1851. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284396 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 6:28 am

paulb-

However, Richard Dawkins explicitly said that he was referring to the Judeo-Christian God. The Judeo-Christian God is uncreated. Therefore, the argument "who designed the designer" is either dishonest (he knew the Judeo-Christian God was uncreated, and he was pretending otherwise) ... or ignorant.

No. It is defining the Judeo-Christian god as uncreated that is ignorant or dishonest.

Theists won't accept that the universe was uncreated, because they say it is too complex.

So it is entirely appropriate to point out that Gods of any kind, Judeo-Christian or otherwise, are phenomentally complex (infinitely if you are considering the Judeo-Christian God), so claiming that Gods are uncreated is inconsistent. If you say that the universe needs a creator, then you have to concede that God needed a creator.

If you say that God, with all His complexity, needed not have a creator, then you have to concede that the universe, even with all the complexity it has now, is far simpler and therefore does not need a creator.

Dawkins was, actually in a rather gentle way, pointing out the ignorance and/or dishonesty of theists who use the argument from design.

EDIT:

Comment #284395 by Wosret

Like I said, why not just add "existent" into your definition of god so that that can't be questioned either?

Excellent.

1852. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #284384 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 6:11 am

Comment #284379 by NMcC

Oh dear. Styrer-itis!

1853. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284381 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 6:04 am

Comment #284377 by MPhil

Or rather, it is like trying to see how coherent and detailed you can render a proof where several problems of consistency and truth arise - what the best strategy for defence is. There can be original and interesting results - i.e. the intellectual work can be appreciated as such

I think you are being too nice. It is more like some corrupt lawyer trying to find clever ways to defend a client who they know is guilty. One may be amazed at the performance in court, but that does not make it praiseworthy.

If they want to examine possibilities for the defence of inconsistent beliefs, then they should do that with some harmless beliefs. Why not come up with word games to justify belief in a flat earth, or crop circles?

1854. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284373 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 5:31 am

Mike-

My point was that there is methodological investigation there that can draw great minds - because it provides challenging intellectual exercises and problems to solve.

I find myself conflicted here. I don't agree with stifling research, but I am afraid I just don't see the point of theology, given the incorrect premises.

To me it is equivalent to a mathematician continuing to examine the details of a long proof, even though the first few steps of that proof have been shown to be certainly invalid. It does not matter how beautiful or challenging the rest of the proof it - this is just not sensible. No matter how honest the people may be, no matter how great the challenge of progressing the proof may be, it is simply a silly thing to be doing. It is equivalent to attempting to classify dragons or count the wings on fairies.

Neither theism or deism, no matter how innocuous the Gods involved are supposed to be, have any intellectual foundation. I think it is time that we went even further than Richard Dawkins, and don't even tolerate deism. I think we need to be rid of the potentially dangerous sloppy, wishful thinking that is given support by the pointless games of theologians.

1855. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284363 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 4:57 am

Comment #284352 by MPhil

I feel uncomfortable about theologians posting arguments regarding the existence of God purely as an intellectual exercise because theistic religion is a problem in the world, and because people treat their intellectual exercises as excuses for belief.

It isn't harmless.

1856. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #284345 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 4:26 am

Comment #284344 by phil rimmer

You are right. Perhaps a better way of putting this is that it if Jones' intention was the equivalent of driving around a bus with an atheistic slogan on, his action was the equivalent of trying to park the bus in someone's garden without asking.

1857. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #284337 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 4:08 am

Comment #284333 by phatbat

If an artist is trying to promote a reaction to their art, it should be because of the nature of the art itself. Arranging publicity stunts as a form of self promotion is crass.

It seems like you want to alleviate Green of a little bit of responsibility for what he wants to do when faced with material he finds offensive and put it on the shoulders of the poet.

No. The problem is that Jones is using Green's idiocy and bigotry for commercial gain and self-promotion.

If Jones wanted a "punch-up" with Green, and others like him, then it would have been decent to find a venue that did not object to the disruption that this would have caused. It is rude to involve people (and bookstores) in protests without their consent.

1858. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284328 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 3:41 am

God is clearly the most perfect being possible. Part of perfection is the ability to overcome handicap. We consider those who have achieved things in spite of handicap to be better people than those who did not have the handicap.

The greater the handicap than has been overcome, the better and more perfect the person.

There is no greater handicap than not to exist.

Therefore, God's total perfection requires that he not exist.

So God does not exist.

1859. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284325 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 3:35 am

His attributes are one, but a oneness that can be characterized in many ways.

That is Pratchettian in its stupidity. It reminds me of the explanation of the universe from his philosopher Ly Tin Wheedle.

When the philosophical community came to the conclusion that distance was an illusion and all places were in fact the same place, Ly Tin Wheedle was the philosopher to make the famed conclusion that "Although all places were in fact the same place, that place was very big".

This is just word-play. It has no useful meaning in terms of explanations.

God is simple, but that simplicity is very complex. Yeah, right!

1860. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284319 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 3:29 am

Comment #284315 by black wolf

The problem with such theological statements is that they freely use terms that are actually quite complicated. What does "good" mean? What does "believe" mean? How would a "belief" cause anything directly?

These are questions that evolution and neuroscience and philosophy can attempt to deal with. But theology can't. It rarely even seems to realise that these questions even exist.

1861. Christian group halts book launch

Comment #284316 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 3:24 am

Comment #284306 by phatbat

I really don't agree. This sounds like blaming the wife for annoying the wife beater and causing him to hit her.

I sadly have to agree with Dr Doctor. Waterstones could have acted better, but I can now understand their annoyance at being put in this position by Jones. Having religious nuts turn up to cause trouble is one thing. Writing to religious nuts in what was clearly an attempt to encourage them to come and cause trouble is crass, and makes Jones seem a bit of a jerk. I can understand why Waterstones wanted nothing to do with him on this occasion.

I will be buying books there again.

1862. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284311 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 3:16 am

Comment #284305 by black wolf

I believe that thelogians are arguing from a combination of ignorance and desperation. I have seen some theologians argue the same points repeatedly over many years even after the points have been clearly refuted. This makes me doubt their intellectual honesty, I am sad to say.

1863. Interview with John Lennox

Comment #284300 by Steve Zara on November 15, 2008 at 2:46 am

Comment #284269 by paulb

The "who designed the designer" argument is actually a very sophisticated one, based on probability and what we consider satisfying and useful in terms of "explanations".

To put it simply, theists say that design is required because the original state of the universe is not something that they consider likely to have arisen spontaneously, as it is too complex. What they neglect is that designers are vastly more complex than original states of universes, so a designer is much, much, much less likely to be something that arises spontaneously from some background of void or chaos.

And no amount of attempting to make the designer a "necessary being" will deal with this argument, as the "necessary" label can simply be switched to the original state of the universe. We can call the universe a "necessary state", and dump the designer.

The problem is that theologists tend to have extremely poor understanding of biology and neuroscience, and the associated philosophies. They seem to think that minds can be simple, free-floating things, whereas they are phenomenally complex and have to be associated with some form of hardware.

1864. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #284193 by Steve Zara on November 14, 2008 at 3:50 pm

Comment #284187 by Laurie Fraser

I have had root canal surgery. It removes severe pain, and involves injections of opioids.

I think the negative comparison with cricket requires no further explanation.

1865. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #284185 by Steve Zara on November 14, 2008 at 3:23 pm

You are truly evil, Laurie. I think I would rather watch a "High School Musical" film than a cricket match. I would rather go to an Avril Lavigne Concert. I would rather have root canal surgery.

1866. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #284180 by Steve Zara on November 14, 2008 at 3:04 pm

Comment #284178 by Laurie Fraser

Ireland is a minor journey from where I live, even if I can't overcome my fear of flying. I will certainly be there. As people I have long admired (like Titania) will be there, how could I not turn up? I also believe I may be safe from any experience of cricket in Ireland. I am probably going to bring my husband as well.

1867. Atheism/Agnosticism Plus Compassion Equals Humanism

Comment #284174 by Steve Zara on November 14, 2008 at 2:50 pm

I quite like the Copper Rule: Only do unto others what they want once a reasonable price has been negotiated.

1868. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #284173 by Steve Zara on November 14, 2008 at 2:47 pm

Comment #284170 by Laurie Fraser

Yeah, that is why I edited it out. I have given up trying to understand how the mark-up on this site works.

1869. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #284172 by Steve Zara on November 14, 2008 at 2:45 pm

Comment #284157 by DarwinsPitbull

You want to bring about death on a large scale. (I can also play that game.)

Does this mean what I think it does? I have to admit feeling a little unsettled reading this post.

1870. Palin: average isn't good enough

Comment #284169 by Steve Zara on November 14, 2008 at 2:41 pm

Comment #284165 by Laurie Fraser

Including Steve Zara's.

Indeed, my attempts to hide my part-kzinti ancestry seem to have failed.

1871. Hubble directly observes planet orbiting Fomalhaut

Comment #284087 by Steve Zara on November 14, 2008 at 10:08 am

Comment #284082 by astronomer24

These planets could be rich with life - at least their moons could be. There is little doubt that there is warm liquid water within the moons of Jupiter and Saturn. For all we know there could be more life there than on rocky Earth-like planets.

1872. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283905 by Steve Zara on November 14, 2008 at 1:57 am

Comment #283899 by Quetzalcoatl

Sorry mate, but I beat you. I have unanswered questions from last year :)

1873. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283891 by Steve Zara on November 14, 2008 at 1:41 am

Comment #283883 by epeeist

I love the "dammit, I should have worn my reading glasses" expression.

1874. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283889 by Steve Zara on November 14, 2008 at 1:40 am

Comment #283871 by Dianelos Georgoudis

You don't seem to understand what I mean by "kick".

It is called "experimental verification".

When we believe that invisible things exist it is because they are extensions or extrapolations of physical systems that we can test the existence of.

You provide absolutely zero testable evidence that even part your God exists. So, sorry, this is an invisible thing that we don't have to take your word about.

What is more, your whole approach is inconsistent. You use Ockham's Razor mistakenly in an attempt to rubbish naturalism, but even in the same paragraph you will say that you reject the use of Ockham's Razor.

I think you need to get sorted out what you do and don't accept before you proceed with any more arguments.

Epeeist- the "reification" is a very old argument from Dianelos indeed.

For those who are newer here, it is that we supposedly know that numbers like Pi exist. But because the natural universe can't represent them, then naturalism must be incomplete. As MPhil has pointed out, this is just nonsense.

1875. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283864 by Steve Zara on November 14, 2008 at 12:40 am

Comment #283859 by Wosret

As I said, only believe in things that will kick back if you prod them. I would imagine that Naomi Cambell would oblidge.

1876. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283856 by Steve Zara on November 14, 2008 at 12:29 am

Bonzai-

How do you decide the 11th dimension is "real" but not a model? Just by fiat? Answering simply "yes" isn't good enough.

You were the one who said "if String Theory is true". If String Theory is true, then what it says is true. And what it says is that there are 11 dimensions.

There is no "declaring by fiat" - you have already conceded the truth of the idea.

1877. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283854 by Steve Zara on November 14, 2008 at 12:24 am

Dianelos-

So according to naturalism the number pi does not exist.

Not as a entity in reality, no.

Mathematical objects are necessary whereas physical objects are contingent.

No. Mathematical objects express relationships. Therefore they can only exist in reality if there are things that have that relationship. It is like the term "larger". "Larger" is just an idea. It only "exists" in reality when there is something that is physical that is larger than something else.

It is like the term "God". It is just an idea.

If you consider multiverse theories to be scientific then please note that some of them posit an infinite past. And as the wavefunction is over complex numbers, the many-worlds naturalistic interpretation of quantum mechanics arguably posits a reality with infinite constituents.

Please note that MPhil said our most effective current theories, and was also referring to a single universe.

If you are trying to inist that Pi actually exists somewhere, you need to be able to point to it. Please do so. I am afraid I am a bit sceptical when people claim that entities exist that they can't introduce me to.

1878. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283777 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 7:35 pm

Comment #283774 by Brian English

I need to sleep. But first, could you please put the word "threat" in "threat of Dianelos" into ironic quotes, thanks!

1879. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283773 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 7:32 pm

Comment #283771 by Bonzai

IMO this reflects nothing but a phobia for infinities. It is artifical and irrational.

No. If you want to claim that actual mathematical infinities exist, then you have to point at them. As we say to supernaturalists... evidence please!

We have gone through this before. It is not how mathematics is actually done. It is a logician's caricature.

Of course it is how mathematics is done. There is no spiritual magic involved. Are you implying that our doing mathematical thinking somehow involves more than our brains?

1880. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283769 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 7:28 pm

Comment #283765 by MPhil

You are right - beyond extremely raw data - everything is theory.

Could I clarify this - beyond raw data, our knowledge is nothing but theory. I think that somehow Bonzai was trying to claim in some way that there was no reality but raw data and theory.

1881. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283760 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 7:20 pm

Comment #283750 by Bonzai

So let's say string theory is right. Is the 10th dimension "real" or not?

Yes.

How about virtual photons? particles (which are excitations of quantum fields and don't have a "fixed" identity,--consider Bose and Fermi statistics, say)

Yes. There is certainly something out there. Our description of them can be as excitations of fields.

Other than raw data, everything is model.

No. If that were true, there would not be relationships in the data that lead to the models.

1882. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283755 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 7:16 pm

Comment #283740 by Bonzai

We can analyse the properties of certain functions, and by doing that come up with other functions that produce the same result.

What actually is Pi? It is a label for a relationship. You can express that relationship in different ways. But when you come down to it our description is almost always algorithmic: "Pi is what you get if you compare the diameter of a circle with its radius."

Fields are mathematcal descriptions that works. But you can in principle talk about action at a distance instead, only that the description would be very tedious and ugly. So fields provide a simple effective description to nature that allow us to make description. Same for mathematics.

No. Again you are "reifying" the mathematics. Fields aren't a description. They are something that we assume exists. You are mixing up things and theories about things.

There is something out there. We come up with a "field" model of it. Because our model is about fields, and it works, it is reasonable to assume (for now) that there are actual real fields that our model describes.

1883. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283737 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 6:47 pm

Comment #283733 by Brian English

I was thinking of it more like a series of verbs :)

1884. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283731 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 6:43 pm

Comment #283729 by Bonzai

But how do you prove that?

Because we can analyse the properties of functions and how they behave.

You can't kick "field" either.

Yes, you can. That is precisely what you are doing when you kick something.

Fields too are mathematical descriptions.

No, they aren't. Fields are what are modelled by mathematical descriptions.

Reality isn't made of mathematics. Mathematics is what we use to model the relationships we observe in reality.

You presumably exist as a person. You aren't the word "Bonzai".

1885. Astronomers capture first images of newly discovered solar system

Comment #283726 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 6:35 pm

This is simply incredible. I thought this was decades away.

1886. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283721 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 6:30 pm

Comment #283719 by Bonzai

You can't kick Pi. You are confusing the mathematical descriptions of reality with the physical reality itself. We have models of fields, but the models aren't the fields.

In modern physics, spacetime itself is a mathematical construction.

No. Our experiments lead us to construct models. We interpret the models as pointing to the existence of spacetime. Spacetime is not a mathematical construction. It is what we model using mathematical constructions.

1887. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283720 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 6:28 pm

Comment #283718 by Bonzai

There is no getting away that you need to assume some "existence" of Pi apart from the algorithms that generate its digit.

I just don't see that. It sounds like a circular argument to me. It is like saying that you need to assume some "existence" of Pi in order for Pi to exist.

It is no surprise that different procedures can come up the same digits.

1888. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283715 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 6:16 pm

Comment #283714 by Brian English

It's the basis of Lisp. It is lots of fun.

1889. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283712 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 6:13 pm

Comment #283709 by Bonzai

I didn't express things well. Pi isn't what you get from the function I am talking about. What you get from the function is the digits of Pi. Pi is the function. This is sort of like the lambda calculus.

1890. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283704 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 5:56 pm

Here is a suggestion - we can consider numbers as the results of algorithms. Pi is what you would get if you ran an alogorithm to generate its digits. Pi as a value is nowhere represented in the physical world, because the universe does not have infinite precision. But, we can (as MPhil said) perform operations on the recipe to generate the digits, and effectively come up with new algorithms to generate different digits.

1891. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283699 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 5:51 pm

Comment #283697 by Brian English

SEP - according to Douglas Adams, isn't that the "Someone Else's Problem" field?

1892. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283691 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 5:42 pm

Comment #283688 by Goldy

I can't wait for Richard's response.

1893. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283686 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 5:39 pm

Comment #283685 by Dianelos Georgoudis

It is a comment that has since been refuted. It isn't a fair part of debate to refer someone back to an argument that has been subject to later discussion. It is part of that naughty "pressing the reset button" we have been talking about, you know.

1894. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283684 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 5:36 pm

Comment #283682 by Dianelos Georgoudis

I do recall that, and I see no reason to change my mind. Mathematical objects can't have their own reality, as they would not be spatio-temporal.

I was interested in MPhil's views about transfinite numbers. The answer is that symbols can have meaning (that was a clever part of Godel's Proof of Incompleteness). The symbols that allow us to handle transfinite numbers exist as relationships in the real world.

1895. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283680 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 5:32 pm

I'll post this here so it will be pretty visible on an active thread.

Good old Prince Chaz has decided he will officially be "Defender of Faith".

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/

I think we should celebrate. It means he has to support the FSM, and those who put their religion as "Jedi".

It will also mightily annoy those who say that atheism is a type of religious faith, as they will then have to face the wrath of Charles if they attack atheism.

1896. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283674 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 5:25 pm

Comment #283671 by MPhil

What about transfinite numbers?

1897. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283670 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 5:21 pm

Comment #283667 by MPhil

That's - I would say - actually a paraphrase of the criticism we both developed for the Bnonn-debate ages ago... so it surprises me that you would say that you recently came up with that...

Ah, no. That is not what I recently realised. It was that a naturally evolved mind would most likely come across scientific findings that were simply mind-boggling.

1898. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283666 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 5:17 pm

Dianelos-

Well it does count a lot for me. Do you really expect me to believe that the multiverse hypothesis which instead of one posits the existence of at least 10^100 universes comports with Occam's principle that "Plurality should not be posited without necessity"?

Hold on a minute. You can't use this argument. You have said you want to abandon Ockham's Razor. If you abandon it, then you can't use it in an argument.

Actually it's exactly the other way around: There is nothing in quantum mechanics that does assume a physical world. Quantum mechanics is an abstract model of physical phenomena; whether such phenomena are produced by a physical world, or by a computer simulation, or by an evil demon, or by a god of perfection - is entirely irrelevant for quantum mechanics.

Wrong. We come up with quantum mechanics because of the results of repeated experiment. Because we get the same results from repeated experiment we can assume naturalism. Because of the use of Ockham's Razor, we don't assume any more than we need to explain the data. No God of perfection (whatever perfection is).

Anyway, you can't use quantum mechanics to get to supernaturalism, as if you want supernaturalism, then you can't accept the use of science in the discovery of quantum mechanics.

Let me see if I understand you correctly: Both the success of science to model objective phenomena and the failure of naturalism to describe what objective reality produces such phenomena count as evidence *for* naturalism? :-)

Naturalism does not fail to describe what we believe is there in objective reality. We get to a useful description of objective reality (and it is useful) because we seem to be in a naturalistic reality.

Science is a way that we overcome the limits of individual mental limitations.

I am afraid this too strains credulity Steve.

Of course. You have a limited mind produced by evolution. If you reject science and naturalism, you can't make progress beyond the limits of your mind.

Your attitude is like someone who won't believe that planes can fly because they can't personally get airborne by flapping their arms.

If we work together using science, we can extend our ability to investigate and predict the universe beyond what our individual minds can do. It is a shame that people like you won't join in with this. Instead you run around flapping your arms, saying "look, I can't fly, so planes must be held aloft by angels".

1899. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283647 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 4:51 pm

Comment #283639 by Brian English

Steve, that's an interesting angle. Why would an evolved species like us need to understand (evolutionarily speaking) the workings of the natural world?*

This idea came to me a few weeks ago, I think. It is a counter to Plantinga's evolutionary argument, which uses that argument in favour, rather than against, naturalism.

Plantinga is easily shown to be wrong about us having true beliefs as a result of evolution. Evolution tends to produce robust, generalised and re-usable beliefs, and that only works if the beliefs have some truth value.

But evolution has only had time to work on beliefs of things at a human scale. There is no evolutionary advantage (yet) to having true beliefs about things on the scale of solar systems, or on the scale of atoms. That some people have trouble accepting the truth of beliefs at those scales is, I think, very good evidence that naturalistic evolution is behind our mental abilities. In fact, Plantinga's errors in understanding things that happen on scales of millions of years are themselves evidence of our human-scale "truth sense".

So, the existence of Plantinga's evolutionary argument against naturalism is actually evidence for both naturalism and evolution.

1900. Hitchens Debates Rabbi Wolpe on God

Comment #283637 by Steve Zara on November 13, 2008 at 4:34 pm

Comment #283634 by Brian English

Actually, I was slightly wrong. Dianelos' incredulity is actually useful. It is evidence for naturalism.

If the universe was entirely natural, and therefore not designed with us in mind, then it is no surprise that we come across aspects of reality that boggle our minds. Ironically the more that Dianelos claims that he does not understand the consequences of naturalism, the more he is providing evidence for naturalism.