Has Anyone Noticed Neopolitan's "Craig's Top Errors"?

[Philip Rand]

I am sorry neopolitan... I do understand your issue... it is very difficult for people to understand a belesprit...

[neopolitan]

I am sorry neopolitan... I do understand your issue... it is very difficult for people to understand a belesprit...

Ok, that's clearly the problem.  Perhaps you can let other people deal with the issues in my posts, and we can go our separate ways.

[apophenia]

Yay.  I reached the end of the thread!

I have nothing further to add at this time.

[neopolitan]

...I would next like to bring up your blog about;
"The Method of WLC's Madness"

Specifically Occams Razor and how it applies critically AGAINST your (special pleading) statement;

"...The major problem with a god solution is that the god solution raises questions that are more difficult than those it answers.  That’s negative explanatory power."

The God conclusion answers the HOW and the WHY.

Your non-theist model effectively leaves our existential "WHY" questions unanswered.
(See Coyne, Dawkins, Krauss, Myers, etc. dismissing these with the wave of a hand.)

Now, I ask, which is the simpler, neater, more satisfying theory according to Occam? The  complicated one which has all those loose thread, unanswered questions dangling enigmatically, or the neatly bundled Unified Theory of Everything we call the God Conclusion?

I argue that it is atheism - not theism - which has all the unnecessary 'embranglements'.
And that Occam would prefer the neater bundle with fewer loose threads.

Occam is not authoritative.  Sure, if we have two possible solutions to a problem and one is simple and the other is complicated, we should possibly look at the simple one first.  But even if the simple solution appears to work, this does not necessarily make the complicated one wrong.  It all comes down to evidence.  Is there evidence that supports the simple solution (evidence that would not exist if it were wrong, so it useful for falsification)?  Is there an apparent total lack of evidence that falsifies the simple solution directly?  If so, then we can tentatively accept the simple solution.  But if we turn to the complicated solution and try to falsify it, which should be easy, because it's complicated, but nothing we do falsifies it, then we need to look at points on which the two solutions differ and see if there is any evidence regarding those points.

What we can't do, as rational people, is rely on the arbitrary application of Occam's razor.  That would be lunacy.

Your complaint, however, isn't really about Occam's razor at all.  It's about explanatory power.  And even more specifically about an attempt to misapply explanatory power.

Atheism, as opposed to the god conclusion, totally removes the "why" question as an issue.  There is no "why" other than "by what mechanism".  Meaning of the sort that you are grasping for simply doesn't exist.  It's dispensed with.  You seem to grasp this, to some extent, even if it leaves you feeling unsatisfied.  The god conclusion, on the other hand, has an infinite expanse of "why", it's "why" all the way down and very little by way of answers beyond "god is mysterious".  It is almost as if you are less interested in the answers and more fascinated by the ability to ask questions to which there aren't answers.  These questions (without possible answers) are not explanatory.

You seem to think that there is a difference between "unanswered" and "unanswerable" questions, as if the latter are intrinsically superior.  This might in fact be your claim, but you'd have to provide an argument to support that position.

As for me, why are "unanswered" intrinsically superior to "unanswerable" questions?  Because while they are unanswered today, they might be answered tomorrow, or next year, or next century, or in the far distant future, or, perhaps, never at all.  But even if we never manage to answer them, they give us something to work towards.

Pretending that you've wrapped up all the loose threads, as you claim to have done with the god conclusion, when all you've done is hide a mass of potentially dangerous ignorance under a pile of pixie dust and glitter, is not intellectually honest.

This is all a side show, however, since I don't think that you've really addressed the core objections in The Method of WLC's Madness - namely the misapplication of "explanatory power" to issues like the beginning of the universe (I'll generously give him a pass on the resurrection, since at least there's a claim to history there).

Not sure if you saw this reply, LionIRC.  Feel free to mull it over, I am only occasionally able to must the motivation to stumble around the house today, so a slightly extended delay may well be in both our interests.

[Philip Rand]

Interesting neopolitan...

As for me, why are "unanswered" intrinsically superior to "unanswerable" questions?  Because while they are unanswered today, they might be answered tomorrow, or next year, or next century, or in the far distant future, or, perhaps, never at all.  But even if we never manage to answer them, they give us something to work towards.

You appear to be among the growing cohort of the "ironic science" believers.... i.e. an admission that there is not much science can discover anymore....

I mean, think about... the measurement of gravity waves is heralded as one of the major scientific achievements of the 21st century, i.e. confirmation of a theory that is a hundred years old!

A single man who used the cost of a pencil and a piece of paper to come up with the theory... and yet it took hundreds of scientists and millions of dollars to confirm a small part of his theory...

[Philip Rand]

LionRC....

Notice in neopolitan's post that he criticises you for:

It is almost as if you are less interested in the answers and more fascinated by the ability to ask questions to which there aren't answers.  These questions (without possible answers) are not explanatory.

You seem to think that there is a difference between "unanswered" and "unanswerable" questions, as if the latter are intrinsically superior.  This might in fact be your claim, but you'd have to provide an argument to support that position.

As for me, why are "unanswered" intrinsically superior to "unanswerable" questions?  Because while they are unanswered today, they might be answered tomorrow, or next year, or next century, or in the far distant future, or, perhaps, never at all.  But even if we never manage to answer them, they give us something to work towards.

While in the same post neopolitan admits himself to the same criticism he levels at you!

[neopolitan]

LionIRC, don't worry.  I fully expect that you understand the difference between a question that has no answers and a question to which we don't currently have the answer (and may never work out what the answer is).

I have to keep reminding myself that I should not expect the ability to discern the subtle difference between these two should exist in all people.  Not everyone can be thoughtful and intelligent, and I guess we should celebrate it when we stumble upon those who are.  When I don't do that, however, I find myself being irritated at people of whom I have had overly high expectations.  It happens far too often on this forum and I should try to school myself to be better at dealing with disappointment, or to simply not respond to inane provocations.  (Which I appear to been unable to do, once again.)

[Philip Rand]

neopolitan... 

You read too much Feynman on the questions concerning science...(though he did believe science was dead)

This is why Feynman called is book What Do You Care What Other People Think?

This title according to you (and presumably Feynman) is the only correct title form.... since the title:

Why Do You Care What Other People Think?

cannot be answered... nor even asked...

Actually, I would have called the book:  Why Do You Care Why Other People Think?

Though, I have heard of a remarkable hedgehog discovery that alters evolutionary theory!!!!

Have you heard about it...in Australia.... evolution can be predicted...i.e. design!!!!!

Funny thing though... I always get mixed up about hedgehogs and cock roaches.... bit like questions... I guess...

Gottcha

[Lion IRC]

LionIRC, don't worry.  I fully expect that you understand the difference between a question that has no answers and a question to which we don't currently have the answer (and may never work out what the answer is).

“We don’t know enough about the unknown to know that it is unknowable.”
G.K. Chesterton

[Lion IRC]

...Atheism, as opposed to the god conclusion, totally removes the "why" question as an issue.

How conveniently self-serving it is to answer your detractors' hard, existential questions with a simple,
...oh that doesn't matter

Funny how there are so many counter-apologists who rhetorically use 'why questions' when it comes to debating against religion.

Asymmetric rules of engagement? Double standard? Goose/Gander?

[Lion IRC]

Shall we move on now to the next of Craig's... *cough* 'Top'   errors?

[neopolitan]

...Atheism, as opposed to the god conclusion, totally removes the "why" question as an issue.

How conveniently self-serving it is to answer your detractors' hard, existential questions with a simple,
...oh that doesn't matter

Funny how there are so many counter-apologists who rhetorically use 'why questions' when it comes to debating against religion.

Asymmetric rules of engagement? Double standard? Goose/Gander?

You posit a source answers of intent-based "why" questions.  It's perfectly valid to ask you such questions in order to bring you to an understanding that that source is logically incoherent.

[neopolitan]

Shall we move on now to the next of Craig's... *cough* 'Top'   errors?

Sure, if you think that your mild criticisms qualify as "doing to death" the two you have addressed so far.

[Lion IRC]

OK
Let's stay with explanatory power.

What I meant by 'done to death' was...sticking with the subject ad nauseam until everyone agrees it's been fully exhausted. I wasn't implying that anyone had landed a knockout blow.

In fact I thought it was YOU seemingly quick to sweep it under the carpet.

You dismissed Occams Razor in 4 words - "Occam is not authoritative" - yet Occam has been used as a blunt weapon against theists since Pierre Laplace..."je n'ai pas eu besoin de cette hypothèse." And so when I turn the tables on you and apply that very principle, I found you a bit on the back foot. (But, hey, I would say that wouldn't I )

Let's explore another principle I found you a little weak on over at your blog on this subject. You conspicuously didn't mention it and conveniently, therefore, DIDNT have to defend it. Namely this;

Even if you quibble with explanatory power and Occam, I still don't see how you can get around the claim/accusation that many atheists of your ilk simply try to dismiss WLC's repetoir of argument premisses with counter-points which, from my perspective, seem highly 'imaginary'.  Those scare quotes are there on purpose to denote the euphemism.

You (guys) go to extraordinary lengths to deny plausible premisses by presenting less plausible ones.

Premiss - Things have a cause.
Counter premiss - No they don't.

Premiss - Things are designed
Counter premiss - No they aren't.

Premiss - Boeing 747
Counter premiss - whirlwind/junkyard

Premiss - Shakespearean Sonnet
Counter premiss - a thousand monkeys typing random letters for a thousand years.

Premiss - The universe came into existence.
Counter premiss - No it didn't.

Premiss - Objective moral values have a transcendent quality.
Counter premiss - OMV don't exist.

Premiss - I experienced a supernatural event. (Just like billions of other humans)
Counter premiss - No you didn't. (Neither did anyone else)

Premiss - Jesus appeared to have been Resurrected / Disciples were persecuted for their belief
Counter premiss - Jesus never existed / Disciples were lying

So my complaint/question is this. Will you concede that in terms of "explanatory power" a premise succeeds - even if only partially - when it is more plausible than its negation?

Is it really more plausible that we live in a past-eternal, perpetual motion, Groundhog Day universe where everything that has happened has already happened an infinite number of times over and over and over again in an infinite regress of unbroken cause/effect? (Still waiting for Marty McFly and Emmett Brown to show up any day now)

Because you'll go for ANY counter-premis rather than the God Conclusion.

Is it really more plausible that this universe is just one of an infinite number of multiverses - all different, all potentially full of alternate realities and possible worlds - yet none containing any supernatural divine beings?

[Philip Rand]

Lion IRC... this quote of yours... If neopolitan concedes to it (and even if he does not):

Is it really more plausible that this universe is just one of an infinite number of multiverses - all different, all potentially full of alternate realities and possible worlds - yet none containing any supernatural divine beings?

Shows, one important thing because the significance of this principle can be questioned, justifying an argument must be seen as having weight... and an infinite regress does not carry any weight...

What your post suggests is that neopolitan just is not ethically serious... he argues like a bureaucrat...