then that means, your view of science is very limited indeed. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science Unlike your take on science, eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) Furthermore.... Mathematics, which is classified as a formal science,[23][24] has both similarities and differences with the empirical sciences (the natural and social sciences). It is similar to empirical sciences in that it involves an objective, careful and systematic study of an area of knowledge; it is different because of its method of verifying its knowledge, using a priori rather than empirical methods.[2] The formal sciences, which also include statistics and logic, are vital to the empirical sciences. Major advances in formal science have often led to major advances in the empirical sciences. The formal sciences are essential in the formation of hypotheses, theories, and laws,[2] both in discovering and describing how things work (natural sciences) and how people think and act (social sciences).One reason why mathematics enjoys special esteem, above all other sciences, is that its laws are absolutely certain and indisputable, while those of other sciences are to some extent debatable and in constant danger of being overthrown by newly discovered facts. Albert Einstein[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science Edited June 25, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) As opposed to empirical sciences (natural, social), formal sciences presuppose no knowledge of contingent fact, they do not describe the real world and do not involve empirical procedures. In this sense, formal sciences are both logically and methodologically a priori, for their content and validity are independent of any empirical procedures.Although formal sciences are conceptual systems with no empirical content, this does not mean that they have no relation to the real world. But this relation is such that their formal statements hold in all possible worlds whereas, statements based on empirical theories, such as, say, General Relativity or Evolutionary Biology, do not hold in all possible worlds, and may even turn out not to hold in this world. That is why formal sciences are applicable in all domains and useful in all empirical sciences. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science It's not all about empirical evidences! Basing everything in that alone should not necessarily make it truth! Edited June 25, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 Furthermore... A scientific theory is empirical, and is always open to falsification if new evidence is presented. That is, no theory is ever considered strictly certain as science accepts the concept of fallibilism. The philosopher of science Karl Popper sharply distinguishes truth from certainty. He writes that scientific knowledge "consists in the search for truth", but it "is not the search for certainty ... All human knowledge is fallible and therefore uncertain.[33]" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DogOnPorch Posted June 25, 2011 Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 So were all dinosaurs on the planet at the same time? Did your demi-god Adam name them? How about your Earth Mother demi-goddess, Eve? Was she made out of your demi-god Adam's "extra rib"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
betsy Posted June 25, 2011 Author Report Share Posted June 25, 2011 (edited) And quite interestingly and an absolute "furthermore".... CONFRIMATION BIASConfirmation bias (also called confirmatory bias or myside bias) is a tendency for people to favor information that confirms their preconceptions or hypotheses regardless of whether the information is true.[Note 1][1] As a result, people gather evidence and recall information from memory selectively, and interpret it in a biased way. A series of experiments in the 1960s suggested that people are biased towards confirming their existing beliefs. Later work explained these results in terms of a tendency to test ideas in a one-sided way, focusing on one possibility and ignoring alternatives. So we see evolutionists locked in their biased belief. Refusing to consider another alternative - the theory of Intelligent Design. In combination with other effects, this strategy can bias the conclusions that are reached. "Conclusions" that are half-baked are not conclusive at all, unless you change the meaning of the word to suit it the way we want to. Confirmation biases are not limited to the collection of evidence. Even if two individuals have the same information, the way they interpret it can be biased. A distinguishing feature of scientific thinking is the search for falsifying as well as confirming evidence.[100] However, many times in the history of science, scientists have resisted new discoveries by selectively interpreting or ignoring unfavorable data.[100] Previous research has shown that the assessment of the quality of scientific studies seems to be particularly vulnerable to confirmation bias. It has been found several times that scientists rate studies that report findings consistent with their prior beliefs more favorably than studies reporting findings inconsistent with their previous beliefs.[101][102] [103] However, assuming that the research question is relevant, the experimental design adequate and the data are clearly and comprehensively described, the found results should be of importance to the scientific community and should not be viewed prejudicially—regardless of whether they conform to current theoretical predictions.[104] Confirmation bias may thus be especially harmful to objective evaluations regarding nonconforming results, since biased individuals may regard opposing evidence to be weak in principle and give little serious thought to revising their beliefs.[105] Scientific innovators often meet with resistance from the scientific community, and research presenting controversial results frequently receives harsh peer review.[106 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science That's why the so-called peer review has gotten so many criticisms. That's why the so-called peer review is not credible at all! Edited June 25, 2011 by betsy Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.