Appearance and DNA mismatch

[It Aint Necessarily So]

being hostile againts philosophy (as if it were a secondary and unimportant field)

Why did you call that hostility? He said that philosophy isn't fact based, by which I assume he meant isn't based in evidence (isn't an empirical science), and you would likely agree that it isn't. Like mathematics, it's based in pure reason.

Typical new atheist behaiviour

And that kind of response has become typical apologist behavior since humanists got a voice thanks to a variety of factors such as the rise of the Internet. Theists simply weren't used to being disagreed with or having the errors in their Bibles scrutinized, and they resent it. They typically have an emotional and negatively judgmental response like yours. How dare he challenge your proofs of God, the upstart. This is what is meant by militant atheism, or what you called typical new atheist behavior - having an equal voice and better facts and arguments.

"The problem with being privileged your whole life is that because you have had that privilege for so long, equality starts to look like oppression." - Mark Caddo

Think about it. The Christian is accustomed to not having his sermons or biblical teaching challenged. Challenge them in church or Sunday school, and you'll quickly be chastised by about the second question and even sooner if making statements that contradict orthodoxy. Also, the church goer is taught that atheists are immoral and that their behavior is determined by Satan, so when he begins encountering them on the Internet, he reacts accordingly. Here is a cartoon illustrating that graphically. This guy's not used to uppity back talk from sinners:

The KCA arguments concludes that the universe has a cause, under what basis do you say that the conclusion is not objective?

What is said is not that the conclusion is not objective, but not sound. Both premises of the KCA argument in its original form have been challenged. We don't know that everything that begins to exists has a cause. Quantum indeterminacy challenges this assumption. Also, the universe didn't necessarily begin to exist when it began to expand. Nor does it conclude "therefore God," and is thus not attempting to prove a god's existence, but a prior cause for the universe. So, what we have here is an unsound but valid argument (premises not established but no fallacy in the subsequent reasoning) that the universe has a cause:

1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
2. The universe began to exist.
3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

You're probably familiar with WL Craig's extension, which does attempt to be a proof of a god (though not necessarily his god), and which is more obviously flawed due to non sequiturs and thus not sound or valid:

1. The universe has a cause.
2. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists who sans (without) the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.
3. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless and enormously powerful.

People capable of such analyses as this one are commonplace, especially in a venue like this one that attracts critical thinkers. You seem to think that some kind of credential is necessary to do this properly. As an example, I have never taken a philosophy course. Yet I would say that my analysis is accurate. Feel free to rebut it if you think it contains an error of fact or an error of reasoning.

would you at least agree on that people like Dawkins are not qualified to critique those complex philosophical arguments?

Why wouldn't he be? He's a well-educated academic. Most are skilled critical thinkers, and so is Dawkins. But it doesn't matter who made them. Just look at the philosophical arguments and decide if they are sound, as you hopefully just did regarding the rebuttal to both the KCA and Craig's extension. Hopefully, you subjected them to critical analysis, that is, you assessed my words for errors of fact or inference and found my conclusions either compelling or unsound. If you are correct about Dawkins not being philosophically competent, you can give your rebuttal and demonstrate that.

You seem to want to disqualify Dawkins opinions based in who Dawkins is rather than in what those opinions are, another common apologist technique. I have a large collection of quotes from Internet believers trying to discredit comments on scripture because the skeptic making them doesn't have the proper credentials to offer them such as the help of the Holy Spirit. Here are a few examples for your reading pleasure. Isn't that what you're trying to do with Dawkins? :

• "Like I say there are no errors in the bible only skeptics that can't read and comprehend."
• "I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion."
• "So you are an expert in arabic right?"
• "The words are the proof, even by themselves, but you need a certain spiritual susceptibility to them."
• "If you do not believe in God, His things will be beyond your comprehension."

 

[F1fan]

being hostile againts philosophy (as if it were a secondary and unimportant field)

Typical new atheist behaiviour

False. It's a fact that philosophy and religion does not have to follow facts. Both can be complete nonsense and be appreciated. That is not hostility, that is acknowledging reality.

The KCA arguments concludes that the universe has a cause, under what basis do you say that the conclusion is not objective?

Because Kalam still has conditions that are not factual. It is a "What if...." argument. Since it includes "if" in it's wording there are uncertainties, and that means no valid and final conclusion. This is typical of religious arguments for God, because religions function with certain sets of assumptions that are treated as true, and these arguments exploit these assumptions by theists. The arguments set the table with necessary conditions they cannot demonstrate to objective thinking.

(suggestion, understand the meaning of objective before answering)

Did you write this as a note to yourself? It's good advice.

Ok would you at least agree on that people like Dawkins are not qualified to critique those complex philospphical arguemnts. ?

Dawkins is a highly intelligent and well educated person, and those are the two primary qualifications for assessing philosophy and offering critique. So if Dawkins offers critique of any specific philosophy and it is flawed, by all means point out the flaws. Your disagreement is not pointing out his flaws, it only shows your disagreement for some other reason. In essence you need to fill in the gaps and assumptions made in the Kalam and other religious arguments, which no theist can do.

Of course the critique he offers points out the flaws in philosophical claims and arguments, which are applauded by other very intelligent people. We don't care that you disagree. We care if you can fill in the gaps and assumptions of the Kalam and other religious arguments.

 

[Heyo]

Do you honestly think that Dawkins is in a position to say with authority that something like “Aquinas 5 ways fail?” we both agree that Kent Hovind has no authority to say things like radiometric dating fails what I fail to understand is why isn’t the Dawkins example analogous under your eyes? It seems to me that both scenarios are analogous.

The difference is that Hovind has misrepresented the theory he is dismissing and has clearly shown that he doesn't understand it (or, more precise, doesn't want to understand it).
The same can not be said about Dawkins, at least I don't know of any examples.

 

[leroy]

Well, it was a hypothesis which would have dismantled @leroy's argument from authority without having to discuss how we have authority/expertise. I have had original philosophical thoughts only to find later that others had them before (and often expressed them better). So even if I play the authority/expertise game, I can often point to an expert who agrees with me. And I bet Dawkins can also.

Can you please cite the experts that Dawkins quoted in his book the God delusion, when he addresses Aquinas 5 ways for example?

I agree with your point, you don’t have to be an expert yourself, (you can quote form sources) my point is that neither do Hovind nor Dawkins do it (at least not properly) and in general New Atheist and YEC don’t do it.

 

[ChristineM]

Can you please cite the experts that Dawkins quoted in his book the God delusion, when he addresses Aquinas 5 ways for example?

I agree with your point, you don’t have to be an expert yourself, (you can quote form sources) my point is that neither do Hovind nor Dawkins do it (at least not properly) and in general New Atheist and YEC don’t do it.

Dawkins is not an atheist new or old, he is agnostic.

 

[Heyo]

Can you please cite the experts that Dawkins quoted in his book the God delusion, when he addresses Aquinas 5 ways for example?

No. Haven't read it.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am just saying that not-experts like Kent Hovind has no authority to conclude and affirm as fact that evolution is wrong, in the same way Richard Dawkins has no authority to conclude (and affirm as fact) a philosophical argument for God is wrong … any disagreement from your part?

I don't mind whatever Hovind concludes about science. I refute it. He's free to make his arguments, and once it's apparent that he doesn't know the science he's arguing against, his argument is dead. It isn't necessary for me to know who made the argument or what his credentials are if I can see that it's flawed.

Same with Dawkins.

What are you suggesting or objecting to specifically? That Dawkins (and maybe Hovind) should not make his arguments? That those arguments should not be looked at for lack of adequate credentials? That they should be rejected or not believed whatever they look like?

Well arguments are typically given to justify that 4 follows from 3 , are you familiar with those arguments? How would you respond to them?

Those arguments are not in the KCA or its extension via Craig. It is not impossible that their inclusion would make the argument sound by connecting the "does not follow from what preceded it" (non sequitur) to what preceded it, but yes, I've seen some of the arguments attempting to do that, and not been convinced.

For example the cause of the universe (which includes time) by definition would have to be “something timeless” this is logically necessarily, something that requires “time” to exist, by definition could have not been the cause of time. This is analogous to “the cause of the first computer, by definition could have not been another computer, (otherwise it wouldn’t be the first computer). At this point do you agree?

I don't agree that the cause of the universe, if a cause exists, has to be timeless. In fact, the notion is incoherent. Cause and effect require the passage of time, one preceding the other. The notion of a god existing outside of time is incoherent, as thought and creative acts also require before and after states as does all change. I don't find the analogy apt. It isn't related to change occurring outside of time or any other incoherent proposition.

Don’t you think you are being way to arrogant there? I agree on that some experts agree with you, but nobody would go as far as to claim that “it´s easy to refute”

No. Why do you think it's arrogant to find something easy? Because some others don't? Arrogant can be defined as, "having or revealing an exaggerated sense of one's own importance or abilities." Craig's non sequitur is remarkably easy to spot for a man who presents himself as an intellectual and a philosopher. That's what I meant by the comment that refuting it is easy. It's as easy as following the work in someone's math problem solution ("show your work") and finding an error there if one knows the math. "No, Tommy, it does not follow that if (a+b)(a+b)=9 that a^2+b^2=9." That may not be easy for some to see, but it's hardly arrogant for a skilled algebraist to consider the error easy for himself to spot.

Don't you see Craig's error? It's as flagrant as, "Something must have opened this door, therefore there is a pair of St. Bernards on the loose." Really? You got from a door was opened directly to it must have been done by St. Bernard without any connecting facts to justify that, such as that two St. Bernards live here and they have left? What an oddly specific non sequitur.

Like the above argument that overlooks other possible explanations for the open door, Craig's argument failed to rule out other logical possibilities for why the world is here, including that it has always existed and exists uncaused like the god he believes in, or that the world began to exist from nothing or arose from an unconscious substance (multiverse hypotheses). Enumerating an exhaustive list of logical possibilities might be difficult, but recognizing that there are more of them than just a deity isn't.

 

[F1fan]

Can you please cite the experts that Dawkins quoted in his book the God delusion, when he addresses Aquinas 5 ways for example?

I agree with your point, you don’t have to be an expert yourself, (you can quote form sources) my point is that neither do Hovind nor Dawkins do it (at least not properly) and in general New Atheist and YEC don’t do it.

Philosophy has the freedom to think and claim anything you damn well please. So does theism. But science has a strict set of standards to follow to be valid, so if someone tries to argue against valid conclusions in science by breaking the standards necessary in science, they invalidate themselves, and all a critic has to do is point it out. Creationists are notorious for not following scientific standards, and as a result invalid themselves.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Same is true with Richard Dawkins

How so? Did Dawkins go to prison for tax fraud?

Has Dawkins been shown to be lying about evolution? Misrepresenting the evidence?

For example in the God delusion there is a chapter where Dawkins misrepresents “Aquinas 5 ways” (or 5 proofs for God) and then he refutes his strawman version of what Aquinas said.

How is that any different from what Kent Hovid has done?

I don't have enough information to determine that.

My point is that YEC and New Atheist are pretty much the same thing / They both claim to be sure / they both admit that nothing would change their view / they both talk and “refute” stuff that is beyond their area of expertise / they both avoid the burden proof at all cost / they both misrepresent the other side /they both ignore what experts say / etc.

Dawkins doesn't claim to be sure that there are no god(s).
And I'm pretty sure if you asked Dawkins, what he would say would be that evidence would change his view. And I'm pretty sure that Hovind would NOT say that. Heck, he can't even admit when he's made an error.

Ultimately what I am saying is that ether you tolerate and accept both people like Hovid and People like Dawkins or repudiate both, / accepting one and rejecting the other would be hypocritical.

They're not the same. Get back to me when Dawkins has committed tax fraud and when he's written a hilariously awful Ph.D. "thesis" and then parades around calling himself a doctor and a science teacher.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Because there are many deceivers and liars, and Hovind is not one of them.

He's definitely one of them. He's served the jail time to prove it.

 

[leroy]

False. It's a fact that philosophy and religion does not have to follow facts. Both can be complete nonsense and be appreciated. That is not hostility, that is acknowledging reality.

Well yes, philosophy wrongly applied can be nonsense, but the same is true with science. The problem is that you seem to be implying that science is somehow “always superior” to philosophy which is obviously nonsense and typical “internet atheists” reasoning

Because Kalam still has conditions that are not factual. It is a "What if...." argument. Since it includes "if" in it's wording there are uncertainties, and that means no valid and final conclusion. This is typical of religious arguments for God, because religions function with certain sets of assumptions that are treated as true, and these arguments exploit these assumptions by theists. The arguments set the table with necessary conditions they cannot demonstrate to objective thinking.

Irrelevant, your original accusation was that the conclusion is not “objective” now you are saying that it is not “factual” so which one is it?

Dawkins is a highly intelligent and well educated person,

Maybe, but he is not an expert in philosophy (let alone in aquinas philosophy) therefore he has no authority in concluding that the 5 ways of Aquinas are wrong.

The only point that I am making is that Dawkins refuting Aquinas and Hovind refuting say radiometric dating are equally absurd and equally ridiculous.

This is not meant to be a controversial point, honestly I wasn’t expecting this resistance and willingness to defend Dawkins as if he where some sort of “all knowing prophet”

 

[leroy]

The difference is that Hovind has misrepresented the theory he is dismissing and has clearly shown that he doesn't understand it (or, more precise, doesn't want to understand it).
The same can not be said about Dawkins, at least I don't know of any examples.

Well I already gave you an example

Aquinas 5 ways

Are you familiar with these arguments? Are you familiar with what Dawkins refutation on this topic in “the God Delusion”?

 

[Heyo]

Well I already gave you an example

Aquinas 5 ways

Are you familiar with these arguments?

It's been a long time but I have discussed - and dismissed - them previously in a debate. And learned later that others have done so 300 years earlier with about the same arguments. I've learned a lot from those discussions - and have forgotten most of it.

 

[leroy]

It's been a long time but I have discussed - and dismissed - them previously in a debate. And learned later that others have done so 300 years earlier with about the same arguments. I've learned a lot from those discussions - and have forgotten most of it.

I doubt it, but this is not about you, its about Dawkins

Do you think Dawkins made a good refutation in his book?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

In appearance, purpose, functions, and characteristics, a banana (or macaque) differs 100% from a human, and the difference in DNA is 0%. Are you being deceived?

Yes.

We in "appearance, purpose, function..." (ie: phenotype) we differ much, but not "100%"
And in DNA we are very similar, but not identical (so not a difference of 0%)

So on both points, you are as wrong as you could be.

Dr. Kent Hovind. Why Kent the true PhD?

"the true" PhD?

You know, if anyone else said that, I'ld consider it hilarious satire.
Coming from you, it's just sad.

He deserved even the
title ``King of England'' because of the soul's pain he suffered.
He has saved me from Darwinism and, thus, the hell.
What about him? He was destroyed.

You mean his conviction for tax fraud?
Or the public shaming he received for being a wife beater and generally a very abusive boss and person?

Well, I should hope so, that he was destroyed for it.

He truly is a very horrible person on all fronts.

Manipulative, violent, dishonest, narcistic,...
I still think he doesn't actually believe the stuff he claims. I still think it's all just a money making scam.

He is more hated than Adolf Hitler.

No, he's not. Most people don't even know who the guy is.
And to most people, he is just a laughing stock who got what he deserved.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes, there are 40 and 94 percent or something instead of 100. But I am not a pedant geek. For more impression, I am writing all or nothing: 100 Vs. 0.

So, you are deliberately misrepresenting the science in a deliberate dishonest attempt, ey?

Good to know.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

You are wrong. I am special.

Did your mommy tell you that?

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Wonder what Hell of evolution is??? As of now isnt the theory of evolution just a theory in it self? Of course the theory could one day become facts....but until science are sure, its a theory, isn't it?

No, that's not how it works.

Theories don't become facts in science.
Theories explain facts.

Ideas start out as hypothesis and graduate into theory once the evidence "confirms" the hypothesis.
Theory is the end-stage of scientific ideas. There's nothing "beyond" that.

Theories are confirmed hypothesis.


Look at it this way:
- Facts: pieces of data; observations (the apple falls)
- Laws: abstract descriptions of sets of facts/observations (things with mass attract other things with mass)
- Theory: explaination of certain sets of facts and laws within a well defined scope (the theory of relativity).

Theories explain facts.
Laws describe facts.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Is this the same Dr Kent Hovind that is a tax dodger and wife beater - has spent most of the last 10-years in Jail?
His son has disowned him and stolen his show.
Kent got his PhD from a shed in the middle of nowhere from an unrecognised college.

This is the sort of person you are glorifying

I know right....

His "dissertation" is online.

It starts with:

"Hi, My name is Kent Hovind"

It's pretty hilarious


Young-earth creationist Kent Hovind's doctoral dissertation - WikiLeaks