Wednesday, November 01, 2017

Best Evidence, Occam and Fine Tuning (part 2 from monday)


An example of how “best explanation” should be considered:

This example is based upon the multiverse argument. The idea of the multiverse is taken seriously in science, even though it is the stuff of comic books and science fiction. The notion is what it sounds like: reality is divided into an infinite array of parallel universes. The argument is used to answer the fine tuning argument for God. The fine tuning argument says that the attributes of the universe that make life possible are so unlikely the game must be fixed. That's a good reason to believe in a planing intelligence as a creator. Our atheist friends say “not so fast.” There are infinite universes, thus infinite chances for life bearing. With infinite chances the odds of hitting life bearing are not so remote so there is not such a good reason to assert the need of a God. There are good answers to this, the argument is defensible. I wont defend it here because its not relevant. I am not asserting fine tuning to save the TS. My purpose in raising it is to make a point about how to consider best explanation.
The multiverse argument illustrates how the assumptions we make change the kind of explanation we seek. Is the multiverse necessary? It's a matter of empirical investigation and there may be empirical evidence to support it. Claims have been made of hard data proving Multivese, but when investigated they evaporate. Here's a physicist who opposed string theory and multiverse. He argues that his evaluation of the papers finds irresolvable problems.

In recent years there have been many claims made for “evidence” of a multiverse, supposedly found in the CMB data... Such claims often came with the remark that the Planck CMB data would convincingly decide the matter. When the Planck data was released two months ago, I looked through the press coverage and through the Planck papers for any sign of news about what the new data said about these multiverse evidence claims. There was very little there; possibly the Planck scientists found these claims to be so outlandish that it wasn’t worth the time to look into what the new data had to say about them. One exception was this paper, where Planck looked for evidence of “dark flow.”xiv

If hard evidence turns up for it then we have to deal with that on it's own terms. Until that time Multiverse should be shaved with Occam's razor. We don't need it to explain reality, it's only advanced to keep from having to turn to God. It's naturalistic so it's an arbitrary necessity at best. Arbitrary necessitates are logical impossibilities, contingent things jumped up to the level of necessity to answer a God argument. It's not that we are going to disprove the unnecessary entity (multiverse) but we are going to refrain from advancing it's existence as an assumption until such a time that real evidence makes it empirically undeniable. We can make that kind of ruling about the multiverse because its an empirical matter, even though it may be undetectable; God is not an empirical matter because God is both transcendent and transcendental. Therefore, Multiverse should be taken out of the issues of God arguments, yet we can't make that ruling about God. That's an example of what I meant when I said we can fill in the doughnut around the hole. If we find empirical evidence of multiverse we may have to re-think a couple of God arguments, In the mean time God might be the best explanation for the uniqueness of our world.
In any case parsimony is perhaps the best point of inference for abduction. 
Most philosophers believe that, other things being equal, simpler theories are better. But what exactly does theoretical simplicity amount to? Syntactic simplicity, or elegance, measures the number and conciseness of the theory's basic principles. Ontological simplicity, or parsimony, measures the number of kinds of entities postulated by the theory. One issue concerns how these two forms of simplicity relate to one another. There is also an issue concerning the justification of principles, such as Occam's Razor, which favor simple theories. The history of philosophy has seen many approaches to defending Occam's Razor, from the theological justifications of the Early Modern period, to contemporary justifications employing results from probability theory and statistics,xv
Again we have to distinguish between conceptual simplicity as opposed to mere ignorance of the case, or simple structure. In other words Dawkins treats God as a big man who must have more parts than the universe he creates (see above). That is simplicity in terms of structure, the physical structure of God. That is a case we just don't know about. We can't judge that. We can think of God as the simpler concept in terms of the economy of relations. First we can think of God as mind, not brain. We do not know that minds are complex. Brains are complex but we know nothing about mind. On the other hand we might posit that mind is simpler than brain because it's not a set of biological parts, but at least theoretically might be akin to the spirit. In any case God's relation to the whole is simple: one mind which thinks the universe. One mind that in the act of perceiving sets all meaning, creates all that is, and judges all moral value. That is simpeler in terms of economical relations between all parts than a multiverse. A multiverse would multiply the problems of fine tuning and something from nothing by every universe. Philosophy makes simplicity complicated.
To spell out the criteria by which we might judge a “best” explanation, not just simplicity alone but conceptual simplicity, we must be able to make comparisons between hypotheses. We can't compare hypotheses if they don't compete for the same results. Belief in God is not a scientific hypothesis, thus it does not compete with science. Thus belief cannot be reduced to the simplicity of “the best science.” For this reason we can call the kind of parsimony of the abductive version as parsimony of elegance. In other words not just take the simplest idea, but take the truly elegant hypothesis. By “elegant” is included conceptually simple in terms of relation to the whole theory, as well as consistent, competitive, and complete (accounts for most data, and most crucial data). Above I quote Baker as saying elegance is number and conciseness of the theories basic principles. Ontological simplicity is the number of kinds of entities. By that measure God would be both eligant and ontologically simple: one kind and its concise. To that I add the notion of bang for the buck; not just fewer kinds and more concise but accomplishes more for less.

Criteria for choosing the best explanation:

I. Simple (elegant and ontologically simple).
Focus is on God's relationship to all aspects of the universe and reality. It's not about issues like what is God made of or does he have parts. The relation itself of the God concept to the universe is what is at issue. One concept that props up every thing is simpler than trying to account for everything through loose ends. That's why they want a grand unified theory. More concise and bang for the buck.
II. Competitive:
Does the explanation compete with other explanations? In a sense no, the other explanations are not scientific. Science and religion have different domains they are meant to do different things. God and science don't compete. Yet the question is not one of science vs. God but of world views. While science makes up a large part of the world view of scientists and skeptics (and believers too at times) if we think of atheism as a world view there's more to it than just science. Atheism consists of actively cutting out the kinds of existential and phenomenological explanations that are part of the believer's world view. So belief in God answers the questions about life at a more philosophical level, to my way of thinking a more profound level. Science tells us how the physical world works. God tells us why there is a physical world. Of course there are limits to how much we are told. That's the job of Theology to figure out what God tells us and what God does not tell us. Belief in God competes with other philosophical level questions.
Religions are often thought of as competing with each other for believers, even though they all point to the TS as a generic object of faith. This is not to say they are all the same or that it doesn't matter,
but for the sake of the TS argument I'm going to bracket that for now. Atheism and belief in God Compete directly because the farmer seeks to explain the world by removing the explanation of the latter. While most atheists turn to science for explanatory power they often embrace an ideological version of science that is tuned to screen out religious explanations.xvi God transcends our understanding and our observations. Thus God belief can't compete with science's answers of how the universe works; nor does it need to. It does answer the why, the best atheism can do is to assert that there is no why. To the extent that both world views seek to account for ultimate origins one could assert overlap but atheists merely seek to explain in the how in the absnese of why and religion seeks a why.
So the issue is not one of science vs. belief in God, but belief vs. atheism. In other words given equal embrace of science which world view best explains the world? Some will claim that science rules out God because there's no necessary place for God in a world of modern science. That just depends upon what kind of explanation we seek. The believer must not allow the skeptic to pull a bait-and-switch whereby the workings of the physical world are put over as the best explanation just because they are the most certain.

III. Logically consistent with self and world:
No internal contradictions in theory, and if it does contradict what we think we know it has to re-explain it in a way so as to account for the apparent contradiction.
IV. Complete:
Explains more of the data than other hypotheses, and coordinates the answer to all other areas or more other areas than do other hypotheses. Example. God not only explains something from nothing but also accounts for ethics and meaning. The totality of data is all aspects of existence. It can't be limited to just empirical data but all aspects of human being and the nature of existing.
In order to cover all data the answer must include the philosophical in that it considers the phenomena on a higher level than just the physical workings of the universe. We have to be careful, however, not to set up the criteria in such a way that God is the only valid answer because nothing else applies. God must be the best explanation because other alternatives are eliminated. To demonstrate that I have not just set things up to favor my argument, I will, when the time comes to eliminate other alternatives, show alternatives that also fit the criteria.

V. Philosophical

Why a philosophical answer? Why not just content ourselves with the physical universe and how it works? That approach would rule God out before one got started thinking about that question. That answer must proceed from a transcendental perspective, analyzing the system of thought itself. The answer must be on a transcendental or metaphysical level but need not involve God. Must we manufacture a reason for things? No but there is a fine line. The answer can't content itself with pure physics and no more, but it can't demand a purposive reason as the only option. The explanation (sans God) on the metaphysical level might involve just dealing with the consequences of a purposeless world. We have to face the possibility that there is no purpose, but by the same token the skeptic must respect a subjective sense as the justification for seeking purpose. It's true that this criterion asks one to accept positions that perhaps can't be proven, but we don't have to prove the actual reality of God to produce a rational warrant for belief. Even a subjective sense can be analyzed and subjected to forms of verification (see my first book, The Trace of God: A Rational Warrant for Belief, available on Amazon).
To rule out all but the physical and to insist that we not go beyond this point is truncating reality. That is to say, it cuts us off from an understanding of being, not only the meaning of life but the nature of being. Why should we think about this? Because we don’t find it satisfying to ignore this question. This is why we want origin theories. We don't see scientists saying “we don't need to consider the origin of the universe it's not important.” They all have theories. In fact here is the point I made in chapter one about the desire of western philosophy to find a TS. We want a TS because we want to sum up the meaning and we want to understand what it means to be. We have the problem of metaphysics as elaborated by Heidegger and others. xvii Being hides itself from us as we are too close to it. We wind up imposing preconceived notions upon it which is what we do when we just assume that an understanding of the mere fact of existence is all we need.
Being is too close to us, it's like the atmosphere of the planet, we are breathing it and it gives us life but on a moment to moment basis we don't even know its there.xviii We don't understand that we are living in being as part of being thus we try to abstract and impose preconceived notions of what it means to be. We attempt to understand being by the imposition of preconceived ideas shaped by abstraction, this is metaphysics. It subjugates reality to ideology rather than revealing the nature of being.xix Science is engages in this mistake. Even though scientific thinkers like to separate themselves from metaphysics they still participate in its errors. They think they escape it because they are not proposing hierarchies of angels, but they are still making metaphysical assumptions in assuming there is nothing beyond the physical.

These five qualities taken together are what I call “the best explanation.” The conclusion of the argument posits a TS which can logically be understood as a generic God Concept. That conclusion has to meet the criteria. I will defend the premises as a true statement based upon best educated judgment then show how the proposed conclusion meets the criteria as best explanation for the phenomena sited.





xiv Peter Woit, “Hard Evidence for Multiverse Found, But String Theory limits Space Brain Threat,” Not Even Wrong,(May 22, 2013 ) online resourse: http://www.math.columbia.edu/~woit/wordpress/
accessed 8/26/15.
xv Alan Baker, "Simplicity", The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy (Fall 2013 Edition), Edward N. Zalta (ed.), URL = . Accessed 8/6/15
xviJoseph Hinman,God, Science and Ideology, chapter on Dawkis
xviiMartain Heidegger, Introduction to Metaphysics, op cit, 2.
xviiiHubert L. Dryefus, Being in the world: A Comenmtary on Heidegger's Being and Time, Division 1. Cambridge, Massachusetts, London: MIT Press, 1991, 1-3.

xix Pete Wolfendale, “Metaphysics After Heidegger,” Deontologistics, August 18, 2009, On line URL:
Peter Wolfemdale post doctoral research fellow in Philosophy at University of Johannesburg South Africa. Ci-edited Pli: The Warwick Jouurnal of Philsophy.




























39 comments:

im-skeptical said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said...

Let me start by saying that based on the title of part 1, I was thinking that this article was about evidence. Upon reading it, I realized that it wasn't about evidence at all, but it might have been more aptly named What kind of explanation is "best?" It talks about abductive reasoning and Occam's Razor, and how best to arrive at the best explanation.

Second, I can't help but note that you focus much of the discussion on throwing barbs at atheists and scientists, rather than just making your argument. While I understand that there can be value in contrasting alternative views, this article goes beyond that. For example your complaint about Richard Dawkins adds nothing to your thesis, but just takes a gratuitous swipe at an atheist you love to hate. (And before I move on, I should note that you characterize his view of God as ignorant because it doesn't match yours, but you don't understand his argument. Because that view of God is a logical consequence of a common argument that theists make. His own view is that God doesn't exist.)

And your recurrent theme that atheism is a worldview that actively seeks to remove God from any consideration of reality not only wrong, but abjectly ignorant. It precludes you from having any realistic understanding of what atheism is, or naturalism, or science. And this is obvious in your understanding of cosmological theory, which you call "the stuff of comic books and science fiction", because you have not the slightest clue about its scientific basis.

In a bitter irony, you say:
We attempt to understand being by the imposition of preconceived ideas shaped by abstraction, this is metaphysics. It subjugates reality to ideology rather than revealing the nature of being.xix Science is engages in this mistake. Even though scientific thinkers like to separate themselves from metaphysics they still participate in its errors. They think they escape it because they are not proposing hierarchies of angels, but they are still making metaphysical assumptions in assuming there is nothing beyond the physical.
You seem to have gross misunderstanding of what metaphysics is, and your belief that scientists separate themselves from it is not correct. It's just that naturalistic metaphysics doesn't include all the immaterial things that your metaphysics does. And you are completely blind to the fact YOUR OWN WORLDVIEW is based entirely on theistic assumptions that includes all those immaterial things that are absent from the assumptions of naturalists.

To bring the discussion back to the best explanation: When we open our eyes and look, what we see is the natural universe. Naturalism is not based on any assumption other than (basically) seeing is believing. Now you argue that God is simple, so that's the simplest explanation. But that is only true if you deny the existence of the natural world. In reality your view is that reality consists of both the natural world AND God. So naturalism is more consistent with Occam's Razor.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
Let me start by saying that based on the title of part 1, I was thinking that this article was about evidence. Upon reading it, I realized that it wasn't about evidence at all, but it might have been more aptly named What kind of explanation is "best?" It talks about abductive reasoning and Occam's Razor, and how best to arrive at the best explanation.

The definition of Abduction involves evidence that's why evidence got into it,

Second, I can't help but note that you focus much of the discussion on throwing barbs at atheists and scientists, rather than just making your argument. While I understand that there can be value in contrasting alternative views, this article goes beyond that. For example your complaint about Richard Dawkins adds nothing to your thesis, but just takes a gratuitous swipe at an atheist you love to hate. (And before I move on, I should note that you characterize his view of God as ignorant because it doesn't match yours, but you don't understand his argument. Because that view of God is a logical consequence of a common argument that theists make. His own view is that God doesn't exist.)

by the same token you aren't engaging with the issues,

And your recurrent theme that atheism is a worldview that actively seeks to remove God from any consideration of reality not only wrong, but abjectly ignorant.

Nope that is an acute analysis that atheist propaganda works to cover up. Yes it is in defiance of the prescribed structures of athirst dogma but so what?


It precludes you from having any realistic understanding of what atheism is, or naturalism, or science.

Defining atheism as ideology has nothing do with science,science is not bound up with atheism. What I think of one has no bearing on the other.

And this is obvious in your understanding of cosmological theory, which you call "the stuff of comic books and science fiction", because you have not the slightest clue about its scientific basis.

One of the major theorist of inflationary theory admitted it was invented just to answer God arguments that says it all. He sopped that theory because it required fine tuning. There is no empirical evidence for multiverse and that too was adopted just to stop Go garnets. that is not synonymous with all of cosmology

Joe Hinman said...

In a bitter irony, you say:
We attempt to understand being by the imposition of preconceived ideas shaped by abstraction, this is metaphysics. It subjugates reality to ideology rather than revealing the nature of being.xix Science is engages in this mistake. Even though scientific thinkers like to separate themselves from metaphysics they still participate in its errors. They think they escape it because they are not proposing hierarchies of angels, but they are still making metaphysical assumptions in assuming there is nothing beyond the physical.


You seem to have gross misunderstanding of what metaphysics is, and your belief that scientists separate themselves from it is not correct. It's just that naturalistic metaphysics doesn't include all the immaterial things that your metaphysics does. And you are completely blind to the fact YOUR OWN WORLDVIEW is based entirely on theistic assumptions that includes all those immaterial things that are absent from the assumptions of naturalists.

apparently you do not know about Heidegger. this is Heideggerian idea of metaphysics. It's relatively knew for scientists to say they are doing metaphysics,
they used to say it was crap they had nothing to do with it. That was do to the work of philosophers that made then have to start owning up to it,


To bring the discussion back to the best explanation: When we open our eyes and look, what we see is the natural universe. Naturalism is not based on any assumption other than (basically) seeing is believing.

Have you see a multiverse? The assumption that the television is all there is metaphysics, the idea that unseen realms cant exist or cant be discussed is metaphysics,that's a contradiction to what you just said,

Now you argue that God is simple, so that's the simplest explanation. But that is only true if you deny the existence of the natural world.

showroom, (1) you miss the fat that it assumes a certain kind of simplicity (2)that kind of simplicity still applies regardless of the nature of the natural world, nothing in the natural world that mandates naturalism.


In reality your view is that reality consists of both the natural world AND God. So naturalism is more consistent with Occam's Razor.

that implies a very silly assumption that my thing on SN is designed to over come,there is no contradiction between God and the natural world. Natural world is merely a creation by God, God creatde it and he exists in it,

im-skeptical said...

The definition of Abduction involves evidence that's why evidence got into it
- You provided a definition of abduction that doesn't include any mention of evidence. In fact, your article doesn't talk about what constitutes the "best evidence" at all.


by the same token you aren't engaging with the issues
- So are you claiming that Dawkins' objection to a theistic argument has something to do with abductive reasoning? Or are you just looking for any opportunity to make claims about how ignorant you think he is? What exactly is the issue here?


Nope that is an acute analysis that atheist propaganda works to cover up. Yes it is in defiance of the prescribed structures of athirst dogma but so what?
- Please provide reference for your claims. Where is this dogma to be found? And why haven't I (or any other atheist) ever seen it?


Defining atheism as ideology has nothing do with science,science is not bound up with atheism. What I think of one has no bearing on the other.
- And yet you include scientists in your incessant diatribes against those who don't share your superstition. Note the following comment.


One of the major theorist of inflationary theory admitted it was invented just to answer God arguments that says it all.
- Please provide reference for your claims. That is certainly not a scientific position. Scientific theory is not based on some imagined effort to deny God. Only a theist would make such a claim. That is sheer ignorance.


this is Heideggerian idea of metaphysics
- I don't give a rat's ass what Heidegger's metaphysics is. He was a Nazi fascist, and that was reflected in his writing. In any case, metaphysics must be informed by modern science, or it is worthless. See my discussion of The Big Problem With Thomism. You might also be interested to read The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science by Edwin Burtt.


Have you see a multiverse?
- That is not a consequence of naturalism. It is a scientific theory. And this only goes to show that you can't distinguish between beliefs (artheism), worldviews (naturalism), and science. To you, they are all the same thing.


(1) you miss the fat that it assumes a certain kind of simplicity (2)that kind of simplicity still applies regardless of the nature of the natural world, nothing in the natural world that mandates naturalism.
- No, I didn't miss it. YOU miss the fact that nature alone is simpler than nature PLUS God, no matter how simple you think God is.


that implies a very silly assumption that my thing on SN is designed to over come,there is no contradiction between God and the natural world. Natural world is merely a creation by God, God creatde it and he exists in it,
- I didn't mention anything about a contradiction. I am only saying that nature alone is simpler than nature PLUS God. And your argument doesn't overcome that.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...
The definition of Abduction involves evidence that's why evidence got into it
- You provided a definition of abduction that doesn't include any mention of evidence. In fact, your article doesn't talk about what constitutes the "best evidence" at all.

Evidence is part of explanatory, its the basis of explanatory. It's the title not the work.


by the same token you aren't engaging with the issues
- So are you claiming that Dawkins' objection to a theistic argument has something to do with abductive reasoning? Or are you just looking for any opportunity to make claims about how ignorant you think he is? What exactly is the issue here?

I use Dawkin's reasoning on his "747 argumet" (TGD) as an example of the misuse of simplicity. The point is to understand simplicity, Dawkins is a good example of not understanding it, or using it wrongly.


Nope that is an acute analysis that atheist propaganda works to cover up. Yes it is in defiance of the prescribed structures of athirst dogma but so what?

- Please provide reference for your claims. Where is this dogma to be found? And why haven't I (or any other atheist) ever seen it?

Give me an example of people speaking English i don't believe anyone does, why don't you face your own bigotry honestly.?

Me:
Defining atheism as ideology has nothing do with science,science is not bound up with atheism. What I think of one has no bearing on the other.

- And yet you include scientists in your incessant diatribes against those who don't share your superstition. Note the following comment.

I don't have a superstition, show me where I used scientists in anyway is wrong, unfairer illogical. show me where quote the passage? show meany diatribe against scientists?


One of the major theorist of inflationary theory admitted it was invented just to answer God arguments that says it all.

- Please provide reference for your claims. That is certainly not a scientific position. Scientific theory is not based on some imagined effort to deny God. Only a theist would make such a claim. That is sheer ignorance.

that one is
John Horgan, “Physicist slams Cosmic Theory he Helped Conceive,” Scientific American Blogs, December 1, 2014. on line, URL http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/cross-check/physicist-slams-cosmic-theory-he-helped-conceive/ accessed 10/5/15.

John Hiorgon's Interview with Paul Steinhardt who says:

“The whole point of inflation was to get rid of fine-tuning – to explain features of the original big bang model that must be fine-tuned to match observations. The fact that we had to introduce one fine-tuning to remove another was worrisome. This problem has never been resolved.”i

Joe Hinman said...

his is Heideggerian idea of metaphysics
- I don't give a rat's ass what Heidegger's metaphysics is. He was a Nazi fascist, and that was reflected in his writing. In any case, metaphysics must be informed by modern science, or it is worthless.

I'll be sure and tell Europe that.

Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosphy


https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/heidegger/

"Martin Heidegger (1889–1976) was a German philosopher whose work is perhaps most readily associated with phenomenology and existentialism, although his thinking should be identified as part of such philosophical movements only with extreme care and qualification. His ideas have exerted a seminal influence on the development of contemporary European philosophy. They have also had an impact far beyond philosophy, for example in architectural theory (see e.g., Sharr 2007), literary criticism (see e.g., Ziarek 1989), theology (see e.g., Caputo 1993), psychotherapy (see e.g., Binswanger 1943/1964, Guignon 1993) and cognitive science (see e.g., Dreyfus 1992, 2008; Wheeler 2005; Kiverstein and Wheeler 2012)."

Internet Encyclapedoia of Philophy

http://www.iep.utm.edu/heidegge/

Martin Heidegger is widely acknowledged to be one of the most original and important philosophers of the 20th century, while remaining one of the most controversial. His thinking has contributed to such diverse fields as phenomenology (Merleau-Ponty), existentialism (Sartre, Ortega y Gasset), hermeneutics (Gadamer, Ricoeur), political theory (Arendt, Marcuse, Habermas), psychology (Boss, Binswanger, Rollo May), and theology (Bultmann, Rahner, Tillich).


Ibid.

"His critique of traditional metaphysics and his opposition to positivism and technological world domination have been embraced by leading theorists of postmodernity (Derrida, Foucault, and Lyotard). On the other hand, his involvement in the Nazi movement has invoked a stormy debate. Although he never claimed that his philosophy was concerned with politics, political considerations have come to overshadow his philosophical work."



Joe Hinman said...

See my discussion of The Big Problem With Thomism. You might also be interested to read The Metaphysical Foundations of Modern Science by Edwin Burtt.


I read Burtt more than once in Gradate school, if you think that book gives your side any support at all you have no idea what you read.


Have you see a multiverse?
- That is not a consequence of naturalism. It is a scientific theory. And this only goes to show that you can't distinguish between beliefs (artheism), worldviews (naturalism), and science. To you, they are all the same thing.

this is a perfect example of how you can't follow a straight line of reasoning then you obfuscate when backed into a corner. what you said that made me answer you have not seen a multivers is this "To bring the discussion back to the best explanation: When we open our eyes and look, what we see is the natural universe. Naturalism is not based on any assumption other than (basically) seeing is believing."

you use the direct observation of the natural world to arugula against belief then I say but you believe in Multiverse of which you have no direct proof so you are not consist with that principle then you shift over and say that's a scientific theory,that does not change the fact that you are inconsistent.

Moreover, your original answer doesn't apply because viewing the natural world is not an answer as to the explanation of its existence.



(1) you miss the fat that it assumes a certain kind of simplicity (2)that kind of simplicity still applies regardless of the nature of the natural world, nothing in the natural world that mandates naturalism.
- No, I didn't miss it. YOU miss the fact that nature alone is simpler than nature PLUS God, no matter how simple you think God is.

that is nonsense it has no expeditionary power of itself just being simple isn't enough it has to be a simple explanation,


that implies a very silly assumption that my thing on SN is designed to over come,there is no contradiction between God and the natural world. Natural world is merely a creation by God, God creatde it and he exists in it,


- I didn't mention anything about a contradiction. I am only saying that nature alone is simpler than nature PLUS God. And your argument doesn't overcome that.
8:52 AM


No its not, Dawkins proves. he argues assuming God is subject to natural law then argues he would be extremely complex because the universe is complex by Dawkins own says it is.

im-skeptical said...

Evidence is part of explanatory, its the basis of explanatory. It's the title not the work.
- My comment stands. Your article doesn't talk about what constitutes the "best evidence" at all.


I use Dawkin's reasoning on his "747 argumet" (TGD) as an example of the misuse of simplicity. The point is to understand simplicity, Dawkins is a good example of not understanding it, or using it wrongly.
- Now you have conflated two completely different arguments. The first argument that you fail to understand is his answer to the Teleological Argument, and it relates to the complexity of the designer. The 747 Gambit, which you also don't understand, is an answer to evolution deniers who claim that nature alone could never produce a complex object. Two completely different things, and you obviously don't understand them.


Give me an example of people speaking English i don't believe anyone does, why don't you face your own bigotry honestly.?
- I asked you to provide reference for your ridiculous claims. Where is this atheist dogma to be found? And why haven't I (or any other atheist) ever seen it?


show me where I used scientists in anyway is wrong, unfairer illogical. show me where quote the passage? show meany diatribe against scientists?
- Start with this one: "I use Dawkin's reasoning on his "747 argumet" (TGD) as an example of the misuse of simplicity."
- How about this: "The idea of the multiverse is taken seriously in science, even though it is the stuff of comic books and science fiction."
- Or this: "We attempt to understand being by the imposition of preconceived ideas shaped by abstraction, this is metaphysics. It subjugates reality to ideology rather than revealing the nature of being. Science is engages in this mistake."

that one is ... Paul Steinhardt
- You claimed that the theory was "invented just to answer God arguments". Steinhardt says no such thing.


I'll be sure and tell Europe that.
- The work [Introduction to Metaphysics], in which Heidegger refers to the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism,[4] has been widely regarded as fascist in character.

im-skeptical said...

I read Burtt more than once in Gradate school, if you think that book gives your side any support at all you have no idea what you read.
- You didn't learn a thing from it.


this is a perfect example of how you can't follow a straight line of reasoning then you obfuscate when backed into a corner. what you said that made me answer you have not seen a multivers is this ...
- You missed my point completely. The original discussion that engendered your comment was about naturalism. My point was that naturalism is a worldview, and it does not entail a multiverse (or any other particular scientific theory). You can't follow your own argument, because your "line of reasoning" consists of nothing more than taking random potshots, without any coherent argument behind them.


you use the direct observation of the natural world to arugula against belief then I say but you believe in Multiverse of which you have no direct proof so you are not consist with that principle then you shift over and say that's a scientific theory,that does not change the fact that you are inconsistent.
- Maybe if I keep trying, I can get this to penetrate your thick, thick skull. Naturalism is a WORLDVIEW, based essentially on the observation that what we see is the natural world and nothing more. Multiverse cosmology is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, not a worldview. I don't "believe in Multiverse". Do you get it? Two different things.


Moreover, your original answer doesn't apply because viewing the natural world is not an answer as to the explanation of its existence
- I wasn't trying to explain why anything exists. That's what theists do. I don't think there is any answer for questions like that.


that is nonsense it has no expeditionary power of itself just being simple isn't enough it has to be a simple explanation
- You were harping about Occam's razor. I made the observation that the natural world alone is simpler that the natural world PLUS God. Besides, "God did it" doesn't explain anything. It just makes theists feel good.


No its not, Dawkins proves. he argues assuming God is subject to natural law then argues he would be extremely complex because the universe is complex by Dawkins own says it is.
- You don't even know which argument you're talking about, let alone understand it. This is NOT his 747 argument.

Mike Gerow said...

Multiverses. - of which there are sundry variations of very different models - are SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES and definitely not theories in the scientific sense of that word, skep....

Mike Gerow said...

I'd just say a 747 IS a natural object. A tool developed used by a natural phenomenon called "humanity" strikes me as itself a "natural" thing .....but that would be invoking strands of philosophy and theory that owe a lot to Martin Heidegger.....

im-skeptical said...

Multiverses. - of which there are sundry variations of very different models - are SCIENTIFIC HYPOTHESES and definitely not theories in the scientific sense of that word, skep....
- I think Guth would disagree. Interesting article.

I'd just say a 747 IS a natural object.
- Of course you could look at it that way. But But the crux of the issue is whether the thing was designed by an intelligent agent. For the naturalist, anything designed intentionally is not natural. For the theist, there is apparently no distinction.

Joe Hinman said...

Mike Gerow said...
I'd just say a 747 IS a natural object. A tool developed used by a natural phenomenon called "humanity" strikes me as itself a "natural" thing .....but that would be invoking strands of philosophy and theory that owe a lot to Martin Heidegger.....


you have to look at what the argument is about. the 747 is not really thy issue here,the issue here is that he's trying to make God complex by insisting that God is subject to natural law,

Joe Hinman said...

- Of course you could look at it that way. But But the crux of the issue is whether the thing was designed by an intelligent agent. For the naturalist, anything designed intentionally is not natural. For the theist, there is apparently no distinction.

no not the crux, have you even read the God Ellison? he says clearly anything that created the universe would have to be at least as complex as the universe or more. That is why your idol disproves your brunet, He says the universe is very complex you said it's not,its so simple you just look and see it's true.

Mike Gerow said...

Yeah, the interesting question might be where does the distinction come from? It's not in every culture, but its certainly strong in the West, that separation of "intelligence" and "nature" -- is it a holdover from the culture of Christendom? -- one of the places where millenia of the influence of certain forms of Xianity is still felt? (Thinkers like Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Foucault would basically have thought that....)

Is it a dangerous idea, now, in the anthropocene, to still believe that human intelligence or at least the products produced by it aren't natural but instead somehow "transcend nature?"

Thx for the article, btw....

Joe Hinman said...

m-skeptical said...
Evidence is part of explanatory, its the basis of explanatory. It's the title not the work.
- My comment stands. Your article doesn't talk about what constitutes the "best evidence" at all.

big deal re-title


I use Dawkin's reasoning on his "747 argumet" (TGD) as an example of the misuse of simplicity. The point is to understand simplicity, Dawkins is a good example of not understanding it, or using it wrongly.
- Now you have conflated two completely different arguments. The first argument that you fail to understand is his answer to the Teleological Argument, and it relates to the complexity of the designer.

that is complete nosecones,you don't seem to get what's being said the argument applies this other way (ie contradicts your nonsense) weather you like it or not. I know it's not the official label of the argent still true if you think about the logic of it, that's you are supposed to do with arguments is look at the logic,.do you see that?


The 747 Gambit, which you also don't understand, is an answer to evolution deniers who claim that nature alone could never produce a complex object. Two completely different things, and you obviously don't understand them.

Look what you just said, what does it have to do with complexity??! He says He say it go read it again. you don't understand it ,undergraduate boy you do not get it he says it,THE UNIVERSE IS EXTREMELY COMPLEX AND ANYTHING THAT PRODUCES IT WOULD HAVE TO BE AT LEAST AS COMPLEX,

that disproves your idea that it;s simple, its an anti God argument because he says a complex cause would be less probably specifically because it is complex

you don't even understand the book you cherish so, i doubt that you have read the argument,



Give me an example of people speaking English i don't believe anyone does, why don't you face your own bigotry honestly.?
- I asked you to provide reference for your ridiculous claims. Where is this atheist dogma to be found? And why haven't I (or any other atheist) ever seen it?

I immolated that it's so common everyone knows its true its everywhere, you ca find examples easily


show me where I used scientists in anyway is wrong, unfairer illogical. show me where quote the passage? show meany diatribe against scientists?
- Start with this one: "I use Dawkin's reasoning on his "747 argumet" (TGD) as an example of the misuse of simplicity."


not unfair nor is it derogatory to him, it shows you contradict him not I,


- How about this: "The idea of the multiverse is taken seriously in science, even though it is the stuff of comic books and science fiction."

I know these the holy men of your faith,I don]t see that, Multiverse is not provable,


- Or this: "We attempt to understand being by the imposition of preconceived ideas shaped by abstraction, this is metaphysics. It subjugates reality to ideology rather than revealing the nature of being. Science is engages in this mistake."

again you are experiencing the discomfiture of someone assailing your faith, now you know how it feels, these guys are human and they can be wrong, ot's not unfair to say that,

that one is ... Paul Steinhardt
- You claimed that the theory was "invented just to answer God arguments". Steinhardt says no such thing.

he sure did I edited,it to get rid of fine tuning


Joe Hinman said...

I'll be sure and tell Europe that.
- The work [Introduction to Metaphysics], in which Heidegger refers to the "inner truth and greatness" of National Socialism,[4] has been widely regarded as fascist in character.

yes little one we all chow that chinked pie, but we we don't care., even Herbert Marcuse used his ideas,he was a Marxist. he refused to ever speak to Heidegger again he still used his ideas,it;s real well known all philosophers accept this, no one refuses to think about phenomenology because of this, it is argent ad hominim

12:15 PM Delete
Blogger im-skeptical said...
I read Burtt more than once in Gradate school, if you think that book gives your side any support at all you have no idea what you read.
- You didn't learn a thing from it.

first of all I know you do not read things you just talk about them.that isoneof y favorite books I know it much netter than you do,

it says science is based upon metaphysics it says you don't have science without aching metaphysical assumptions, ,



this is a perfect example of how you can't follow a straight line of reasoning then you obfuscate when backed into a corner. what you said that made me answer you have not seen a multivers is this ...
- You missed my point completely. The original discussion that engendered your comment was about naturalism. My point was that naturalism is a worldview, and it does not entail a multiverse (or any other particular scientific theory). You can't follow your own argument, because your "line of reasoning" consists of nothing more than taking random potshots, without any coherent argument behind them.


you use the direct observation of the natural world to arugula against belief then I say but you believe in Multiverse of which you have no direct proof so you are not consist with that principle then you shift over and say that's a scientific theory,that does not change the fact that you are inconsistent.
- Maybe if I keep trying, I can get this to penetrate your thick, thick skull. Naturalism is a WORLDVIEW, based essentially on the observation that what we see is the natural world and nothing more. Multiverse cosmology is a SCIENTIFIC THEORY, not a worldview. I don't "believe in Multiverse". Do you get it? Two different things.


Moreover, your original answer doesn't apply because viewing the natural world is not an answer as to the explanation of its existence
- I wasn't trying to explain why anything exists. That's what theists do. I don't think there is any answer for questions like that.


that is nonsense it has no expeditionary power of itself just being simple isn't enough it has to be a simple explanation
- You were harping about Occam's razor. I made the observation that the natural world alone is simpler that the natural world PLUS God. Besides, "God did it" doesn't explain anything. It just makes theists feel good.


No its not, Dawkins proves. he argues assuming God is subject to natural law then argues he would be extremely complex because the universe is complex by Dawkins own says it is.
- You don't even know which argument you're talking about, let alone understand it. This is NOT his 747 argument.

Joe Hinman said...

skepie you dont know hack shit about the Burtt book

Joe Hinman said...

UC Press http://publishing.cdlib.org/ucpressebooks/view?docId=ft6q2nb3wh&chunk.id=d0e37&brand=ucpress

"widely present in the discussions in Germany, even more so in the United States, but above all in France, where for several decades he has functioned as the main "French" philosopher, the unacknowledged but omnipresent master thinker whose thought continues to form the horizon of French philosophical thinking."

In occupied France where the resistance fought the Nazis Heidegger is the king of philosophy, Marcuse left Germany to escape fascism and the fought the Nazis by going to America and joined the OAS he was a Marxist. He also continued to use Heidegger's thinking and to tailair it the left,

im-skeptical said...

you have to look at what the argument is about. the 747 is not really thy issue here,the issue here is that he's trying to make God complex by insisting that God is subject to natural law
- Nowhere does Dawkins say any such thing. The complexity of the designer is a logical consequence of the of the design argument itself, but theists fail to recognize the implications of their own premises.


no not the crux, have you even read the God Ellison? he says clearly anything that created the universe would have to be at least as complex as the universe or more. That is why your idol disproves your brunet, He says the universe is very complex you said it's not,its so simple you just look and see it's true.
- I never said the universe isn't complex, and Dawkins didn't either (yes, I read the book, but unlike you, I understand what he's saying). The theistic design argument is that it requires an intelligent designer, which logically would require a complex mind. The reality is that it requires no intelligence at all. This has been thoroughly demonstrated.


big deal re-title.
- The point is that you haven't given the matter enough thought to put an appropriate title on your article.


that is complete nosecones,you don't seem to get what's being said the argument applies this other way (ie contradicts your nonsense) weather you like it or not. I know it's not the official label of the argent still true if you think about the logic of it, that's you are supposed to do with arguments is look at the logic,.do you see that?
- I'm trying to get you to understand that there's two different things being conflated together. 1) the teleological argument, which says that complex things require a designer - and Dawkins says that BY THAT LOGIC, any such designer must also be complex. 2) the argument that says a something like a 747 couldn't be assembled by a natural process - and Dawkins argues that evolution explains how things come to be complex without any intelligence involved.


t you don't understand it ,undergraduate boy you do not get it ...
you don't even understand the book you cherish so, i doubt that you have read the argument

- I understand it MUCH better than you, because I listen. But it will never penetrate your thick, thick skull, because the only thing you understand is DAWKINS .. ATHEIST .. BAD.


I immolated that it's so common everyone knows its true its everywhere, you ca find examples easily
- If it's everywhere, then show me.


not unfair nor is it derogatory to him, it shows you contradict him not I
- I hope you can see that your ignorance is on full display.


I know these the holy men of your faith,I don]t see that, Multiverse is not provable
- This is how you prove that you are not trying to bash scientists?


he sure did I edited,it to get rid of fine tuning
- First get a brain, then read the article, Joe. Not just the title. HE NEVER SAID what you claim about the origin of the theory.

im-skeptical said...

yes little one we all chow that chinked pie, but we we don't care., even Herbert Marcuse used his ideas,he was a Marxist. he refused to ever speak to Heidegger again he still used his ideas,it;s real well known all philosophers accept this, no one refuses to think about phenomenology because of this, it is argent ad hominim
- I told you before, I don't give a rat's ass about Heidegger. His metaphysics justifies Nazi ideology. And he was important to Tillich, who had all these grand ideas about being, but which have no bearing on reality. But that's the crap that you use to justify your own superstition. What I do care about is a realistic metaphysics based on observed reality, and consistent with science.


it says science is based upon metaphysics it says you don't have science without aching metaphysical assumptions
... skepie you dont know hack shit about the Burtt book

- Joe, if YOU read the book, you would understand that metaphysics changes to stay in tune with science. Burtt doesn't espouse some ancient, unchanging beliefs about metaphysics that must be followed religiously. The whole book is about how metaphysics has kept pace with science over the years.

im-skeptical said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
im-skeptical said...

Yeah, the interesting question might be where does the distinction come from? It's not in every culture, but its certainly strong in the West, that separation of "intelligence" and "nature" -- is it a holdover from the culture of Christendom? -- one of the places where millenia of the influence of certain forms of Xianity is still felt? (Thinkers like Nietzsche, Heidegger, and Foucault would basically have thought that....)

Is it a dangerous idea, now, in the anthropocene, to still believe that human intelligence or at least the products produced by it aren't natural but instead somehow "transcend nature?"


- It is an artificial distinction, to be sure. I would be happy to say that if humans are natural, then the things we create are also natural. And I would never say that they transcend nature. But the distinction comes into focus particularly in the context of theistic design arguments.

The theist argues that complex things are designed intentionally (example, a watch or a 747). Therefore, all complex things are designed intentionally (example, an animal's eye). The issue here (aside from the false logic of their conclusion) is that they fail to distinguish between things that are designed by men, and things that are not. But this distinction is crucial, because science has proven to us that complex things arise without any intelligence or intention. It is to the theist's benefit to simply ignore the distinction, because that's what gives him license to make his conclusion that a designer must be in play. But in ignoring that, he is also ignoring sciance.

Joe Hinman said...

I never said the universe isn't complex,

you said: "seeing is believing. Now you argue that God is simple, so that's the simplest explanation." If by that you don't meant the universe itself but as an explanation,because it require a reason that also fails the kind of simplicity in relation OT the other criteria, it has no explanatory power if there no reason for it to be,,But the real problem is I was explaining why I brought up Dawkins you have sloughed that off because he does fail to grasp the kind of simplicity that is relivant to God cause creator.

and Dawkins didn't either (yes, I read the book, but unlike you, I understand what he's saying). The theistic design argument is that it requires an intelligent designer, which logically would require a complex mind.

no he attaches physical significance to it mental complexity is nothing, it;s not improbable, it;s not Neogene down complexity if there is no complexity of parts,Dawkie's argumet assumes God needs a brain,


The reality is that it requires no intelligence at all. This has been thoroughly demonstrated.

ROTFLOL!!! ever heard of baggie the question? you can't just look at the universe and assume it must not have needed a cause merely because its visible,.

But we are not ready to talk about specific evidence we are still talking about how to evaluate evidence


that is not whaqthesqys the 747 thing be [itsimters of cop[elxioty because that;showhe argue God asiprobable.

Joe Hinman said...

big deal re-title.
- The point is that you haven't given the matter enough thought to put an appropriate title on your article.

bull shit. I spent two years writing the book. the problem is you have nothing to say so you are clutching at straw


that is complete nosecones,you don't seem to get what's being said the argument applies this other way (ie contradicts your nonsense) weather you like it or not. I know it's not the official label of the argent still true if you think about the logic of it, that's you are supposed to do with arguments is look at the logic,.do you see that?
- I'm trying to get you to understand that there's two different things being conflated together. 1) the teleological argument, which says that complex things require a designer - and Dawkins says that BY THAT LOGIC, any such designer must also be complex.

Ys i know he says that that;THAT'S WHY HE;S WRONG!!!! IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF NOT UNDERSTANDING THE RIGHT FORM OF COMPLEXITY,I am not arguing the design argument do you not get that? I could not care less about that right now, The issue is understanding the right idea of simple,


2) the argument that says a something like a 747 couldn't be assembled by a natural process - and Dawkins argues that evolution explains how things come to be complex without any intelligence involved.

which is still a misunderstanding because the teleological argument does not deal with complexity, Dawkims thinks God being complex is the issue but it has nothing to do with multiplying parts,


t you don't understand it ,undergraduate boy you do not get it ...
you don't even understand the book you cherish so, i doubt that you have read the argument
- I understand it MUCH better than you, because I listen. But it will never penetrate your thick, thick skull, because the only thing you understand is DAWKINS .. ATHEIST .. BAD.

Obviously not because I just explained it to you. you still think I'm argument





not unfair nor is it derogatory to him, it shows you contradict him not I
- I hope you can see that your ignorance is on full display.


I know these the holy men of your faith,I don]t see that, Multiverse is not provable
- This is how you prove that you are not trying to bash scientists?

I am not bashing them they didn't say they were holy men. I'm bashing you,


he sure did I edited,it to get rid of fine tuning
- First get a brain, then read the article, Joe. Not just the title. HE NEVER SAID what you claim about the origin of the theory.

you missed the whole he was making, He did not just say design argument is wrong he gleefully bellowed and strutted around saying he could severe the argument to disprove God this is how, because God had to be complex and that is less probable,

Joe Hinman said...

Look it man here are Dawkin's words:

"The Argument from Improbability is the big one. In the traditional guise of the argument from design, it is easily today's most popular argumet offered in favor of the existence of God...[it is unanswerable] but in precisely the opposite direction from the theists intentions. The argument from probability properly deployed comes close to proving that God does not exist...It turns out to be the God hypothesis that tires to get the free lunch...the designer himself has got to be at least as improbable."

138 in online version google books

im-skeptical said...

If by that you don't meant the universe itself but as an explanation,because it require a reason that also fails the kind of simplicity in relation OT the other criteria, it has no explanatory power if there no reason for it to be ...
- I understand your question-begging explanation for everything, but if everything requires a reason, then what is the reason for God? Please answer without begging the question. And while you're at it, please explain the reason that virtual particles come into existence.


If by that you don't meant the universe itself but as an explanation,because it require a reason that also fails the kind of simplicity in relation OT the other criteria, it has no explanatory power if there no reason for it to be
- How do you know that God is simple? Surely not just because you say so. Please spell out the logic that you use to conclude that God must be simple, and tell me which part of that logic Dawkins got wrong.


mental complexity is nothing
- And how do you know that? Do you have any examples? Why is it that the most complex minds we know of are in the most complex brains we know of? Why isn't an amoeba smarter than we are? Sure God is simple. A simple-minded explanation for simple-minded people who don't care how things work IN REALITY.


ROTFLOL!!! ever heard of baggie the question? you can't just look at the universe and assume it must not have needed a cause merely because its visible
- Here's how you "baggie" the question:
1. Assume God exists.
2. Assume Gog created everything.
3. Reject any and all other explanations for why things exist.
4. Conclude that therefore, God must have created everything.

that is not whaqthesqys the 747 thing be [itsimters of cop[elxioty because that;showhe argue God asiprobable
- Here's how science has demonstrated the complex functional things don't need an intelligent designer:
1. Start with something that is non-functional or has limited utility.
2. Introduce a small random change. (simulation of replication with mutation)
3. If utility is improved, keep the change, otherwise reject it. (simulation of natural selection)
4. Go to 2.
This process works with no Gods required. It has been demonstrated. Your explanation is illogical, simple-minded, and has never been observed or demonstrated.

im-skeptical said...

bull shit. I spent two years writing the book. the problem is you have nothing to say so you are clutching at straw
- You spent years doing mental masturbation: GOD GOOD. DAWKINS BAD. GOD GOOD. DAWKINS BAD. You don't actually think about anything, including the title of your article.


Ys i know he says that that;THAT'S WHY HE;S WRONG!!!! IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF NOT UNDERSTANDING THE RIGHT FORM OF COMPLEXITY
- In my comment of 8:26 AM, I told you about two distinct responses that Dawkind gives, retarding two different kinds of complexity. 1) is about the complexity of the designer (which you claim is simple). 2) is about the complexity of things that exist in our world (which you claim requires a designer capable of creating complex things). Do you get the difference? They're not the same thing, and Dawkins makes separate arguments about those two different things. Get it through your head. A ten-year-old can understand this if he bothers to listen to what is being said.


which is still a misunderstanding because the teleological argument does not deal with complexity, Dawkims thinks God being complex is the issue but it has nothing to do with multiplying parts
- See my previous remark. You're mixing up two distinct things, because you don't listen.


I am not bashing them they didn't say they were holy men. I'm bashing you
- And I'm pointing out how wrong you are.

you missed the whole he was making, He did not just say design argument is wrong he gleefully bellowed and strutted around saying he could severe the argument to disprove God this is how, because God had to be complex and that is less probable
- Joe, you can't keep track of what the comment refers to. This one was about how you made a false claim attributed to Steinhardt. Remember? You said inflation theory was invented to push God out of the picture. But he never said that. READ THE DAMN THING. That's not what he says.

Joe Hinman said...

im-skeptical said...

meIf by that you don't meant the universe itself but as an explanation,because it require a reason that also fails the kind of simplicity in relation OT the other criteria, it has no explanatory power if there no reason for it to be ...

skep- I understand your question-begging explanation for everything, but if everything requires a reason, then what is the reason for God? Please answer without begging the question. And while you're at it, please explain the reason that virtual particles come into existence.

I've answered before,I will try to dig it up for you, But type point of saying everything requires a reason so there has to be a stopping point for explanations naturalistic universe does not take us to the stopping point but God does. why? Because God can be a self sustaining answer yet naturalistic universe always has to invite more questions where did it come from? where did the particles come from? where did gravity come from ect, doesn't work to say where did
God come from because the concept itself embodies the answer is being itself has to be eternal



Me:If by that you don't meant the universe itself but as an explanation,because it require a reason that also fails the kind of simplicity in relation OT the other criteria, it has no explanatory power if there no reason for it to be

Sep:- How do you know that God is simple? Surely not just because you say so. Please spell out the logic that you use to conclude that God must be simple, and tell me which part of that logic Dawkins got wrong.

He got the kind of simplicity wrong as I already said, I answered that in part 1:
"We might be able to say that the best explanation would account for all the data or account for the most crucial data than other explanations. We could also stipulate that the explanation be the most simple as long as we don't confuse conceptual simplicity with absence of data, or simplicity of structure. For example when Dawkins argues that God would have to be more complex than the universe he creates, he's assuming the laws of physics apply to God"

as for how we know God is simple I will go into more detail on that next time. That's a good one fora whole log piece. Tentative answer just suffice to say it;s a standard of Christian Theology going back to Aquinas, before him.



mental complexity is nothing
- And how do you know that? Do you have any examples? Why is it that the most complex minds we know of are in the most complex brains we know of? Why isn't an amoeba smarter than we are? Sure God is simple. A simple-minded explanation for simple-minded people who don't care how things work IN REALITY.


Because I don't need a head big enough to house a planet of Krypton but the concept of Krypton takes up no room in my head. I did not say that biological hardware isn't necessary for biological beings but the mental part is not complex,God is not a biological being,

Joe Hinman said...

ROTFLOL!!! ever heard of baggie the question? you can't just look at the universe and assume it must not have needed a cause merely because its visible
- Here's how you "baggie" the question:

beg--ok when I get excited and type fast I make mistakes,

1. Assume God exists.
2. Assume Gog created everything.
3. Reject any and all other explanations for why things exist.
4. Conclude that therefore, God must have created everything.


Of course that is NOT the thought process used by theistic thinks, that's a straw man made up by you to mock what you don't understand, typical atheist mentality,

methat is not what he says. the 747 thing


- Here's how science has demonstrated the complex functional things don't need an intelligent designer:
1. Start with something that is non-functional or has limited utility.
2. Introduce a small random change. (simulation of replication with mutation)
3. If utility is improved, keep the change, otherwise reject it. (simulation of natural selection)
4. Go to 2.

front end loaded assumptions you can;t explain like law of gravity

we are not arguing about the design argument,I already made this clear to you last time,
get over it. you are trying to repeat it because its your talisman for protection against big mean God and because your religion leads you to think it has be evoked as an ancient supplicant evokes her deity. We are not doing that argument now, you have evoked a straw man, no argument I make says that, not what fine tuning says,



This process works with no Gods required. It has been demonstrated. Your explanation is illogical, simple-minded, and has never been observed or demonstrated.
10:05 AM

of course it has not been demonstrated because every single model you have leaves open ended questions about where things come from

Joe Hinman said...


im-skeptical said...


mebull shit. I spent two years writing the book. the problem is you have nothing to say so you are clutching at straw

- You spent years doing mental masturbation: GOD GOOD. DAWKINS BAD. GOD GOOD. DAWKINS BAD. You don't actually think about anything, including the title of your article.

once again he knows all about a book he's never read, all based upon one mention of Dawkie in which I didn't say anything derogatory, what I said of Dawkie in part 1 last Monday is the only mention I make of him in the book, "We might be able to say that the best explanation would account for all the data or account for the most crucial data than other explanations. We could also stipulate that the explanation be the most simple as long as we don't confuse conceptual simplicity with absence of data, or simplicity of structure. For example when Dawkins argues that God would have to be more complex than the universe he creates, he's assuming the laws of physics apply to God."

meYs i know he says that that;THAT'S WHY HE;S WRONG!!!! IT'S AN EXAMPLE OF NOT UNDERSTANDING THE RIGHT FORM OF COMPLEXITY

- In my comment of 8:26 AM, I told you about two distinct responses that Dawkind gives, retarding two different kinds of complexity. 1) is about the complexity of the designer (which you claim is simple).

Aquinas was not talking about God being simple by not having lots of parts that;snot what he meant, anything to do with the makeup of God is off limits since we know nothing about it, except to say he;snot physical hr doesn't have a body,


2) is about the complexity of things that exist in our world (which you claim requires a designer capable of creating complex things).

NO I DID NOT SAY THAT I SAID WE ARE OT TALKING ABOUT DESIGN ARGUMENTS HERE


Do you get the difference? They're not the same thing, and Dawkins makes separate arguments about those two different things. Get it through your head. A ten-year-old can understand this if he bothers to listen to what is being said.

right those are broth things that don't apply,


mewhich is still a misunderstanding because the teleological argument does not deal with complexity, Dawkims thinks God being complex is the issue but it has nothing to do with multiplying parts

- See my previous remark. You're mixing up two distinct things, because you don't listen.
>>>>>>>
I just explained why it's wrong,you say two but really one applies to god the other to the universe both are wrong,you" "1) is about the complexity of the designer (which you claim is simple)." you "2) is about the complexity of things that exist in our world "

>>>my argument was bout God so 2 doesn't apply at all


Joe Hinman said...

meI am not bashing them they didn't say they were holy men. I'm bashing you


- And I'm pointing out how wrong you are.

sssshshhhhhhhhhhhhhhh ;-)

meyou missed the whole he was making, He did not just say design argument is wrong he gleefully bellowed and strutted around saying he could severe the argument to disprove God this is how, because God had to be complex and that is less probable

- Joe, you can't keep track of what the comment refers to. This one was about how you made a false claim attributed to Steinhardt. Remember? You said inflation theory was invented to push God out of the picture. But he never said that. READ THE DAMN THING. That's not what he says.

I quoted it to you, he says point blank we did it to get rid of fine tuning,he meant the God ardent because they used fine tuning in the equations they were't getting rid of it they used it,that was the basis of his reason for turning Agilent it,

you did not read quote so you didn't follow what was said,

Joe Hinman said...




OK FROM THIS POINT ON I AM TRANSFERRING THE DISCUSSION TO THE NEXT POST,ON MONDAY,I WILL NOT ANSWER YOU ANY MORE IN THIS THREAD. THE SECTION IS CLOSED,

you can comment I wont take it down because this the comment section, but I wont respond and you get one come back. then it it's closed.

im-skeptical said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
im-skeptical said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Joe Hinman said...

I said it's closed and I gave you the last word,you are going to have to e content with that.

im-skeptical said...

You are a liar.

Joe Hinman said...

it's three posts up:

OK FROM THIS POINT ON I AM TRANSFERRING THE DISCUSSION TO THE NEXT POST,ON MONDAY,I WILL NOT ANSWER YOU ANY MORE IN THIS THREAD. THE SECTION IS CLOSED,

you can comment I wont take it down because this the comment section, but I wont respond and you get one come back. then it it's closed.