How do you explain self organisation in nature?

[ElanJo]

Here's a short argument demonstrating why Dawkins is wrong when he says Evolution proves God does not exist.

I think his main argument against God is the 'ultimate 747', not evolution. Where the ultimate 747 argument collapses for me, is with the multiverse extension. He devotes two hundred pages to disproving God but less than one paragraph explaining why a multiverse is more simple than one-God-one-universe. I'll quote it, so perhaps someone who understands Dawkins' logic better than I can make sense of it because to me it just sounds like bollocks:

The multiverse, for all that it is extravagant, is simple. God, or any intelligent, decision-taking, calculating agent, would have to be very improbable in the very same statistical sense as the entities he is supposed to explain. The multiverse may seem extravagant in sheer number of universes. But if each one of those universes is simple in its fundamental laws, we are still not postulating anything highly improbable. The very opposite has to be said of any kind of intelligence.

ibid, p. 176.

Can someone have a go at explaining why a multiverse must necessarily be more simple than God? It seems to be as if Dawkins is making quite a big assumption about a multiverse we don't yet know to exist and assigning it arbitrary likelyhood. I think it quite important that he explain this more fully when his entire forty page argument hangs in its balance.

I already had a go at this but here's another view.

To show why something (a God in this instance) is wrong or highly highly improbable you do not need to bring to the table an alternate answer. So I do not think that his entire argument against God hangs in the balance (at least not for that reason).

A hypothetical multiverse can be seen as simpler than a universe with a hypothetical god because you're not really postulating something that goes against experience and logic. The problem is is why do we find our selves in a universe capable of life?. The anthropic principle is useful but doesn't have much explanation power. People come up with the idea that because the universe is, or appears to be, fine-tuned there must have been a fine-tuner - an intelligence. But this flys in the face of all that we know about intelligence. You really have to complicate the issue far more to create a God. Whereas a Multiverse, whilst large in number (of universes), is a simpler way to explain why we find ourselves in a universe capable of life. There are lots of 'experiments' so to speak. Just because the 1 universe - 1 God explanation only has 2 'players' doesn't make it simpler.

The Multiverse, like a God, is not proven but there are at least tentative reasons in physics to suppose a Multiverse.

I'd agree with you that Dawkins shoud expand more on the Multiverse hypothesis if that is all he says on the subject.<br /><br />-- Thu Jul 15, 2010 11:25 pm --<br /><br />

Since when exactly did Dawkins say that evolution proves that (a) God does not exist?

-- Thu Jul 15, 2010 10:22 pm --



What the hell are you talking about?

You're just making shit up.

come on EJ - you're better than that

Explain...

 

[Skashion]

I think his main argument against God is the 'ultimate 747', not evolution. Where the ultimate 747 argument collapses for me, is with the multiverse extension. He devotes two hundred pages to disproving God but less than one paragraph explaining why a multiverse is more simple than one-God-one-universe. I'll quote it, so perhaps someone who understands Dawkins' logic better than I can make sense of it because to me it just sounds like bollocks:


ibid, p. 176.

Can someone have a go at explaining why a multiverse must necessarily be more simple than God? It seems to be as if Dawkins is making quite a big assumption about a multiverse we don't yet know to exist and assigning it arbitrary likelyhood. I think it quite important that he explain this more fully when his entire forty page argument hangs in its balance.

I already had a go at this but here's another view.

To show why something (a God in this instance) is wrong or highly highly improbable you do not need to bring to the table an alternate answer. So I do not think that his entire argument against God hangs in the balance (at least not for that reason).

A hypothetical multiverse can be seen as simpler than a universe with a hypothetical god because you're not really postulating something that goes against experience and logic. The problem is is why do we find our selves in a universe capable of life?. The anthropic principle is useful but doesn't have much explanation power. People come up with the idea that because the universe is, or appears to be, fine-tuned there must have been a fine-tuner - an intelligence. But this flys in the face of all that we know about intelligence. You really have to complicate the issue far more to create a God. Whereas a Multiverse, whilst large in number (of universes), is a simpler way to explain why we find ourselves in a universe capable of life. There are lots of 'experiments' so to speak. Just because the 1 universe - 1 God explanation only has 2 'players' doesn't make it simpler.

The Multiverse, like a God, is not proven but there are at least tentative reasons in physics to suppose a Multiverse.

I'd agree with you that Dawkins shoud expand more on the Multiverse hypothesis if that is all he says on the subject.

I understand that he's not in need of an alternative but his whole logic of the ultimate 747 follows that the designer must be more complex than what has been designed but God needn't design a multiverse. If you were to imagine two ladders side-by-side, with complexity in a single universe on one ladder and God on the other, it doesn't matter how high the ladder is because God would always be higher. That's fine. But once we branch into a multiverse God can stop climbing.

It can be, but must it be? Up until this point, the reason why Dawkins' logic works is because a designer must be more complex that what it has designed. After this point, the waters become very muddy indeed. You could even say it ventures beyond the bounds of science because how could you test the multiverse hypothesis? Personally, I'd be much more interested in theories which are testable such as that suggested by Hawking and Hertog. To be honest, I'm somewhat surprised that Dawkins has chosen the multiverse as his preferred solution, over the alternatives. It seems to be the one to which his ultimate 747 is most vulnerable. I'd be interested to hear more from him on the matter but a Google search has so far thrown up nothing.

 

[johnny crossan]

I already had a go at this but here's another view.

To show why something (a God in this instance) is wrong or highly highly improbable you do not need to bring to the table an alternate answer. So I do not think that his entire argument against God hangs in the balance (at least not for that reason).

A hypothetical multiverse can be seen as simpler than a universe with a hypothetical god because you're not really postulating something that goes against experience and logic. The problem is is why do we find our selves in a universe capable of life?. The anthropic principle is useful but doesn't have much explanation power. People come up with the idea that because the universe is, or appears to be, fine-tuned there must have been a fine-tuner - an intelligence. But this flys in the face of all that we know about intelligence. You really have to complicate the issue far more to create a God. Whereas a Multiverse, whilst large in number (of universes), is a simpler way to explain why we find ourselves in a universe capable of life. There are lots of 'experiments' so to speak. Just because the 1 universe - 1 God explanation only has 2 'players' doesn't make it simpler.

The Multiverse, like a God, is not proven but there are at least tentative reasons in physics to suppose a Multiverse.

I'd agree with you that Dawkins shoud expand more on the Multiverse hypothesis if that is all he says on the subject.

Since when exactly did Dawkins say that evolution proves that (a) God does not exist?

What the hell are you talking about?

You're just making shit up.

come on EJ - you're better than that

Explain...

Well, I take an interest in your continuing education and even try to contribute to it. I post clips of Dawkins' evangelicals making their case in person and another atheist explaining why they are wrong. I am currently struggling to understand and respond to the strange idea that the one can be more complex than the many and you just accuse me of making things up and use a very coarse expression to describe my attempts at dialogue.

It's no way to encourage a fellow seeker after truth. Indeed I have an inkling that you don't want to encourage me at all.

 

[tonea2003]

I already had a go at this but here's another view.

To show why something (a God in this instance) is wrong or highly highly improbable you do not need to bring to the table an alternate answer. So I do not think that his entire argument against God hangs in the balance (at least not for that reason).

A hypothetical multiverse can be seen as simpler than a universe with a hypothetical god because you're not really postulating something that goes against experience and logic. The problem is is why do we find our selves in a universe capable of life?. The anthropic principle is useful but doesn't have much explanation power. People come up with the idea that because the universe is, or appears to be, fine-tuned there must have been a fine-tuner - an intelligence. But this flys in the face of all that we know about intelligence. You really have to complicate the issue far more to create a God. Whereas a Multiverse, whilst large in number (of universes), is a simpler way to explain why we find ourselves in a universe capable of life. There are lots of 'experiments' so to speak. Just because the 1 universe - 1 God explanation only has 2 'players' doesn't make it simpler.

The Multiverse, like a God, is not proven but there are at least tentative reasons in physics to suppose a Multiverse.

I'd agree with you that Dawkins shoud expand more on the Multiverse hypothesis if that is all he says on the subject.

come on EJ - you're better than that

Explain...

Well, I take an interest in your continuing education and even try to contribute to it. I post clips of Dawkins' evangelicals making their case in person and another atheist explaining why they are wrong. I am currently struggling to understand and respond to the strange idea that the one can be more complex than the many and you just accuse me of making things up and use a very coarse expression to describe my attempts at dialogue.

It's no way to encourage a fellow seeker after truth. Indeed I have an inkling that you don't want to encourage me at all.

i can see the ship of fools mobilising

 

[ElanJo]

Well, I take an interest in your continuing education and even try to contribute to it. I post clips of Dawkins' evangelicals making their case in person and another atheist explaining why they are wrong. I am currently struggling to understand and respond to the strange idea that the one can be more complex than the many and you just accuse me of making things up and use a very coarse expression to describe my attempts at dialogue.

It's no way to encourage a fellow seeker after truth. Indeed I have an inkling that you don't want to encourage me at all.

Give it a rest JC. You and I both know that you're not interested in anything remotely close to an honest dialogue. You've proved that long ago, you've merely reaffirmed the proof in your recent, shall we say, resurrection.

You claimed that Dawkins believes that Evolution proves that there is no God. You know aswell as I do that this is a false assertion.
As for Dennett, you posted a video and then claimed that his answer as to why evolution is unguided is because there is no god. I don't know what to say to this... it's just beyond pathetic.

I've got no patience for you.

 

[johnny crossan]

Well, I take an interest in your continuing education and even try to contribute to it. I post clips of Dawkins' evangelicals making their case in person and another atheist explaining why they are wrong. I am currently struggling to understand and respond to the strange idea that the one can be more complex than the many and you just accuse me of making things up and use a very coarse expression to describe my attempts at dialogue.

It's no way to encourage a fellow seeker after truth. Indeed I have an inkling that you don't want to encourage me at all.

Give it a rest JC. You and I both know that you're not interested in anything remotely close to an honest dialogue. You've proved that long ago, you've merely reaffirmed the proof in your recent, shall we say, resurrection.

You claimed that Dawkins believes that Evolution proves that there is no God. You know as well as I do that this is a false assertion.
As for Dennett, you posted a video and then claimed that his answer as to why evolution is unguided is because there is no god. I don't know what to say to this... it's just beyond pathetic.

I've got no patience for you.

A bit harsh that EJ. In the course of previous related threads on here there have been several attempts by me to provide evidence for my theist position (admittedly easily often lost under tidal waves of abuse.) I will confess to a certain distancing on my part from taking some varieties of attacks on faith seriously and that may have contributed to a lowering of tone.

Anyway this evening I'll try to put that behind me and squarely face the two questions you posed but without responding to the bit about me knowing the opposite of that which I asserted. I do hope my efforts will stay on the near side of pathetic.

 

[asmodeus]

read this book :

The Lucifer Principle by Howard bloom

 

[ElanJo]

Give it a rest JC. You and I both know that you're not interested in anything remotely close to an honest dialogue. You've proved that long ago, you've merely reaffirmed the proof in your recent, shall we say, resurrection.

You claimed that Dawkins believes that Evolution proves that there is no God. You know as well as I do that this is a false assertion.
As for Dennett, you posted a video and then claimed that his answer as to why evolution is unguided is because there is no god. I don't know what to say to this... it's just beyond pathetic.

I've got no patience for you.

A bit harsh that EJ. In the course of previous related threads on here there have been several attempts by me to provide evidence for my theist position (admittedly easily often lost under tidal waves of abuse.) I will confess to a certain distancing on my part from taking some varieties of attacks on faith seriously and that may have contributed to a lowering of tone.

Anyway this evening I'll try to put that behind me and squarely face the two questions you posed but without responding to the bit about me knowing the opposite of that which I asserted. I do hope my efforts will stay on the near side of pathetic.

I'll look forward to it.

I'd also be extremely interested in your evidence for your theism. I'm happy to have an honest and polite discussion with you on this topic. Infact I'd much prefer it.

 

[johnny crossan]

A bit harsh that EJ. In the course of previous related threads on here there have been several attempts by me to provide evidence for my theist position (admittedly easily often lost under tidal waves of abuse.) I will confess to a certain distancing on my part from taking some varieties of attacks on faith seriously and that may have contributed to a lowering of tone.

Anyway this evening I'll try to put that behind me and squarely face the two questions you posed but without responding to the bit about me knowing the opposite of that which I asserted. I do hope my efforts will stay on the near side of pathetic.

I'll look forward to it.

I'd also be extremely interested in your evidence for your theism. I'm happy to have an honest and polite discussion with you on this topic. In fact I'd much prefer it.

OK Part 1 only I'm afraid - a bit pushed for time tonight but a promise is a promise. This is just a question of record anyway, we both know that.

It's a surprise to me at least that I have failed to find any quotes which demonstrate incontrovertibly that Dawkins has said he believes atheism is a necessary consequence of his understanding of evolution but there is this answer to the question "Is atheism the logical extension of believing in evolution?" Dawkins says "They clearly can't be irrevocably linked because a very large number of theologians believe in evolution. In fact, any respectable theologian of the Catholic or Anglican or any other sensible church believes in evolution. Similarly, a very large number of evolutionary scientists are also religious. My personal feeling is that understanding evolution led me to atheism." (<a class="postlink" href="http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-Religion/2005/11/The-Problem-With-God-Interview-With-Richard-Dawkins.aspx?p=2" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.beliefnet.com/News/Science-R ... s.aspx?p=2</a>)

I'm not at all sure that the first part of that reply links to what he would take to be a proper understanding of evolution.

he has also said

"An atheist before Darwin could have said, following Hume: "I have no explanation for complex biological design. All I know is that God isn't a good explanation, so we must wait and hope that somebody comes up with a better one." I can't help feeling that such a position, though logically sound, would have left one feeling pretty unsatisfied, and that although atheism might have been logically tenable before Darwin, Darwin made it possible to be an intellectually fulfilled atheist."
-- Richard Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker (1986), page 6

and

"The more you understand the significance of evolution, the more you are pushed away from the agnostic position and towards atheism. Complex, statistically improbable things are by their nature more difficult to explain than simple, statistically probable things.
-- Richard Dawkins, from The New Humanist, the Journal of the Rationalist Press Association, Vol 107 No 2"

Enough there I think to see why his friends and his opponents alike make the assumption that Dawkins regards evolution an obvious antidote to the poisonous delusions of Abrahamic theism.

 

[mammutly]

Why has what The Dawkins said or didn't say become so important?

It couldn't be that belief in Dawkins has become a matter of faith, could it?

Certainly seems like that.