The arguement that recently convinced me of god's existence

[RJT]

Thanks Stat,

I got it now. I read it very quickly - the preface and chapter 6. I was merely thrown off when Dawkins started his preface with so much of an argument for evolution. I therefore thought he was directing it basically to those who don’t buy it. He isn't going to get anywhere with them anyway. So this, too, is what I mean in that he fails. He is preaching to the choir, really. He is really addressing evolutionists.

As for myself, I didn’t expect answers to the origin of life, per se. That I know “ain’t gonna” happen. I was anticipating some clever ideas is all. He doesn’t address things of that nature.

RJT

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Thanks Stat,

I got it now. I read it very quickly - the preface and chapter 6. I was merely thrown off when Dawkins started his preface with so much of an argument for evolution. I therefore thought he was directing it basically to those who don’t buy it. He isn't going to get anywhere with them anyway. So this, too, is what I mean in that he fails. He is preaching to the choir, really. He is really addressing evolutionists.

As for myself, I didn’t expect answers to the origin of life, per se. That I know “ain’t gonna” happen. I was anticipating some clever ideas is all. He doesn’t address things of that nature.

RJT

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe its due to books like this that you don't percieve evolution of complex life as a mystery. I read it 20 or so years ago and it was a revelation (not that I was a theist before).

Many people still seem very confused and although it may not persuade a theist that evolution is the answer it should go a long way to persuading anyone who is honest that the argument from design is extremely weak to the point of being irrelevent.

I have said before that Dawkins goes over the top on the athiestic promotion and I would be suprised if that didn't put some people off from reading his work.

chez

RJT - I see a lot of disagreements to your post about Dawkins sentence saying the mystery of our existence has been solved. I'll lend you some support - I think your instincts are good in questioning this kind of a statement. Personally I think there are plenty of mysteries that remain pertaining to the origin of life and to our existence.
I've been through Dawkin's book "The Blind Watchmaker " twice about 5 years apart. On the positive side I think it adresses some of the central questions about evolution that need to be adressed. It does a good job in some places of making points. But overall I think Dawkin's case is weak in proving the mechanisms behind the so called Neo-Darwinian model of evolution. There are so many intracasies in this discussion that it is impossible to deal with them in short posts. But I cast my vote that the idea of intelligent design is not a trivial thing to dismiss. Whether the original poster's chair represents certain structures in the body, certain forms of life or the Universe itself - plenty of scientists that I have talked to at Universities would say its a reasonable discussion. (I've taught college physics but not biology).

[Lestat]

A physics teacher who isn't willing to dismiss intelligent design?

You are truly in a minority.

[NotReady]

But I do not want to get into the macro evolution/ biogenesis theory stuff, but just would like a discussion on use of logic in the chair anology.

The argument you are considering is the theistic proof usually referred to as the teleological proof. Paley is famous for stating it, though in a sense it is also contained in Scripture, though not offered there as a formal philosopical proof ("The heavens are telling of the glory of God" and other passages.) It's a very strong argument because it appeals to our intuition - we know deep down that order doesn't come from chaos and order as great and complex as displayed throughout the universe implies a designer beyond our ability to comprehend.

There are 5 proofs considered to be classic, and many variations. The problem is none of them are perfect - none achieve objective, demonstrable certainty. The reason for this is primarily that man is finite and so must start his reasoning process from certain assumptions which can't be proved. So the logic may be perfect but the argument cannot be made certain because of the need for assumptions. This same problem afflicts atheists as well no matter how strongly people like Dawkins assert they have solved the mystery of life. Every time they think they have they just uncover many new mysteries exposed by their "answer".

Paul stated that he did not come with clever words of wisdom and he indicated that Christianity is not based on philosophical reasoning. Our faith rests on the Word of God, not on the flawed and sinful imaginations of man. That doesn't mean that we are irrational or that we have no reasons for believing. But we can't present absolute proof, anymore than the atheist can do so concerning his theories.

We walk by faith and admit it. Atheists walk by faith and don't realize it.

[NotReady]

[ QUOTE ]

You're going wrong in thinking he has some hidden agenda to promote atheism. He does not.


[/ QUOTE ]

Correct. He doesn't hide it at all.


http://www.atheistalliance.org/library/news_021703.html

The Richard Dawkins Award will be given every year to honor an outstanding Atheist whose contributions raise public awareness of the nontheist life stance; who through writings, media, the arts, film, and/or the stage advocates increased scientific knowledge; who through work or by example teaches acceptance of the nontheist philosophy; and whose public posture mirrors the uncompromising nontheist life stance of Dr. Richard Dawkins.

[jthegreat]

[ QUOTE ]
It's a very strong argument because it appeals to our intuition

[/ QUOTE ]

Unfortunately it's a false analogy. First it uses nature as the example of chaos, then claims it's perfectly ordered.

Weak.

[ QUOTE ]
The reason for this is primarily that man is finite and so must start his reasoning process from certain assumptions which can't be proved.

[/ QUOTE ]

Some people just have more assumptions than others. One of my assumptions, is that it's better to have fewer assumptions.

Occam's Razor: "One should not increase, beyond what is necessary, the number of entities required to explain anything."

[hmkpoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Atheists walk by faith and don't realize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have the time and incentive, please elaborate on this.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Atheists walk by faith and don't realize it.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have the time and incentive, please elaborate on this.

[/ QUOTE ]

He's equivocating the word "faith". We've been through all this before. He's saying that induction is "faith" (or at least thinking that induction is valid/reasonable is).