Your Views on Dawkins?

[pocaracas]

Oh, goodie!
A dick waving competition!
My english is crap, yours is good!.... or is it the other way around?
Anyway, another crazy guy from the P in PIGS... you be the judge of how good my spell checker is.

[Great Ape]

Who cares what his English is like. I can understand him perfectly fine.

[LastPoet]

Oh, goodie!
A dick waving competition!
My english is crap, yours is good!.... or is it the other way around?
Anyway, another crazy guy from the P in PIGS... you be the judge of how good my spell checker is.

I sure hope that PIGS stuff is just a media hype over the EU problems. Otherwise, I'd go batshit on them.

[pocaracas]

Oh, goodie!
A dick waving competition!
My english is crap, yours is good!.... or is it the other way around?
Anyway, another crazy guy from the P in PIGS... you be the judge of how good my spell checker is.

I sure hope that PIGS stuff is just a media hype over the EU problems. Otherwise, I'd go batshit on them.

Not media hype... just "an acronym used by international bond analysts, academics, and the economic press"... so, some hype there.

[LastPoet]

*Batshit mode engaged*

[Kirbmarc]

If all the explanations are highly unlikely, am I obliged, nonetheless, to pick and endorse one of them? I hear a great roar from the Notre Dame stadium; either the Irish have scored a touchdown, or an extra point, or a field goal, or a safety, or completed a long pass, or made a long run from scrimmage, or tackled the opposing runner for a loss, or intercepted a pass. Suppose these eight explanations exhaust the field, and suppose the first is slightly more probable than any of the other seven; its probability, on the evidence is .2. Am I obliged to believe that explanation, just because it is more probable than the rest, and even though its probability is much below .5? Whatever happened to agnosticism, withholding belief?

Plantinga, as usual, forgets that he is talking about science when he judges scientific questions and answers.

Scientific heories are judged according to their explaining power and their probability, not according to probability alone. Explaining power include the Occam's Razor principle: among competing hypothesis, we should select the one that doesn't add unnecessary hypothesis. In Plantinga's example, the possible explanations for the roar have all the same explaining power: they do not add further, unnecessary hypothesis to the setting "football game".

To make his analogy better, Plantinga should have added the explanation "The roar happened because an attractive naked woman ran across the field". This explanation adds an extra hypothesis (the naked woman) to the setting. It is, therefore, perfectly justified to disbelieve this hypothesis unless we already have good reasons to believe that a naked woman was actually at the game.

Religious explanations do the same thing: they add an external hypothesis (the infamous "intelligent creator or designer") without providing any direct evidence for the existence of the designer. They should be rejected unless they provide independent evidence for the designer or creator.

Furthermore, actually there is evidence against a creator or a designer: the usual interpretations of quantum mechanics tell us it's impossible to "plan" the development of the universe.

[Mister Agenda]

Here is one of the problems from God Delusion. Dawkins incorrectly assumes that one should accept unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God.

For starters, that's a conclusion, not an assumption.

The kicker is that even though he states both are exceedingly improbable, he still concedes that we should accept the former based on that its the "best explanation."

I admit that it's been awhile since I read the book, but I think that Dawkins' thinking evolution is exceedingly improbable is a misinterpretation.

This does not follow.[/quote}

I strongly suspect that if his position was reported accurately, it would.

[quote='clemdog14' pid='375842' dateline='1355811907']
Here is my source:

Shouldn't your source be Dawkins, rather than Platinga's interpretation of Dawkins?

---

My point is that we don't have the argument that God doesn't exist because we believe in gravity, so why do it with evolution?

Because creationists don't insist that theistic gravitation be taught in our public schools.

[Cato]

So what? I don't tell other people what their POV is, and I expect you not to tell me what mine is.

I'm not telling you what your point of view is, I'm simply making the observation that your point of view is fucking wrong.

[Mister Agenda]

Good opportunity for clarification of ad hominem:

You're stupid, therefore you're wrong. This is an ad hominem argument.

You're wrong, therefore you're stupid. This is a hasty generalization containing a garden-variety insult.

[downbeatplumb]

How else does god GUIDE evolution then?

With several million genetically different DNA packages swimming towards the egg how else doe it make sure the right one hits first?

Why don't you try actually understanding my POV as I articulate it very clearly. I don't presume ID theory over Evolution at all.

---

Fucking idiot. If anything this could be called a red herring; however, it was obvious that DownBeat was having a bit of fun and not giving his reply as a legitimate argument.

So what? I don't tell other people what their POV is, and I expect you not to tell me what mine is.

So what prey tell is "guided evolution" if not another stab at ID.