Hot answers tagged

22 votes

Dawkins on God: What are the strongest counters to his argument?

Since philosophers don't tend to comment on his argument, one can only speculate about why they don't, but the most likely answer is that it is a bad argument which was already addressed early in the ...
David Gudeman's user avatar
8 votes

Dawkins on God: What are the strongest counters to his argument?

I think the obvious line of attack is his assertion that the creator must be more complicated than the thing created, which is clearly questionable. Arguing about whether some form of god created the ...
Marco Ocram's user avatar
  • 18.9k
6 votes

Is reductionism in conflict with our sense of awe and wonder?

In his "Lecture on Ethics" Wittgenstein makes some similar points about wonder and miracles, first defining miracles: Let me first consider, again, our first experience of wondering at the ...
Canyon's user avatar
  • 1,956
5 votes

What point is Richard Dawkins trying to make here? Is it a fallacy?

It is a fallacy. It is known as Appeal to Ridicule. The link presents a very close example: Example #1: It takes faith to believe in God just like it takes faith to believe in the Easter Bunny -- but ...
luchonacho's user avatar
4 votes

Causality, Universal and Particulars, Evolution, and Theology

Short Answer From the perspective of a scientific athiest, the natural sciences require very specific types of processes, reasoning, and evidence to validate the existence of beings. To start with the ...
J D's user avatar
  • 25.1k
3 votes

Dawkins on God: What are the strongest counters to his argument?

1: X is extremely improbable without a designer 2: X is more probable with a designer 3: X is likely to have been designed When presented with the above argument, Dawkins's 4th step as you outlined ...
Futilitarian's user avatar
  • 4,328
3 votes

Isn't there a very obvious flaw in the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit?

We then ask how it originated and developed, and this leads us to a Creator. That is an enormous leap to make. Can you craft an argument that the origin of life necessarily has a capital-C creator? ...
microondas's user avatar
3 votes

Is reductionism in conflict with our sense of awe and wonder?

SCIENCE AND THE AESTHETIC ATTITUDE ARE DIFFERENT ... In aesthetic contemplation one considers an object - a natural object or an artefact - in detachment from all practical or explanatory motivations ...
Geoffrey Thomas's user avatar
  • 35.6k
3 votes

Dawkins on God: What are the strongest counters to his argument?

TL;DR Attacking infinite regress or complexity barely puts a dent in this argument. But pointing out the fact that the divine could exist in an infinite regress, or that there is an infinite regress ...
Vegard's user avatar
  • 161
3 votes

Dawkins on God: What are the strongest counters to his argument?

I quite like Dawkins' writings that I've read. He is a clear and engaging writer. However, the problem with his writing is Dawkins doesn't have a strong computer science or philosophy background, ...
yters's user avatar
  • 1,867
3 votes
Accepted

Dawkins' gene-centered view on personal identity

My first impression is that Dawkins is equating genetic code with personal identity. His first statement: "The potential people who could have been here in my place but who will in fact never see ...
njs's user avatar
  • 934
3 votes

Is reductionism in conflict with our sense of awe and wonder?

You are talking not about science but the faith of determinism. In the deterministic mindset, everything is made up merely of the physical interaction of objects, which can be subjected to experiments,...
PeterJens's user avatar
  • 548
2 votes

What point is Richard Dawkins trying to make here? Is it a fallacy?

Dawkins is high-lighting special pleading Dawkins is pointing out that the argument for being agnostic in relation to a god — but nothing else — is special pleading. Dawkins shows that is is ...
MichaelK's user avatar
  • 5,135
2 votes

Is Dawkins arguing that a cause must be greater than its effect?

I think the problem is applying the world complexity equivalent to nature and to God. For example, in the claim that God is "simple, composed of no parts", whereas e.g. "my body is not ...
luchonacho's user avatar
2 votes

Dawkins on God: What are the strongest counters to his argument?

The refutation of Dawkins lies within his own argument: Without an eternal God that exists beyond the realm of time and space, the infinite regress he describes would indeed be all that is left: An ...
csstudent1418's user avatar
2 votes

Dawkins on God: What are the strongest counters to his argument?

The posited designer must be even more complex and hence even more improbable. This is false. The designer does not need to be complex, but must merely be capable of creating complexity; which is not ...
Stewart's user avatar
  • 225
2 votes

Isn't there a very obvious flaw in the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit?

An obvious flaw can be illustrated by imagining a community of artificially intelligent entities produced by human programmers, existing within humanly designed hardware and software, largely ...
user2367358's user avatar
2 votes

Isn't there a very obvious flaw in the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit?

I think the refutation is correct... but only because Dawkins (as quoted) is not really addressing the essence of the complexity argument: that the complexity of the existing world cannot be explained ...
Roger V.'s user avatar
  • 1,545
2 votes

Isn't there a very obvious flaw in the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit?

Others have addressed your response, and I agree with them that it is deficient. But let’s turn back to the original question - is there something wrong with Dawkins’ argument that, to paraphrase, a ...
Paul Ross's user avatar
  • 5,401
2 votes

Isn't there a very obvious flaw in the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit?

Yes, there are two potential weaknesses which a pedant might pick at. Firstly, you say that life hasn't always existed so it needs a creator. I suspect Prof Dawkins might try to argue that life ...
Marco Ocram's user avatar
  • 18.9k
1 vote

Is Dawkins right to reject the idea that we should respect all opinions?

Dawkins is correct here. Common use words used in their standard form do not need to be specially defined; they can be assumed to mean what they always mean. MW's definition covers it well enough: ...
g s's user avatar
  • 5,256
1 vote

Isn't there a very obvious flaw in the Ultimate Boeing 747 gambit?

Complexity only is claimed as evidence in favour of a Creator because we have reason to believe that life didn’t always exist. We then ask how it originated and developed, and this leads us to a ...
causative's user avatar
  • 11.9k
1 vote

Dawkins on God: What are the strongest counters to his argument?

As complexity increases so does creative power (that's the basic premise). So, our god would need another (more complex) god and that god would need a different (even more complex) god ... so on and ...
Agent Smith's user avatar
  • 3,484
1 vote

Can you be omnipotent and still change your mind?

The boring answer: If you are omnipotent, by definition, you can be anything and exist wherever/whenever/however you want. On the more longwinded side: The question doesn't make much sense. When ...
TheSexyMenhir's user avatar
1 vote

Is there any rigorous philosophical basis for atheism?

Omnipotence implies the ability to manifest paradoxes in reality. This critically includes the ability for a thing to be true and false simultaneously. Showing that an argument leads to a paradox is ...
otakucode's user avatar
  • 171
1 vote

What point is Richard Dawkins trying to make here? Is it a fallacy?

Whilst I agree with most of what he says, I believe that there is potentially a 'Straw-Man' hiding in here. It is often said, mainly by the 'no-contests', that although there is no positive ...
JeffUK's user avatar
  • 508
1 vote

What point is Richard Dawkins trying to make here? Is it a fallacy?

First of all, his tone suggests sarcasm, and that he doesn't think we should be agnostic towards fairies .... but, even if we were agnostic with respect to fairies, ... so what? That does not seem ...
Chelonian's user avatar
  • 1,584

Only top scored, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible