Ginkgo wrote: ↑Tue Mar 23, 2021 10:02 am
Immanuel Can wrote:
Let's hear them.
I can't wait to hear them, then.
Ok, which argument would you like me to refute, the cosmological argument, the scientific argument, the ontological argument? I can refute any argument you put forward for the existence of God
Hmmm...well, let's start with The Design Argument, because that's the one Dawkins starts with, and which he says lends prima facie
evidence to the belief that God exists. Then maybe we can look at the Moral Argument; and then maybe the Kalam Cosmological Argument, and specifically, the infinite-regress-of-causes problem, if we haven't sorted things out by then.
So Dawkins says that nature appears to manifest design, which would mean there's a God; what evidence would you present to say, "What you think it design is not design at all?"
Immanuel Can wrote:
Sorry to correct: it wasn't an analogy. It was an example, specifically, an example of how "proving something" works. And it works the same way for everything...to prove something didn't happen, or didn't exist is far, far harder than to prove it did.
Your example is an analogy.
Sorry to correct: it wasn't an analogy, it was an example of the procedure. No analogy was being drawn there at all, in fact.
I might ask you the same question. What makes you certain that God exists? In other words, which arguments make you certain that God exists?
And I'd be very happy to reply, and probably, we'll get to that. But Dawkins says that the existence of God is the thesis supported by the evidence at first look, so we need to show that that first look is wrong. If that's right, then the hypothesis favoured by the evidence is the Design Hypothesis, not Atheism.
So Dawkins is not an atheist, what does that have to do with the price of tea in China
Well, Dawkins plays both sides of the street on that one. He's quite happy to be called an "Atheist" in situations in which he isn't going to have to provide any evidence; but he wants to retreat into what he calls "strong agnosticism" the minute evidence is asked of him.
That's pretty typical of Atheists, actually. If you ask them for proof of their hypothesis, the first thing they say is, "I don't need to provide any, because I just don't believe in any gods," or "...believe in no gods," or "I simply lack belief..." Of course, any of those three, or any of their other variations, mean the Agnostic is admitting he doesn't actually know anything at all, but just is stating a gratuitous preference. But at the same time, I've never met an Atheist who didn't also want to turn around right away and say, "You don't have any right to believe in a God or gods either." That's quite a different claim, however; instead of still meaning "I lack god-experience," it's saying "Nobody can have any experience of God" -- which is manifestly much more than the purported Atheist could ever know.
So if Atheism wants to say, "Faith in God is irrational for everyone," then he needs proof. If he only wants to say, "Faith in God is something I lack, because I have no experience of God," then the response is, "Yeah? I' believe you. But you could have."
The only proof you have for the existence of God are arguments and belief.
What is your basis for this dogmatic claim? What do you know about "what proof I have"?
To date you have not offered any proof for your claims.
Well, it's not my turn yet, says Mr. Dawkins. He points out that, at present, the evidence favours me. So the first thing we need to know is why we shouldn't believe the evidence of our eyes, and what Mr. Dawkins claims is the most natural hypothesis from that evidence, a hypothesis so powerful that even Mr. Dawkins claims to feel drawn by it himself, as does (he says) Einstein et al.
So why should we disbelieve the evidence of design in nature, as we see it every day? Let's start there.