Burden of Proof

[Cyberman]

Reading through the last page of posts, a thought occurs. Why is it, I wonder, that Kurt Gödel is held in such high regard amongst apologists for speaking about "God" outside of his field of mathematics; yet when Richard Dawkins speaks on the same subject outside his specialist field of evolutionary biology, those same apologists generate no end of hate mail and public castigation?

[Mark 13:13]

Reading through the last page of posts, a thought occurs. Why is it, I wonder, that Kurt Gödel is held in such high regard amongst apologists for speaking about "God" outside of his field of mathematics; yet when Richard Dawkins speaks on the same subject outside his specialist field of evolutionary biology, those same apologists generate no end of hate mail and public castigation?

i'm actually very new to this whole area so I have to take your word on it as it doesn't have any implications beyond for now, but on a personal level i feel a kindred spirit and as a novice instinct tells me that there may be more support for some of my thinking there so yes I can see your point. But then isn't there always inconsistencies at the heart of human responses. Maybe when I read more about him I may find out if mathematics is his only field of expertise as he seems from my brief reading to have added something to other areas also. Maybe as Neil Degrass Tyson tried to tell Dawkins, people may not feel the need to castigate Dawkins if his method of communication didn't suggest something more at the heart of Dawkins responses than logic and reason. Does Tyson receive the same level responses? yet he holds to Dawkins model of existance or something similar.

[Cyberman]

Still, I can't help wondering whether Prof Dawkins would be regarded as a saint of sorts if he wrote books like "The God Devotion", or "The Divine Watchmaker".

[Mark 13:13]

(try gaskings parody btw)

A piece of parody, Gasking's Proof for the Non-existence of god is as follows:

1. The creation of the universe is the greatest achievement imaginable.
2. The merit of an achievement consists of its intrinsic greatness and the ability of its creator.
3. The greater the handicap to the creator, the greater the achievement (would you be more impressed by Turner painting a beautiful landscape or a blind one-armed dwarf?)
4.The biggest handicap to a creator would be non-existence
5.Therefore if we suppose that the universe is the creation of an existing creator, we can conceive a greater being — namely, one who created everything while not existing.
6.Therefore, God does not exist.

I like it, its creative and silly, and so is fun. without getting drawn into fancy words for philosophical concepts which i,m ill equiped to use I can say there appears to me the possability of a problem with....

the first statement as if we are allowed to imagine is there a limit to what we can imagine? some may be able to that you could have a creator of the creator of a universe which would be a greater achievement that the first statement and this could go on forever as has been pointed out in other contexts on other threads.

the statement 5. is interesting as its close to what a singularity is to many people who can't understand how something called a singularity can have no volume and yet be seen to exist.

[Surtr]

the first statement as if we are allowed to imagine is there a limit to what we can imagine? some may be able to that you could have a creator of the creator of a universe which would be a greater achievement that the first statement and this could go on forever as has been pointed out in other contexts on other threads.

It's actually completely irrelevant whether the creation of the universe is the greatest achievement possible. What matters is whether or not it is a truly great achievement. I think I can safely say that it is.

[Zone]

William Lane Craig the great Christian philosopher pointed out that something that doesn't exist can't really do anything so you arrive at a premise that makes no logical sense. So he's got you there, he's got you by the balls.

[Cyberman]

I never thought I'd see the name "William Lane Craig" and the words "great Christian philosopher" in the same sentence without it being deep parody.

[Mark 13:13]

the first statement as if we are allowed to imagine is there a limit to what we can imagine? some may be able to that you could have a creator of the creator of a universe which would be a greater achievement that the first statement and this could go on forever as has been pointed out in other contexts on other threads.

It's actually completely irrelevant whether the creation of the universe is the greatest achievement possible. What matters is whether or not it is a truly great achievement. I think I can safely say that it is.

I see your point so i've re read it with that in mind so i'm looking at point 2 which links the merit of the achievement with the ability of the creator, it takes no account of the possability that it was an accident by the creator rather than any intent so to my mind is someone accidently does something it would'nt deserve the same level of merit as someone who actually consciously does something for example someone looking at the patterns of inconsistancies in tidal flows to work out there is a dangerous rock under the surface and then going out to check as opposed to someone whose ship hits the rock and sinks and then finds the rock. The merit of the achievement would have to take account of the process that led to the achievement also. I would think.

[Simon Moon]

I like it, its creative and silly, and so is fun. without getting drawn into fancy words for philosophical concepts which i,m ill equiped to use I can say there appears to me the possability of a problem with....

the first statement as if we are allowed to imagine is there a limit to what we can imagine? some may be able to that you could have a creator of the creator of a universe which would be a greater achievement that the first statement and this could go on forever as has been pointed out in other contexts on other threads.

the statement 5. is interesting as its close to what a singularity is to many people who can't understand how something called a singularity can have no volume and yet be seen to exist.

You are not understanding the reason behind Gaskin's parody of the Ontological Argument.

The Ontological Argument is fallacious. In other words it is not logically valid. When a syllogism is not logically valid, it means that the premises do not support the conclusion.

The parody is an attempt to show just how inane the Ontological Argument is, It is not mean as a valid argument itself.

without getting drawn into fancy words for philosophical concepts which i,m ill equiped to use

You REALLY should read some books on basic logic. Especially since you continue to bring up so many of these failed philosophical arguments.

So far you've used the Cosmological Argument and the Ontological Argument, yet you don't understand them, and more importantly, you don't understand why they fail.

This is exactly why you are too dependent on this ->

All true but he seems someone in tune with my mental processes just on a higher level so for me I need to read.

The reason why logic and science are so effective is because they DON'T count on your personal mental processes. The human mind is way too susceptible to confirmation bias, misinterpretations, prejudices, etc.

Common sense is very often wrong.

[Surtr]

William Lane Craig the great Christian philosopher

pointed out that something that doesn't exist can't really do anything so you arrive at a premise that makes no logical sense. So he's got you there, he's got you by the balls.

It's intended to be a humorous parody of a logically invalid theist argument, not an serious argument that actually proves the nonexistence of a deity.

it takes no account of the possability that it was an accident by the creator rather than any intent

(The creation of an incredibly complicated universe with laws of physics tweaked in a way that life can exist can be an accident?)
This once again means nothing. This is a parody of a logically invalid argument that claims to prove the existence of god; it seeks to use similar invalid logic to prove his nonexistence. In doing this, it shows that the ontological argument is actually quite silly.