What also needs to be pointed out is the fact that if machinery were to be found on the moon or ancient artifacts from an unknown origin found, science would investigate and try very hard to discover their origins... not just roll over and proclaim a miracle.
I'm not very good at making philosophical and religious arguments. But this weird thing always happens where i hear an argument (like some of the ones Craig makes) and it just doesn't sit right with me and i can never figure out why. Then someone like you comes along and I'm like ooooohhhhhhhhh there we go, i just cant to seem to get my thoughts straight with these things and think of counter arguments to them.
Craig is correct that we don't need a explanation(causal) of the best explanation in order to recognize it's the best. I'm not a creationist nor a theist, but let's say Craig is correct and his god exists. Because his god lies outside of our universe it would be impossible for us to have a causal explanation for him/she/it. We can't apply the scientific method to anything which is untestable and unobservable.
@revo1974 I know you posted this a while back, but I have a response. Can things that don't exist in terms of our criteria make an effect on our reality? If they can, then surely they have some sort of material existence. If you disagree with this, then can't the actions of that god(the material effects) be tested? If we can't test god, can't we test his effect?
@creepyoldman2 That depends on what we are talking about. As a Christian, I believe that since God made everything, to test anything at all is to test the effects of God. So, in answer to your question, yes we can, but, I am not convined that doing so would prove, nor disprove, the existance of God. Either way, that is where faith comes into play. You either have faith that God exists, or you have faith that He does not exist.
@AdoptedGentile Do you really think the "you have faith that god doesn't exist" argument holds any ground whatsoever? How many times have the YT atheists been over that? Plus, you say that testing anything is testing god, but I must ask you, whence god in evolution? There is no need for a guiding hand in this process.
Flagellum motors are not like a motor they literally are a motor. These are Nano Molecular motors built of extremely complex arrangments of protein. The cells in every living thing are literally loaded with these molecular machines. I have studied these systems for 20 years as a Bio-geneticist. This argument simply doesn't wash. These are actual machines in every sense of the term, only far more complex then anything we have ever seen in the physical world.
Why do atheists/agnostics go to questioning the credentials of individuals because the their ideology/world view/conclusions drawn from observations are anti-thetical to your world view?
Also, we do not learn something by Infinite Regress at all. Instead we learn a number of facts and "weave" a "net" from educated inferences which then can support a theory.
Infinite Regress has to do with cause and effect, not with how we come to Know or infer one anything, such as the existence of god.
WL Craig starts off smart, but when dissected, he's really not saying anything.
The problem for the theist then becomes, 'what is the definition of design?' the only available point of reference we have to define design is human design. But humans do not literally create anything, and our design is derived entirely from pre-existing properties and learned concepts. This definition of design cannot work the same way for god, and there is no other defintion for design.
The very fact that we can identify design, means that there is a distinction between that which is designed, and that which isnt. However the theist has implied that the entire universe is designed, in which case there would simply be no such thing as 'non-designed,' and thus no way to identify design from anything else.
I don't know that I love sciences for it's Mary-go-round results over speculation, or hate it for that. but it is clear that if you use sciences correctly you will eventually reach a conclusion that dos not question itself endlessly.
The ID speculation when applied to correct sciences tends to cut off abruptly, as if it dos not it tends to go on forever like "Pie" but without the intelligences. (Pie may have an end, but we have yet reached it, I think, but the same gose for ID)
Unfortunately DasAmericanAtheist is not addressing the real issue, and has completely missed the point. GiloRocks accurately represents Craig's position when he says: "Craig merely states that requiring an explanation of the explanation would lead to an infinite regress of explanations....He concludes that to accept an explanation as the best, you don't need an explanation of the explanation."
The problem is that you can never know if your "best explanation" is truly the best explanation if you should stop applying the methodology of science on your explanation. Nothing is ever final, and yes, that may lead to infinite regress, but so be it.
There are no absolute, conclusive results in science; there is only what aligns best with evidence and is shown to be the best representation of reality, thus far.
An explanation does need to be understood though. For example, if we say cancer is caused by the agent called X , it offers us nothing further to understand cancer if we cannot understand the agent X and its characteristics. An explanation is parsimonious if it does not help further our understanding.
I don't have a problem with understanding an explanation, and I'm sure William Lane Craig wouldn't either. His point is not that there's anything wrong with trying to understand an explanation, but rather that one doesn't need an explanation of the explanation.
Well, in certain cases, that may be true, but let me provide a counter-example. This is going to seem quite nonsensical, but that's more or less the point.
If you were to ask me "Why are Unicorns hollow", and I told you "Unicorns are hollow because their fur is pink.". I gave you an explanation, but it doesn't make much logical sense. Fur color doesn't seem to have any logical connection with a Unicorn being hollow, so my explanation would require further explanation in order to make sense.
@DasAmericanAtheist i think he's referring to your smarmy supercilious priggish presentation, i agree with what you say, but it's honestly hard to get through because of the oozing pretentiousness, you and theo warner are very similar in this regard, your facial expressions and voice seem affected and it therefore seems disingenuous, but to be honest it doesn't make me want to eat my own shit, but maybe it does make me vomit in my mouth a little at times
@rogelio67 there is no such thing as an atheist or one who is absolutely convinced God exists. I submit that every so called atheist has some doubt, maybe a tiny little spot, in the back of their mind that they may be wrong. Same with a believer. Thus, to some degree or another, all are agnostics. Also the truth is that nobody knows how life originated. Many today are saying life and the oceans came to earth from comets. And nobody know how the universe came to be.
@rogelio67 Was the universe created by God? If so does this God know we exist? Does this God still exist? Or did the universe create itself? And is that even possible? Or has the universe existed always without a creator. Carl Sagan seemed to agree it has. "The cosmos is all there ever was, is and all there ever will be." Also has something always existed? God, matter etc? If not, then we have a point when NOTHING existed. If that point is true, then how did something suddenly start to exist?
@rogelio67 In other words, if at some point in the remote past, NOTHING at all existed, then how did the first thing to exist come into existance? I would imagine that if the universe was created, had a beginning, it was created by God and God has always existed without beginning. If God does not exist, then the universe has always existed without beginning. But the hot big bang theory says time, energy, time and space began at the point of the big bang. How did that happen? You don't know!!!
@rogelio67 No you don't know and neither does anybody. Just as nobody knows how life began here on earth. Was it created and put here or was it a random event which happened on the surface of the earth? Scientist Fred Hoyle wrote me in the 80's and insisted the chance of that was 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power, which is really zero. Life did not arise by chance. Hoyle turned to comets and today many scientists accept that comets did play a role in the genesis of life and they made the oceans too.
I don't think that Craig was arguing for design in that video.He was responding to Dawkins who basically said "We can't infer God, because we don't know anything about God, and who designed God?" Craig responds by talking about discovering artefacts,in which he says we would always come to the conclusion that some tribe in the past made these, EVEN THOUGH we don't know who the tribe are & how they made the artefacts. We can accept something as a valid cause even if we dont know anyhting about it
Dawkins was arguing (in my opinion) that when people say that the intelligence of people requires a higher intelligence to explain it, they are begging the question. The worst possible explanation for intelligence is a higher, previously existing intelligence.
Craig is trying to respond to Dawkins who says "Who made God?" Craig merely states that requiring an explanation of the explanation would lead to an infinite regress of explanations. You would need an explanation of the explanation of the explanation and so on. He concludes that to accept an explanation as the best, you don't need an explanation of the explanation. He certainly wasn't attempting to defend the watchmaker argument. How do you think Craig has distorted Dawkins?
Dawkins wasn't saying you need an explanation of an explanation in ALL cases. It was a particular kind of explanation that causes a problem.
Craig changed "sky hook" to "explanation" and made it sounds like Dawkins means that EVERY explanation requires an explanation, when in fact that isn't what he meant.
What Craig is arguing against is a straw man. Go read the actual quote from Dawkins before replying. You really should know what he really asid.
Ok, then, but even in any case where you require an explanation of the explanation, it would still lead to an infinite regress of explantions. Dawkins says you need an explanation of the explanation (God), but THIS scenario would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, and that is what Craig is arguing against.
more sophistry, why am I not surprised? This is all about the larger teleological, which argues from contingency and improbability. Its very improbable, and could not have been produced by a physical process (contingency). Therefore, Teleology has been detected. Niether efficient or material causes are available, therefore we need to infer a teleological cause.
And, of course, criticisms of Aristotlean metaphysics are utterly invalid. How could we all be so foolish??
If you're going to tout Aristotle's causes, you shouldn't leave any out.
Even if I concede the unavailability of efficient and material cause, which I do not, you are ignoring formal cause, just to be snarky about it. More importantly, to assert telos begs the question.
If we don't know why, we could conclude that it must be "for some reason."
I'm curious if you've read Pruss' defense of Aristotelian metaphysics.
Moreover, when dealing with things like the fine-tuning of the universe, we infer design because we detect a pattern needed for human life (anthropic principle), as well as showing that necessity and chance are not possible explanations.
Do you deny this? Then how do we ever detect teleology in anything(like a pile of machinery, or mount rushmore).
How do you show that chance is not an explanation for the universe? How do you show an absence of efficient cause?
As for the machinery, it's teleology is derived from an efficient cause (someone put it there) or a material cause (it's metal and rusting) or a formal cause (garbage is discarded.)
Do you only read philosophers and historians that confirm your current positions?
It doesn't matter if someone defended Aristotlean metaphysics in a way you find convincing--what I'm objecting to is the presumption with which you tout the notion as though it's NOT debated.
We would also need an argument for why it is rational to believe that the universe with its life permitting values and fine tuning could have naturally occurred. The chances are so infinitely small it is laughable. But make sure not to beg the question again by saying, "Well we know it happened because if it didn't we wouldn't be here....." Also, whether you like him or not things like "It's quite sad anyone makes the mistake of thinking he's an intelligent philosopher," make you sound stupid.
I didn't say what I said out of like or dislike. I said it because he's about deep as a paper plate. William Lane Craig does not impress me in the least.
This is your quote: "Craig talks about not needing an explanation of an explanation. Unfortunately, for both of you, this only applies when an explanation is evidenced." You go on to suggest that there is no evidence and that there is "no way of knowing" whether belief in that proposition is justified. Embarassingly however, this response begs the question against atheism, presupposing the argument itself and other theistic proofs fail. Therefore, this response must be dismissed.
Funny that I didn't get a message notifying me of your reply. No it doesn't beg the question against atheism. Atheism isn't always strong atheism. Most atheists are agnostic atheists.
the point Craig is making. He isn't talking about the Paley argument at all. He's talking about an elementary principle in the philosophy of science, namely that an explanation doesn't require and explanation of its own. This video has taken this out of context (as I have seen the full video). As a philosopher, I confess that this is a poor rebuttal philosophically and we would do well to develop more philosophically sound arguments against theism if that's what we decide to do.
I think you and a lot of other people are overanalyzing this video. I think Das doesn't address Craig's first proposition because he doesn't disagree with it.
Basically, you don't need to explain who/what created the unicorn, you just need to prove that there is/was a unicorn. Speculation is fine. It's BELIEF in the truth of a proposition that we currently have no way of knowing to be true that is the problem.
At about 7:50 this video comments that the only reason Craig draws the relationship between an intricate design and intelligent designer is based on his experience. But is this really what Craig says? As a philosopher I have followed Craig for a while and I believe he would argue for his "knowledge" of God to make the relation from the historicity of Jesus and his resurrection; something nearly every atheist has NEVER examined, just dismissed. Also, this whole video has nothing to do with
Gosh you're a clever chap.. I wish I were able to put forward arguments the way you can. I tend to speak to people as though they don't deserve my time but that is my own lack of patience. Keep it up James. you're a good lad.
I think your disagreement on what argument craig is making is irrelevant. You're considering this video a strawman and yet you fail to realize that there's no argument that atheist's will avoid addressing. We don't need to dumb down your arguments to an easily dismissed level, because there really is no good argument for theism. If Craig is even half of the best theism has to offer then it's pathetic. It's quite sad anyone makes the mistake of thinking he's an intelligent philosopher.
Craig talks about not needing an explanation of an explanation. Unfortunately, for both of you, this only applies when an explanation is evidenced. What Das is pointing out and which I further stress the importance of understanding, is that we do not accept your argument that the universe is too complex to be naturally occurring. We don't deny that the existence of a sort of god is possible. We just want theists to be intellectually honest and admit that the universe could exist without one.
"What Das is pointing out and which I further stress the importance of understanding, is that we do not accept your argument that the universe is too complex to be naturally occurring."
Which is not what Craig is talking about at all!
Do you know what a strawman is? Because if you don't, the quotation above is a great example of one.
Yes I know what a straw-man is. Neither of us are avoiding addressing the first point Craig makes because we don't disagree with the statement that an explanation does not need and explanation to be considered the best or most likely. It does however, require evidence to be considered the best or most likely. Complexity is not evidence. Understand?
DasAmericanAtheist, you have *no idea* what you're talking about. Craig isn't running the teleological argument here; he's illustrating the 'you don't need an explanation of an explanation' principle (i.e. it's not the case that if you have an explanation E1 of some phenomenon P that you need an explanation E2 for E1 before you can be properly said to have explained P).
Well, either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you're misrepresenting Craig purposely.
The ironic thing in all of this is that Craig's teleological argument is not Paley's argument. Anyone who has followed Craig's work would know that.
What DasAmericanAtheists did was take an analogy that Craig made in order to show that you don't need an explanation of the explanation in order to propose such explanation and he took it out of context.
He is attacking a strawman by first taking the arrowhead analogy out of context and applying it to Paley's argument.
I suggest you read one of Dr. Craig's books. Craig never states his design argument in terms of an argument from analogy. He uses it as an inference to the best explanation.
Craig's example was a counter-example to Dawkins' claim that one could not infer a designer if the you cannot explain a designer
I really liked the point. we know that watchmakers make watches, and paintings, have painters, because we can watch them making them. i hate when they forget this. great points, and you did a really good job here.
what a twat. He doesn't seem to get that the only reason we'd conclude an arrowhead was designed is because we've already seen them in the ground and already know what they are. There are too many items we could present him with that he wouldn't be able to guess if it was manmade or not and that alone would disprove his whole design argument. William Lame Craig.
What do you think the search for alien or extraterrestrial life involves? In those cases, we wouldn't have already seen them and yet by your logic we would be forced to conclude that it wasn't designed. This leads to the peculiar understanding that even if a giant alien ship were to appear on Earth we still couldn't infer it was designed because we hadn't already seen it, which is ridiculous. But of course, being the unsophisticated chap that you are, you find it persuasive.
"In those cases, we wouldn't have already seen them"
Not true. What we would find in the search for an E.T.I. WOULD be something we've seen before: a signal with a syntactic structure, an organism, artifacts, etc. We have seen all of these before.
Then there is no argument here if you totally reduce it down to structural components etc. This is precisely what the design arguments try to do with the fine tuning of the Universe of biological complexity. They infer design because we know of information or complexity being designed. Therefore if that's the claim then that just goes to justify design, which surely you won't accept. But this obviously isn't the claim here. The claim is recognizing artifacts from Earth, not elsewhere.
"They infer design because we know of information or complexity being designed."
But 'complexity' isn't necessarily designed (look at snowflakes). Only certain kinds of complexity are designed. We know that machines are designed because we've seen them be designed; we know that economies, snowflakes and organisms are not designed because we've seen them arise though non-design processes.
I still don't see your point. If you're only reducing design to our ability to already recognize certain features then I would agree, we obviously have those capabilities, otherwise we could never detect design. But I don't think this was the original claim before by the other user. If this is the claim then this sort of defeats the purpose because Theists are essentially arguing from what we know of the world around us to an intelligent designer of it. Cont...
"Theists are essentially arguing from what we know of the world around us to an intelligent designer of it."
And that argument is fallacious because they're conflating natural complexity with artificial complexity. Natural complexity (organisms, economies, snowflakes) requires no designer. Because the design theorist fail to recognize the distinction they assume any complexity means design.
Cont...As for snowflakes, now you're assuming that they are of a natural process themselves, which is in question. The fine tuning argument, for example, is an attempt to argue that the laws that allow for such formations are themselves designed, given what we know about them. That's the whole issue in question so you can't just presuppose these things are the result of a law that wasn't designed.
"As for snowflakes, now you're assuming that they are of a natural process themselves, which is in question."
No it's not. The process by which snowflakes form is as natural, and as well understood as it gets. Saying 'God designs every snowflake' (or even the laws that lead to them) is not only not the best explanation, it's not an explanation at all.
"In those cases, we wouldn't have already seen them"
Nonsense. What we look for when we look for ETL are things we have already seen: signals with syntactic structure, organisms, etc. We have seen these things, so we would recognize them when we see them.
Moreover, this objection of yours doesn't work even on the face of it because human beings at one point or another had to see for the first time intelligent making artifacts. There is a first for everything and yet obviously at that first moment we recognized the object in question as intelligently designed. Thus, this whole "already been seen" stuff is fundamentally incoherent and itself nonsense.
"There is a first for everything and yet obviously at that first moment we recognized the object in question as intelligently designed."
But we didn't automatically recognize it as designed. This was Hume's point about Adam not knowing that water would drown him just by looking at it. We determined that objects of type X are designed through inference, not by just automatically seeing design, which Craig is claiming we can do.
Again, I don't dispute this aspect of what you're saying. I mean obviously we need something within our brain that recognizes how intelligent things are generally made, otherwise nothing could be determined intelligently. I wasn't disputing that. I was disputing a claim that I thought was suggesting only recognizing artifacts that are like our own. The latter case is absurd. The former one, thought correct, adds nothing to the discussion.
And what if the alien ship looked like something organic? Ever seen the movie alien? we wouldn't be able to tell if it was some type of life that had petrified or if it was something designed to look organic. If you had not seen ants before, would you have concluded that an ant hill was made by the ants? No. You would not. Only after you stepped in it or poked it with a stick could you know.
You took the arrowhead example completely out of context and what it was trying to show and applied it to a straw man watchmaker argument that Craig was talking about. You then attacked this strawman and erroneously applied the arrowhead example to it and then concluded that you had debunked his argument in that video.
I think its clear you have done everything but that.
Craig's response to Dawkins is NOT the watchmaker argument at all, and I find it quite surprising that you claim that it is. The watchmaker argument is simply that from the complexity of (x) one can infer a designer just like the complex inner workings of a watch necessitate a designer.
This is not Craig's point at all! He is simply debunking Dawkin's moronic assumption that in order for an explanation to be valid, one must have an explanation of the explanation.
I dont think Craig was particullary defending paley's argument but the idea that if we would find arrow heads that it would be a logic conclusion to conclude some tribe made it eventhough we dont know where the tribe came from
same for the moon machinary example. We would logically suspect aliens even if we had no idea who they were and where they came from
so its not really about design but about the notion that you can infer design without explanation of the designer.
knowntje is right , It's a very important principle of scholarship, DasAmericanAtheist , that one accurately and fairly present a person's view before criticizing it. Otherwise, one has achieved a hollow victory in knocking down a straw man. What your refuting is the watchmaker argument which has nothing to do with the truth of the statement, for an explanation (x) to be the best, you don't need an explanation of explanation (x).
I've already addressed this in comments above to vbfl920. I AM rebutting ONE of Craig's main points--which is WHY this is a part 2 video. I address ANOTHING of his main points in the previous video. The NEXT video will address ANOTHER of his points.
He uses design inference as a means of validating the explanation not needing an explanation point. I'm refuting it AS support FOR THAT ARGUMENT.
An important principle of scholarship is KNOWING WHEN A STRAWMAN IS *ACTUALLY* BEING USED.
They still don't work. Even if Craig's examples didn't work, there is no way he is wrong about the principle of not having to have an explanation of the explanation. That principle must be true in order to accept any explanation.
You're assuming a foundationalist model of justificaiton, but that's not the only model to be had. A coherence theory of justification is viable, and completely avoids this problem. Under this model the best explanation is precisely the one that doesn't need an explanation itself, since it fits with everything else we already understand (or at least think we do.) The God hypothesis cohered pretty well in the middle ages, but in the age of science it fails to do that.
"You're assuming a foundationalist model of justificaiton"
Not really, the principle is justified intuitively because it's negation automatically leads to a regress. This has nothing to do with the coherence theory. But just to correct you on that...all of our beliefs about science, reason and logic need a foundation, including the coherence theory of justification. All of this must be subsumed under the properly basic belief that we operate in a world that is rational and external to us.
"the principle is justified intuitively because it's negation automatically leads to a regress."
You're begging the question. It only leads to a regress if justification is foundationalist. If the coherentist is right then it's negation is only problematic if that negation fails to fit with other things we (think we) know.
"all of our beliefs.. need a foundation"
Once more you beg the question. Beliefs need a justification, but you're assuming that justification must be foundational.
"He is saying that since an explanation is a good one, it does not require an explanation to REMAIN a good one."
And I am saying that a good explanation will not require an explanation itself, since it will cohere with everything else I know. When I see alien artifacts on the moon I not only have an explanation for the artifacts (the aliens) I also have an explanation for that explanation (evolution, space travel, etc.). This works as an explanation because it fits with everything I know.
You're conflating explanation with causation. The explanation for the big bang is not to be found in a causal account of the big bang. By definition, there can be no cause of the big bang because all cause occurs is space time and the big bang was the beginning of space time. But just because the big bang is uncaused does not mean it's inexplicable; it just means that we can't give a causal explanation. The explanation for the big bang is found in the evidence that leads us to the big bang.
And you conflate as well in the use of YOUR definition:
"When I see alien artifacts on the moon I not only have an explanation for the artifacts (the aliens)....."
No, by your definition, the aliens don't EXPLAIN the artifacts, because they do not show what the artifacts CONSIST of (if thats what you mean by 'explain'). They only show what CAUSED the artifacts to be there.
"you conflate as well in the use of YOUR definition:"
It wasn't a definition, it was an example. Causes are one type of explanation; constitutions are another. When you ask for an explanation, sometimes what you're looking for is a cause; other times you're looking for a constitution. When we ask about alien artifacts, we might be asking for either; when we're asking about the whole universe, we're asking for constitution.
Causes are explanations, but they are not the only form of explanation. How do you explain the solidity of this table? In terms of the structure of the atoms that compose it. That's a constitutive explanation, not a causal one. Ditto with the big bang.
So, in this strict sense of causal explanations being required to make an explanation valid, Dakwins has no right to REQUIRE one before God can be established as a good explanation.
The same goes for you if you require one as well.
That's being inconsistent and having an outright bias.
"in this strict sense of causal explanations being required to make an explanation valid,"
Causal explanations are NOT the only valid explanation, how many times do I have to repeat that?
"Dakwins has no right to REQUIRE one before God can be established as a good explanation."
I can't speak for Dawkins, but for myself, I'll take ANY kind of explanation for God to count him as a good explanation. Without any explanation, you're answering a riddle with a mystery. God is no explanation at all.
"No one, including yourself, DEMANDS for a causal explanation for the big bang"
Because any candidate explanation for the big bang would be incoherent. By definition, causes and effects happen within spacetime. Nothing can cause anything outside of spacetime (even saying 'outside of spacetime' is a misnomer). The big bang was the birth of spacetime, so by definition nothing can cause it.
That is not a scientific consensus that the Big Bang has no cause.
YOU are saying that.
I mean the muti-verse theory is something that is being passed around quite frequently which attempts to EXPLAIN a cause for our universe, if accepted.
So that means that scientists ARE looking for a cause. They have not ruled out that is has a cause.
"this WHOLE discussion is based off of the question, "Who designed the designer?" This is asking for a CAUSAL explanation."
I'll accept any kind of explanation for the designer, causal or otherwise. In the mean time, I can give you a constituative explanation of the big bang/the universe that does not appeal to a designer. I at least have an explanation. You, like Craig and every theist before him, have none at all.
You said that the God explanation requires an explanation to be valid. I brought up how we accept the BB but it has no explanation either. You said it has no CAUSAL explanation, but it does have a CONSTITUTIVE explanation. And I said that is NOT what we are looking for.
The question Dawkins asked was a CAUSAL question to which Craig replied to, to which Dasatheist replied, to which we are commenting on.
So you cannot accept on one hand, an explanation that has no causal explanation(BB), but then on the other hand rule out another explanation PURELY for the fact that it does not have a causal explanation either.(God)
This is the issue I had with your video... it's not that you took it out of context, you mistook what he was actually saying.
The watchmaker argument is that you CAN infer design.
Craig is discussing the point that you don't need an explanation of the explanation.
ie - I may infer that earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics. I do not need an explanation of why plate tectonics cause this phenomena or what caused the plates to exist in order for it to be a valid inference.
Actually your analogy is wrong. We DO need to know why plate tectonics cause earthquakes for the inference to be valid. Without a proper explanation of the process (plate tectonics) we can not infer what the results (earthquakes) of the process would be,
Yeah my analogy was horrible upon reflection... the point still stands though... I just didn't want to repeat what Dr Craig already stated in the video (his analogy actually works) and I was writing quickly without thinking.
If you'd like I'll think some through and give you numerous examples... but I'd rather not as Craig made his point.
As soon as Craig said that you can infer that machinery found on the moon would justify the belief of an intelligent designer, I knew that you would be turning him over your knee and spanking him with a running chainsaw. Great vid.
I provide a link the entire video so that the viewer can place it in context. This is one of three main points he makes to support his rebuttle of Dawkins. As such, I treat it as one of his points and rebut it as such.
Here's the thing . . . I've seen Craig debunked many times but anytime a professional debate goes against him they use really bad arguments in lieu of others that may actually be effective.
I know this probably won't happen but I would love a good atheist youtuber like you or I to debate him.
Perhaps but he went up againt Hitchens. He's no slouch and certainly well read enough. There have been a couple prominent atheists he's debated and I've to see an appropriate performance from any of them.
Well, see, here we differ. Hitchens is a brilliant mind and a wonderful debater--USUALLY.
Craig is a FORMAL debater, Hitchens is not. They weren't a good match for the debate--though, admittedly, I haven't seen the debate yet...just my prejududgement.
Craig often seems to be the better debater because, as you note, J, he's got the formal debate skills down. He's quite good at developing and presenting valid (but unsound) arguments -- usually in syllogistic form -- that give the appearance of demonstration, and he presents pretty much the same ones in every debate. His interlocutors must take a lot of time pulling these bogus arguments apart to expose and explicate their unsoundness -- an exercise that doesn't always make for the most...
...riveting, fast-paced presentation. In short, Craig has got the smoke and mirrors down pat, and people -- even people don't agree with him -- are often taken in by that. I've watched a number of his debates. Each of his opponents that I've seen was excellent on substance, but none could quite match Craig on presentational style. That said, I personally find Craig's style to be reminiscent of a shady used car salesman's approach, but there's a reason those guys make a lot of money.
I agree on all counts. I've talked about this with Theo quite a bit: when philosophy is done right, it should make SENSE. The problem with SO MUCH theist philosophy is that it's confounding.
So the apologists launches the argument and the listener, instead of saying "oooooh, that makes complete sense" goes "wait, why is THAT the way it is?"
If there were a god, he should be easily defensible and not confounding of the senses...that's my take, anyway.
True, but have you looked closely at his argument from morality? It starts out as a neat little syllogism, and then sort of meanders off into a jumble of what looks like a combination of appeals to popularity and personal attacks.
He makes a good show, but if you look closely, you can see the bump in the rug. But as you say, his fans don't really look that closely.
The essential issue here is trying to project our appropriate exclamations about things that we have experiential data to fall back upon, onto that which we have no reason to believe is subject to the same principles that items that have been created by humans are.
James, Craig is NOT USING the argument from design to prove his point that: Good explanations do not need explanations to have explaining power.
That is not what he is doing in this video.
I've seen this before. He is bringing up various scenarios to SHOW that if arrowheads and machinery were found, we could RIGHTLY infer explanations for those things without having to explain those explanations
He is NOT making a case for design in this video at all. The scenarios he is using are arbitrary
We find arrowheads, so we infer that humans made those arrowheads. But we know NOTHING about those humans who made the arrowheads. Does this render our explanation invalid?
We find machinery on the backside of the moon. We infer alien intelligence put this machinery there. But we know NOTHING about the alien intelligence at all. Does this render our explanation invalid?
John, Craig's video makes three basic points: 1) Explanations of explanations are not required to recognize an explanations as best 2) Intelligence may be inferred given complexity 3) God is not a complex entity.
I fully recognize that the FULL point he's making is not design inference, however he uses design inference to support his fundamental claim: that god is a valid explanation for the existence of the universe.
Nothing that you said contradicted my reason for addressing his point.
The video is only 5 minutes long. And those two scenarios that he brought up were not used AT ALL to prove the universe was designed. But you made the assertion in your video that that was what he was trying to do with them, which he wasn't.
Like I said, those examples were arbitrary.
He could've used ANY scenario that showed an ACTUAL unexplained explanation that is accepted by science to illustrate his point.
He's not really a philosopher. He's theologian.
YOURINQUIRER 1 year ago
@YOURINQUIRER He has a Ph.D in philosophy AND in theology. You fail.
Drgamedood 3 months ago
@Drgamedood
The degree in Philosophy is a valid area of study...Theology degrees are akin to having a degree in Star Trekology.
ThieleM 2 weeks ago
What also needs to be pointed out is the fact that if machinery were to be found on the moon or ancient artifacts from an unknown origin found, science would investigate and try very hard to discover their origins... not just roll over and proclaim a miracle.
deepashtray 1 year ago
I'm not very good at making philosophical and religious arguments. But this weird thing always happens where i hear an argument (like some of the ones Craig makes) and it just doesn't sit right with me and i can never figure out why. Then someone like you comes along and I'm like ooooohhhhhhhhh there we go, i just cant to seem to get my thoughts straight with these things and think of counter arguments to them.
Afarrell18 1 year ago
Craig is correct that we don't need a explanation(causal) of the best explanation in order to recognize it's the best. I'm not a creationist nor a theist, but let's say Craig is correct and his god exists. Because his god lies outside of our universe it would be impossible for us to have a causal explanation for him/she/it. We can't apply the scientific method to anything which is untestable and unobservable.
revo1974 1 year ago
@revo1974 I know you posted this a while back, but I have a response. Can things that don't exist in terms of our criteria make an effect on our reality? If they can, then surely they have some sort of material existence. If you disagree with this, then can't the actions of that god(the material effects) be tested? If we can't test god, can't we test his effect?
creepyoldman2 1 year ago
@creepyoldman2 That depends on what we are talking about. As a Christian, I believe that since God made everything, to test anything at all is to test the effects of God. So, in answer to your question, yes we can, but, I am not convined that doing so would prove, nor disprove, the existance of God. Either way, that is where faith comes into play. You either have faith that God exists, or you have faith that He does not exist.
AdoptedGentile 11 months ago
@AdoptedGentile Do you really think the "you have faith that god doesn't exist" argument holds any ground whatsoever? How many times have the YT atheists been over that? Plus, you say that testing anything is testing god, but I must ask you, whence god in evolution? There is no need for a guiding hand in this process.
creepyoldman2 11 months ago
Flagellum motors are not like a motor they literally are a motor. These are Nano Molecular motors built of extremely complex arrangments of protein. The cells in every living thing are literally loaded with these molecular machines. I have studied these systems for 20 years as a Bio-geneticist. This argument simply doesn't wash. These are actual machines in every sense of the term, only far more complex then anything we have ever seen in the physical world.
goshawker07 2 years ago
I am sorry, but it seems you have missed the point.
Gerdk21 1 year ago
@goshawker07 Please let me know where you work as a bio-geneticist and where you got your qualifications and what they are.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
Hey BooMeRLiNSKi,
Why do atheists/agnostics go to questioning the credentials of individuals because the their ideology/world view/conclusions drawn from observations are anti-thetical to your world view?
edburg49 1 year ago
@edburg49 Because it's an entirely fair question to ask of somebody who is claiming certain credentials that they back them up?
In what way is this not reasonable and in fact a necessary challenge to somebody making such claims?
You'll notice I havent received a response.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
I am a Christian and although I disagree with this guy at least he is a philosophically sound unlike pop atheists like Dawkins, Hitchens or Harris
agnostaxian 2 years ago
No he really isn't.
Dawkins, Hitchens and harris are all far greater men.
BooMeRLiNSKi 1 year ago
Also, we do not learn something by Infinite Regress at all. Instead we learn a number of facts and "weave" a "net" from educated inferences which then can support a theory.
Infinite Regress has to do with cause and effect, not with how we come to Know or infer one anything, such as the existence of god.
WL Craig starts off smart, but when dissected, he's really not saying anything.
xtcx2e 2 years ago
hit the philosophy pretty hard there for the avg youtuber. I enjoyed it, and always admired Hume.
There is an easier way to state this, but ur way is best fro those who have patience and at least some ear for philosophy.
xtcx2e 2 years ago
Yawn. This is like watching Captain Kirk and Agent Smith's kid stroke his own philosophical ego while reading a teleprompter.
kyufa 2 years ago
The problem for the theist then becomes, 'what is the definition of design?' the only available point of reference we have to define design is human design. But humans do not literally create anything, and our design is derived entirely from pre-existing properties and learned concepts. This definition of design cannot work the same way for god, and there is no other defintion for design.
Staunts 2 years ago
The very fact that we can identify design, means that there is a distinction between that which is designed, and that which isnt. However the theist has implied that the entire universe is designed, in which case there would simply be no such thing as 'non-designed,' and thus no way to identify design from anything else.
Staunts 2 years ago
I love the thorough argument. No room for him to hide in ambiguous assertions.
Mattprole 2 years ago
I don't know that I love sciences for it's Mary-go-round results over speculation, or hate it for that. but it is clear that if you use sciences correctly you will eventually reach a conclusion that dos not question itself endlessly.
The ID speculation when applied to correct sciences tends to cut off abruptly, as if it dos not it tends to go on forever like "Pie" but without the intelligences. (Pie may have an end, but we have yet reached it, I think, but the same gose for ID)
DiceWarwick 2 years ago
Unfortunately DasAmericanAtheist is not addressing the real issue, and has completely missed the point. GiloRocks accurately represents Craig's position when he says: "Craig merely states that requiring an explanation of the explanation would lead to an infinite regress of explanations....He concludes that to accept an explanation as the best, you don't need an explanation of the explanation."
RorySPQR 2 years ago 2
The problem is that you can never know if your "best explanation" is truly the best explanation if you should stop applying the methodology of science on your explanation. Nothing is ever final, and yes, that may lead to infinite regress, but so be it.
There are no absolute, conclusive results in science; there is only what aligns best with evidence and is shown to be the best representation of reality, thus far.
So WLC is indeed anti-science in that statement.
Aaberg123 2 years ago
An explanation does need to be understood though. For example, if we say cancer is caused by the agent called X , it offers us nothing further to understand cancer if we cannot understand the agent X and its characteristics. An explanation is parsimonious if it does not help further our understanding.
epanek 2 years ago
I don't have a problem with understanding an explanation, and I'm sure William Lane Craig wouldn't either. His point is not that there's anything wrong with trying to understand an explanation, but rather that one doesn't need an explanation of the explanation.
RorySPQR 2 years ago
Well, in certain cases, that may be true, but let me provide a counter-example. This is going to seem quite nonsensical, but that's more or less the point.
If you were to ask me "Why are Unicorns hollow", and I told you "Unicorns are hollow because their fur is pink.". I gave you an explanation, but it doesn't make much logical sense. Fur color doesn't seem to have any logical connection with a Unicorn being hollow, so my explanation would require further explanation in order to make sense.
Onirayushizobura 2 years ago
Comment removed
RorySPQR 2 years ago
this guy just made me want to go eat my own shit,,, ill be right back...
rogelio67 2 years ago 2
I'm not sure what that is supposed to mean...
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago 5
@DasAmericanAtheist i think he's referring to your smarmy supercilious priggish presentation, i agree with what you say, but it's honestly hard to get through because of the oozing pretentiousness, you and theo warner are very similar in this regard, your facial expressions and voice seem affected and it therefore seems disingenuous, but to be honest it doesn't make me want to eat my own shit, but maybe it does make me vomit in my mouth a little at times
awfulnhead 1 year ago
@DasAmericanAtheist neither do I, but surely this guy has bad case of constipation.. 2 years....
upisoft2 2 months ago
@rogelio67 there is no such thing as an atheist or one who is absolutely convinced God exists. I submit that every so called atheist has some doubt, maybe a tiny little spot, in the back of their mind that they may be wrong. Same with a believer. Thus, to some degree or another, all are agnostics. Also the truth is that nobody knows how life originated. Many today are saying life and the oceans came to earth from comets. And nobody know how the universe came to be.
boblackey1 1 year ago
@rogelio67 Was the universe created by God? If so does this God know we exist? Does this God still exist? Or did the universe create itself? And is that even possible? Or has the universe existed always without a creator. Carl Sagan seemed to agree it has. "The cosmos is all there ever was, is and all there ever will be." Also has something always existed? God, matter etc? If not, then we have a point when NOTHING existed. If that point is true, then how did something suddenly start to exist?
boblackey1 1 year ago
@rogelio67 In other words, if at some point in the remote past, NOTHING at all existed, then how did the first thing to exist come into existance? I would imagine that if the universe was created, had a beginning, it was created by God and God has always existed without beginning. If God does not exist, then the universe has always existed without beginning. But the hot big bang theory says time, energy, time and space began at the point of the big bang. How did that happen? You don't know!!!
boblackey1 1 year ago
@rogelio67 No you don't know and neither does anybody. Just as nobody knows how life began here on earth. Was it created and put here or was it a random event which happened on the surface of the earth? Scientist Fred Hoyle wrote me in the 80's and insisted the chance of that was 1 to 10 to the 40,000th power, which is really zero. Life did not arise by chance. Hoyle turned to comets and today many scientists accept that comets did play a role in the genesis of life and they made the oceans too.
boblackey1 1 year ago
I don't think that Craig was arguing for design in that video.He was responding to Dawkins who basically said "We can't infer God, because we don't know anything about God, and who designed God?" Craig responds by talking about discovering artefacts,in which he says we would always come to the conclusion that some tribe in the past made these, EVEN THOUGH we don't know who the tribe are & how they made the artefacts. We can accept something as a valid cause even if we dont know anyhting about it
GiloRocks 2 years ago
Dawkins was arguing (in my opinion) that when people say that the intelligence of people requires a higher intelligence to explain it, they are begging the question. The worst possible explanation for intelligence is a higher, previously existing intelligence.
Craig has completely distorted what Dawkins said.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago 13
Craig is trying to respond to Dawkins who says "Who made God?" Craig merely states that requiring an explanation of the explanation would lead to an infinite regress of explanations. You would need an explanation of the explanation of the explanation and so on. He concludes that to accept an explanation as the best, you don't need an explanation of the explanation. He certainly wasn't attempting to defend the watchmaker argument. How do you think Craig has distorted Dawkins?
GiloRocks 2 years ago
Dawkins wasn't saying you need an explanation of an explanation in ALL cases. It was a particular kind of explanation that causes a problem.
Craig changed "sky hook" to "explanation" and made it sounds like Dawkins means that EVERY explanation requires an explanation, when in fact that isn't what he meant.
What Craig is arguing against is a straw man. Go read the actual quote from Dawkins before replying. You really should know what he really asid.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago 2
Ok, then, but even in any case where you require an explanation of the explanation, it would still lead to an infinite regress of explantions. Dawkins says you need an explanation of the explanation (God), but THIS scenario would lead to an infinite regress of explanations, and that is what Craig is arguing against.
GiloRocks 2 years ago
more sophistry, why am I not surprised? This is all about the larger teleological, which argues from contingency and improbability. Its very improbable, and could not have been produced by a physical process (contingency). Therefore, Teleology has been detected. Niether efficient or material causes are available, therefore we need to infer a teleological cause.
Aristotelian metaphysics FTW.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
And, of course, criticisms of Aristotlean metaphysics are utterly invalid. How could we all be so foolish??
If you're going to tout Aristotle's causes, you shouldn't leave any out.
Even if I concede the unavailability of efficient and material cause, which I do not, you are ignoring formal cause, just to be snarky about it. More importantly, to assert telos begs the question.
If we don't know why, we could conclude that it must be "for some reason."
Please.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
I'm curious if you've read Pruss' defense of Aristotelian metaphysics.
Moreover, when dealing with things like the fine-tuning of the universe, we infer design because we detect a pattern needed for human life (anthropic principle), as well as showing that necessity and chance are not possible explanations.
Do you deny this? Then how do we ever detect teleology in anything(like a pile of machinery, or mount rushmore).
migkillertwo 2 years ago
How do you show that chance is not an explanation for the universe? How do you show an absence of efficient cause?
As for the machinery, it's teleology is derived from an efficient cause (someone put it there) or a material cause (it's metal and rusting) or a formal cause (garbage is discarded.)
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
Do you only read philosophers and historians that confirm your current positions?
It doesn't matter if someone defended Aristotlean metaphysics in a way you find convincing--what I'm objecting to is the presumption with which you tout the notion as though it's NOT debated.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
"Do you only read philosophers and historians that confirm your current positions?"
I'm genuinely curious, Is that an argument, or better yet, is it in ANY WAY relavent?
"what I'm objecting to is the presumption with which you tout the notion as though it's NOT debated."
Did I tout it as if it's not debated?
migkillertwo 2 years ago
"How do you show that chance is not an explanation for the universe? How do you show an absence of efficient cause?"
Simple: There is no cause of these finely-tuned constants of nature. Ergo, necessity is an untenable explanation, as is chance.
"machinery"
More sophism from you I see we detect obvious teleology in it by showing chance and necessity to be false.
migkillertwo 2 years ago
So do you just narrate or what?
cruelfate45 2 years ago
Kudos, my man. Keep up the good work. I thoroughly enjoy your videos.
vexgodglove 2 years ago
We would also need an argument for why it is rational to believe that the universe with its life permitting values and fine tuning could have naturally occurred. The chances are so infinitely small it is laughable. But make sure not to beg the question again by saying, "Well we know it happened because if it didn't we wouldn't be here....." Also, whether you like him or not things like "It's quite sad anyone makes the mistake of thinking he's an intelligent philosopher," make you sound stupid.
tykrug 2 years ago
"make you sound stupid"
I didn't say what I said out of like or dislike. I said it because he's about deep as a paper plate. William Lane Craig does not impress me in the least.
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
Tatsujin,
This is your quote: "Craig talks about not needing an explanation of an explanation. Unfortunately, for both of you, this only applies when an explanation is evidenced." You go on to suggest that there is no evidence and that there is "no way of knowing" whether belief in that proposition is justified. Embarassingly however, this response begs the question against atheism, presupposing the argument itself and other theistic proofs fail. Therefore, this response must be dismissed.
tykrug 2 years ago
Funny that I didn't get a message notifying me of your reply. No it doesn't beg the question against atheism. Atheism isn't always strong atheism. Most atheists are agnostic atheists.
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
the point Craig is making. He isn't talking about the Paley argument at all. He's talking about an elementary principle in the philosophy of science, namely that an explanation doesn't require and explanation of its own. This video has taken this out of context (as I have seen the full video). As a philosopher, I confess that this is a poor rebuttal philosophically and we would do well to develop more philosophically sound arguments against theism if that's what we decide to do.
tykrug 2 years ago
tykrug
I think you and a lot of other people are overanalyzing this video. I think Das doesn't address Craig's first proposition because he doesn't disagree with it.
Basically, you don't need to explain who/what created the unicorn, you just need to prove that there is/was a unicorn. Speculation is fine. It's BELIEF in the truth of a proposition that we currently have no way of knowing to be true that is the problem.
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
At about 7:50 this video comments that the only reason Craig draws the relationship between an intricate design and intelligent designer is based on his experience. But is this really what Craig says? As a philosopher I have followed Craig for a while and I believe he would argue for his "knowledge" of God to make the relation from the historicity of Jesus and his resurrection; something nearly every atheist has NEVER examined, just dismissed. Also, this whole video has nothing to do with
tykrug 2 years ago
Gosh you're a clever chap.. I wish I were able to put forward arguments the way you can. I tend to speak to people as though they don't deserve my time but that is my own lack of patience. Keep it up James. you're a good lad.
hurtslicken 2 years ago
It is also rather surprising that this video has 5 stars. Goes to show the level of discourse that is accepted by the atheist comunity.
solid444 2 years ago
"Goes to show the level of discourse blah blah blah"
What drugs are you on that make dumb people sound smart and smart people sound dumb? They must be very expensive.
What is it about this video you disagree with exactly?
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
"What is it about this video you disagree with exactly? "
Look back in the comments, I posted about three comments on why this video is garbage.
solid444 2 years ago
I think your disagreement on what argument craig is making is irrelevant. You're considering this video a strawman and yet you fail to realize that there's no argument that atheist's will avoid addressing. We don't need to dumb down your arguments to an easily dismissed level, because there really is no good argument for theism. If Craig is even half of the best theism has to offer then it's pathetic. It's quite sad anyone makes the mistake of thinking he's an intelligent philosopher.
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
So you disagree that this video is a strawman and is not a response to Craig's actual point that he was making in the quoted video?
solid444 2 years ago
Craig talks about not needing an explanation of an explanation. Unfortunately, for both of you, this only applies when an explanation is evidenced. What Das is pointing out and which I further stress the importance of understanding, is that we do not accept your argument that the universe is too complex to be naturally occurring. We don't deny that the existence of a sort of god is possible. We just want theists to be intellectually honest and admit that the universe could exist without one.
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
So no I don't think this is a strawman at all.
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
Seriously? Did you read what you typed?
You said:
"What Das is pointing out and which I further stress the importance of understanding, is that we do not accept your argument that the universe is too complex to be naturally occurring."
Which is not what Craig is talking about at all!
Do you know what a strawman is? Because if you don't, the quotation above is a great example of one.
solid444 2 years ago
Yes I know what a straw-man is. Neither of us are avoiding addressing the first point Craig makes because we don't disagree with the statement that an explanation does not need and explanation to be considered the best or most likely. It does however, require evidence to be considered the best or most likely. Complexity is not evidence. Understand?
TatsujinSan 2 years ago
DasAmericanAtheist, you have *no idea* what you're talking about. Craig isn't running the teleological argument here; he's illustrating the 'you don't need an explanation of an explanation' principle (i.e. it's not the case that if you have an explanation E1 of some phenomenon P that you need an explanation E2 for E1 before you can be properly said to have explained P).
Well, either you have no idea what you're talking about, or you're misrepresenting Craig purposely.
Which is it?
edejardin 2 years ago
The ironic thing in all of this is that Craig's teleological argument is not Paley's argument. Anyone who has followed Craig's work would know that.
What DasAmericanAtheists did was take an analogy that Craig made in order to show that you don't need an explanation of the explanation in order to propose such explanation and he took it out of context.
He is attacking a strawman by first taking the arrowhead analogy out of context and applying it to Paley's argument.
Very dumb.
solid444 2 years ago
hahahaha exactly! This video is sad guys, let's just move on to a new one and forget this...obviously he has no idea what he's talking about ;)
geoffreyefloyd 2 years ago
Craig is NOT USING PALEY"S ARGUMENT!!
read his stuff the form is completely different.
facilisdescenus 2 years ago
His examples where design examples (arrowheads, etc.), even if his argument was not.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
I suggest you read one of Dr. Craig's books. Craig never states his design argument in terms of an argument from analogy. He uses it as an inference to the best explanation.
Craig's example was a counter-example to Dawkins' claim that one could not infer a designer if the you cannot explain a designer
facilisdescenus 2 years ago
I really liked the point. we know that watchmakers make watches, and paintings, have painters, because we can watch them making them. i hate when they forget this. great points, and you did a really good job here.
freethinker3161 2 years ago
what a twat. He doesn't seem to get that the only reason we'd conclude an arrowhead was designed is because we've already seen them in the ground and already know what they are. There are too many items we could present him with that he wouldn't be able to guess if it was manmade or not and that alone would disprove his whole design argument. William Lame Craig.
TruthSurge 2 years ago 2
What do you think the search for alien or extraterrestrial life involves? In those cases, we wouldn't have already seen them and yet by your logic we would be forced to conclude that it wasn't designed. This leads to the peculiar understanding that even if a giant alien ship were to appear on Earth we still couldn't infer it was designed because we hadn't already seen it, which is ridiculous. But of course, being the unsophisticated chap that you are, you find it persuasive.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"In those cases, we wouldn't have already seen them"
Not true. What we would find in the search for an E.T.I. WOULD be something we've seen before: a signal with a syntactic structure, an organism, artifacts, etc. We have seen all of these before.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Then there is no argument here if you totally reduce it down to structural components etc. This is precisely what the design arguments try to do with the fine tuning of the Universe of biological complexity. They infer design because we know of information or complexity being designed. Therefore if that's the claim then that just goes to justify design, which surely you won't accept. But this obviously isn't the claim here. The claim is recognizing artifacts from Earth, not elsewhere.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"They infer design because we know of information or complexity being designed."
But 'complexity' isn't necessarily designed (look at snowflakes). Only certain kinds of complexity are designed. We know that machines are designed because we've seen them be designed; we know that economies, snowflakes and organisms are not designed because we've seen them arise though non-design processes.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
I still don't see your point. If you're only reducing design to our ability to already recognize certain features then I would agree, we obviously have those capabilities, otherwise we could never detect design. But I don't think this was the original claim before by the other user. If this is the claim then this sort of defeats the purpose because Theists are essentially arguing from what we know of the world around us to an intelligent designer of it. Cont...
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"Theists are essentially arguing from what we know of the world around us to an intelligent designer of it."
And that argument is fallacious because they're conflating natural complexity with artificial complexity. Natural complexity (organisms, economies, snowflakes) requires no designer. Because the design theorist fail to recognize the distinction they assume any complexity means design.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Cont...As for snowflakes, now you're assuming that they are of a natural process themselves, which is in question. The fine tuning argument, for example, is an attempt to argue that the laws that allow for such formations are themselves designed, given what we know about them. That's the whole issue in question so you can't just presuppose these things are the result of a law that wasn't designed.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"As for snowflakes, now you're assuming that they are of a natural process themselves, which is in question."
No it's not. The process by which snowflakes form is as natural, and as well understood as it gets. Saying 'God designs every snowflake' (or even the laws that lead to them) is not only not the best explanation, it's not an explanation at all.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
It's always either snowflakes or rock shadows.
Id love to have an atheist demonstrate REAL complexity that occurs by unguided chance.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Evolution.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
I don't happen to think it is unguided.
You could also show me the universe.
But again, I don't think the universe is unguided at all either.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Okay, how about the global economy? Who guides that? Do you think we're actually living in a communist world, with God as the central planer?
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
"In those cases, we wouldn't have already seen them"
Nonsense. What we look for when we look for ETL are things we have already seen: signals with syntactic structure, organisms, etc. We have seen these things, so we would recognize them when we see them.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Moreover, this objection of yours doesn't work even on the face of it because human beings at one point or another had to see for the first time intelligent making artifacts. There is a first for everything and yet obviously at that first moment we recognized the object in question as intelligently designed. Thus, this whole "already been seen" stuff is fundamentally incoherent and itself nonsense.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"There is a first for everything and yet obviously at that first moment we recognized the object in question as intelligently designed."
But we didn't automatically recognize it as designed. This was Hume's point about Adam not knowing that water would drown him just by looking at it. We determined that objects of type X are designed through inference, not by just automatically seeing design, which Craig is claiming we can do.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Again, I don't dispute this aspect of what you're saying. I mean obviously we need something within our brain that recognizes how intelligent things are generally made, otherwise nothing could be determined intelligently. I wasn't disputing that. I was disputing a claim that I thought was suggesting only recognizing artifacts that are like our own. The latter case is absurd. The former one, thought correct, adds nothing to the discussion.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
And what if the alien ship looked like something organic? Ever seen the movie alien? we wouldn't be able to tell if it was some type of life that had petrified or if it was something designed to look organic. If you had not seen ants before, would you have concluded that an ant hill was made by the ants? No. You would not. Only after you stepped in it or poked it with a stick could you know.
Who's unsophisticated? YOU, dumbass.
TruthSurge 2 years ago
Yes, that design argument is annoying... I've never really heard a convincing case put forth. You certainly have batted this one down.
theowarner 2 years ago
Doesn't really sound like Paley's argument, but his argument was a bit over-reaching.
Could you please address ICSs' instead of asserting that it's been heavily refuted.
jcrebel18 2 years ago
.... (Cont.)...
You took the arrowhead example completely out of context and what it was trying to show and applied it to a straw man watchmaker argument that Craig was talking about. You then attacked this strawman and erroneously applied the arrowhead example to it and then concluded that you had debunked his argument in that video.
I think its clear you have done everything but that.
solid444 2 years ago
Craig's response to Dawkins is NOT the watchmaker argument at all, and I find it quite surprising that you claim that it is. The watchmaker argument is simply that from the complexity of (x) one can infer a designer just like the complex inner workings of a watch necessitate a designer.
This is not Craig's point at all! He is simply debunking Dawkin's moronic assumption that in order for an explanation to be valid, one must have an explanation of the explanation.
solid444 2 years ago
I dont think Craig was particullary defending paley's argument but the idea that if we would find arrow heads that it would be a logic conclusion to conclude some tribe made it eventhough we dont know where the tribe came from
same for the moon machinary example. We would logically suspect aliens even if we had no idea who they were and where they came from
so its not really about design but about the notion that you can infer design without explanation of the designer.
Knowntje 2 years ago 2
And if you notice; it's *that* very notion (that X can be inferred because of Y) that I destroy herein.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
I dont think you did, because you essentually refuted the watchmaker argument. I dont see how craig actually made the watchmaker argument
I think Craig was talking about one thing and you were talking about another thing
Knowntje 2 years ago 2
I love James but I've been saying this for weeks and also again today.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Afterall this video is about richard dawkins argument, which is not really about the watchmaker argument at all. Its about two things
1: his presupossing that God is more complex than his creation
2: you cant use God as an explanation without knowing where God came from
'
Those are the 2 points Craig was addressing. Not the watchmaker argument in general.
Knowntje 2 years ago
"so its not really about design but about the notion that you can infer design without explanation of the designer."
THAT *IS* THE WATCHMAKER ARGUMENT! Which is EXACTLY what I'm addressing in this video.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
knowntje is right , It's a very important principle of scholarship, DasAmericanAtheist , that one accurately and fairly present a person's view before criticizing it. Otherwise, one has achieved a hollow victory in knocking down a straw man. What your refuting is the watchmaker argument which has nothing to do with the truth of the statement, for an explanation (x) to be the best, you don't need an explanation of explanation (x).
geoffreyefloyd 2 years ago 2
I've already addressed this in comments above to vbfl920. I AM rebutting ONE of Craig's main points--which is WHY this is a part 2 video. I address ANOTHING of his main points in the previous video. The NEXT video will address ANOTHER of his points.
He uses design inference as a means of validating the explanation not needing an explanation point. I'm refuting it AS support FOR THAT ARGUMENT.
An important principle of scholarship is KNOWING WHEN A STRAWMAN IS *ACTUALLY* BEING USED.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
You still misrepresented his argument, regardless of whether you intended to or not. Craig's argument wasn't the watchmaker analogy.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
His argument might not have been, but his illustrations (arrowheads, machinery on the moon) clearly were.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
They still don't work. Even if Craig's examples didn't work, there is no way he is wrong about the principle of not having to have an explanation of the explanation. That principle must be true in order to accept any explanation.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
You're assuming a foundationalist model of justificaiton, but that's not the only model to be had. A coherence theory of justification is viable, and completely avoids this problem. Under this model the best explanation is precisely the one that doesn't need an explanation itself, since it fits with everything else we already understand (or at least think we do.) The God hypothesis cohered pretty well in the middle ages, but in the age of science it fails to do that.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
"You're assuming a foundationalist model of justificaiton"
Not really, the principle is justified intuitively because it's negation automatically leads to a regress. This has nothing to do with the coherence theory. But just to correct you on that...all of our beliefs about science, reason and logic need a foundation, including the coherence theory of justification. All of this must be subsumed under the properly basic belief that we operate in a world that is rational and external to us.
Christianjr4 2 years ago
"the principle is justified intuitively because it's negation automatically leads to a regress."
You're begging the question. It only leads to a regress if justification is foundationalist. If the coherentist is right then it's negation is only problematic if that negation fails to fit with other things we (think we) know.
"all of our beliefs.. need a foundation"
Once more you beg the question. Beliefs need a justification, but you're assuming that justification must be foundational.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
No, you are addressing a completely different aspect OF the explanation than what Craig is addressing.
Craig in this argument, is PRESUPPOSING that the explanation is a GOOD one.
So whether or not the God hypothesis IS a good explanation, is a completely different subject all together.
(Craig thinks it is, I think it is.)
He is saying that since an explanation is a good one, it does not require an explanation to REMAIN a good one.
He is totally right about this.
vbfl920 2 years ago
"He is saying that since an explanation is a good one, it does not require an explanation to REMAIN a good one."
And I am saying that a good explanation will not require an explanation itself, since it will cohere with everything else I know. When I see alien artifacts on the moon I not only have an explanation for the artifacts (the aliens) I also have an explanation for that explanation (evolution, space travel, etc.). This works as an explanation because it fits with everything I know.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Perspective bias and it does not work. Case in point:
The Big Bang is an explanation for everything that came after it.
It coheres in explanation with everything that came past it, but it is NOT the product of everything that came past it.
The explanation FOR the Big Bang does not fit WITHIN everything we know.
Its explanation is OUTSIDE of everything we know.
Regardless of WHERE it's explanation lies, it is STILL a good explanation, because of it's explaining power.
vbfl920 2 years ago
You're conflating explanation with causation. The explanation for the big bang is not to be found in a causal account of the big bang. By definition, there can be no cause of the big bang because all cause occurs is space time and the big bang was the beginning of space time. But just because the big bang is uncaused does not mean it's inexplicable; it just means that we can't give a causal explanation. The explanation for the big bang is found in the evidence that leads us to the big bang.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Comment removed
vbfl920 2 years ago
Comment removed
vbfl920 2 years ago
No, that's not going to work.
CAUSES are routinely treated as EXPLANATIONS.
Routinely.
It happens all of the time.
Everything that came after the BiG Bang does not EXPLAIN the Big Bang. I hope you are not implying this.
All it does is explain what the BB did.
vbfl920 2 years ago
And you conflate as well in the use of YOUR definition:
"When I see alien artifacts on the moon I not only have an explanation for the artifacts (the aliens)....."
No, by your definition, the aliens don't EXPLAIN the artifacts, because they do not show what the artifacts CONSIST of (if thats what you mean by 'explain'). They only show what CAUSED the artifacts to be there.
vbfl920 2 years ago
So, why do YOU get to use the term "explanation" in regards to a cause but I can't?
I don't actually have a problem with this because like I said, causes are routinely treated like explanations.
But you are not being consistent with what you say and do towards MY illustrations.
vbfl920 2 years ago
"you conflate as well in the use of YOUR definition:"
It wasn't a definition, it was an example. Causes are one type of explanation; constitutions are another. When you ask for an explanation, sometimes what you're looking for is a cause; other times you're looking for a constitution. When we ask about alien artifacts, we might be asking for either; when we're asking about the whole universe, we're asking for constitution.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Causes are explanations, but they are not the only form of explanation. How do you explain the solidity of this table? In terms of the structure of the atoms that compose it. That's a constitutive explanation, not a causal one. Ditto with the big bang.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
Ok, now we are just splitting hairs here. So we are right back to the beginning.
Remember, that this WHOLE discussion is based off of the question, "Who designed the designer?"
This is asking for a CAUSAL explanation.
It is not asking for a CONSTITUTIVE explanation.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Now let's go back to what explanations we have available for the BB.
You require NO CAUSAL explanation for the Big Bang because we have no causal explanation available for it.
No one, including yourself, DEMANDS for a causal explanation for the big bang, BEFORE we are willing to accept it as a good explanation.
vbfl920 2 years ago
So, in this strict sense of causal explanations being required to make an explanation valid, Dakwins has no right to REQUIRE one before God can be established as a good explanation.
The same goes for you if you require one as well.
That's being inconsistent and having an outright bias.
vbfl920 2 years ago
"in this strict sense of causal explanations being required to make an explanation valid,"
Causal explanations are NOT the only valid explanation, how many times do I have to repeat that?
"Dakwins has no right to REQUIRE one before God can be established as a good explanation."
I can't speak for Dawkins, but for myself, I'll take ANY kind of explanation for God to count him as a good explanation. Without any explanation, you're answering a riddle with a mystery. God is no explanation at all.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
"No one, including yourself, DEMANDS for a causal explanation for the big bang"
Because any candidate explanation for the big bang would be incoherent. By definition, causes and effects happen within spacetime. Nothing can cause anything outside of spacetime (even saying 'outside of spacetime' is a misnomer). The big bang was the birth of spacetime, so by definition nothing can cause it.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
That is not a scientific consensus that the Big Bang has no cause.
YOU are saying that.
I mean the muti-verse theory is something that is being passed around quite frequently which attempts to EXPLAIN a cause for our universe, if accepted.
So that means that scientists ARE looking for a cause. They have not ruled out that is has a cause.
vbfl920 2 years ago
"YOU are saying that."
Yes, I am. And I am getting it from Einstein, Hawking and Brian Greene.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
None of this is even relevant to my point.
They STILL do not know what CAUSED the Big Bang or WHY it did what it did.
So that still leaves a gap in explanation FOR the BB.
So the BB has a gap in explanation, but does this take away anything from its validity as an explanation?
No. Science accepts it, you accept it, I accept it, and Craig accepts it, WITH a explanation gap.
Case in point. A GOOD explanation does not need an explanation to be valid.
vbfl920 2 years ago
"this WHOLE discussion is based off of the question, "Who designed the designer?" This is asking for a CAUSAL explanation."
I'll accept any kind of explanation for the designer, causal or otherwise. In the mean time, I can give you a constituative explanation of the big bang/the universe that does not appeal to a designer. I at least have an explanation. You, like Craig and every theist before him, have none at all.
SisyphusRedeemed 2 years ago
You are still skirting the issue.
All I was saying was that Craig was right in asserting that the "best" explanation does not need an explanation to be valid.
He is right, there is no way around this.
vbfl920 2 years ago
Comment removed
vbfl920 2 years ago
You said that the God explanation requires an explanation to be valid. I brought up how we accept the BB but it has no explanation either. You said it has no CAUSAL explanation, but it does have a CONSTITUTIVE explanation. And I said that is NOT what we are looking for.
The question Dawkins asked was a CAUSAL question to which Craig replied to, to which Dasatheist replied, to which we are commenting on.
vbfl920 2 years ago
So you cannot accept on one hand, an explanation that has no causal explanation(BB), but then on the other hand rule out another explanation PURELY for the fact that it does not have a causal explanation either.(God)
BOTH do not need one to be valid!
Follow me?
vbfl920 2 years ago
Yeah that would be all too easy of you now wouldnt it?
Science doesnt seem to think that the BB has no cause, but you DO?
vbfl920 2 years ago
But that was not their purpose to illustrate.
Their purpose was to illustrate unexplained explanations STILL being good ones.
The scenarios he used were arbitrary.
He could've used ANY type of scenario that presented an unexplained explanation that was STILL valid.
vbfl920 2 years ago
This is the issue I had with your video... it's not that you took it out of context, you mistook what he was actually saying.
The watchmaker argument is that you CAN infer design.
Craig is discussing the point that you don't need an explanation of the explanation.
ie - I may infer that earthquakes are caused by plate tectonics. I do not need an explanation of why plate tectonics cause this phenomena or what caused the plates to exist in order for it to be a valid inference.
gCuezy 2 years ago
Actually your analogy is wrong. We DO need to know why plate tectonics cause earthquakes for the inference to be valid. Without a proper explanation of the process (plate tectonics) we can not infer what the results (earthquakes) of the process would be,
vexgodglove 2 years ago
Yeah my analogy was horrible upon reflection... the point still stands though... I just didn't want to repeat what Dr Craig already stated in the video (his analogy actually works) and I was writing quickly without thinking.
If you'd like I'll think some through and give you numerous examples... but I'd rather not as Craig made his point.
gCuezy 2 years ago
As soon as Craig said that you can infer that machinery found on the moon would justify the belief of an intelligent designer, I knew that you would be turning him over your knee and spanking him with a running chainsaw. Great vid.
alianchild 2 years ago
Thanks. You shoud see the spanking I do WITHOUT a running chainsaw. ;-)
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
I knew there was a reason I had subscribed to you ^_^ Gald to see some more argument vids. Loving it.
EnilRorrim 2 years ago
How long ago did you subscribe? I've got allllll kinds of videos like this in my annals! GO WATCH THEM NOW!!!
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
Watch them already :) Been subscribed since your first vids came out.
EnilRorrim 2 years ago
He conflates something we know was created by humans "arrowheads" with something we don't know was designed but may look like it was.
Mjhavok 2 years ago
Exactly.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
I'm not positive as I haven't seen the original video but I've never heard William Lane Craig ever defend "biological design" in the manner you speak.
Is this in it's proper context?
gCuezy 2 years ago
I provide a link the entire video so that the viewer can place it in context. This is one of three main points he makes to support his rebuttle of Dawkins. As such, I treat it as one of his points and rebut it as such.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
Here's the thing . . . I've seen Craig debunked many times but anytime a professional debate goes against him they use really bad arguments in lieu of others that may actually be effective.
I know this probably won't happen but I would love a good atheist youtuber like you or I to debate him.
Doubtful at best it'll happen unfortunatley.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Well, of course Craig CHOOSES his opponents carefully. He wouldn't want to actually go up against someone who could embarass him.
For example, he refuses to debate John Loftus. Loftus STUDIED with Craig...she he knows he'll be destroyed.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
Perhaps but he went up againt Hitchens. He's no slouch and certainly well read enough. There have been a couple prominent atheists he's debated and I've to see an appropriate performance from any of them.
HonestDiscussioner 2 years ago
Well, see, here we differ. Hitchens is a brilliant mind and a wonderful debater--USUALLY.
Craig is a FORMAL debater, Hitchens is not. They weren't a good match for the debate--though, admittedly, I haven't seen the debate yet...just my prejududgement.
Have a link?
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
Craig often seems to be the better debater because, as you note, J, he's got the formal debate skills down. He's quite good at developing and presenting valid (but unsound) arguments -- usually in syllogistic form -- that give the appearance of demonstration, and he presents pretty much the same ones in every debate. His interlocutors must take a lot of time pulling these bogus arguments apart to expose and explicate their unsoundness -- an exercise that doesn't always make for the most...
ProfMTH 2 years ago
...riveting, fast-paced presentation. In short, Craig has got the smoke and mirrors down pat, and people -- even people don't agree with him -- are often taken in by that. I've watched a number of his debates. Each of his opponents that I've seen was excellent on substance, but none could quite match Craig on presentational style. That said, I personally find Craig's style to be reminiscent of a shady used car salesman's approach, but there's a reason those guys make a lot of money.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
I agree on all counts. I've talked about this with Theo quite a bit: when philosophy is done right, it should make SENSE. The problem with SO MUCH theist philosophy is that it's confounding.
So the apologists launches the argument and the listener, instead of saying "oooooh, that makes complete sense" goes "wait, why is THAT the way it is?"
If there were a god, he should be easily defensible and not confounding of the senses...that's my take, anyway.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
"Craig often seems to be the better debater"
True, but have you looked closely at his argument from morality? It starts out as a neat little syllogism, and then sort of meanders off into a jumble of what looks like a combination of appeals to popularity and personal attacks.
He makes a good show, but if you look closely, you can see the bump in the rug. But as you say, his fans don't really look that closely.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago 11
"True, but have you looked closely at his argument from morality?"
I did a video about it.
"He makes a good show, but if you look closely, you can see the bump in the rug."
Indeed.
ProfMTH 2 years ago 2
Oh of course. I've seen your video on his morality argument several times. I don't know why I forgot that. It's a really good video.
ManicEightBall 2 years ago
Thanks.
ProfMTH 2 years ago
The essential issue here is trying to project our appropriate exclamations about things that we have experiential data to fall back upon, onto that which we have no reason to believe is subject to the same principles that items that have been created by humans are.
Great rebuttal.
JasperAvi 2 years ago
Merci.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
Pleasure, keep 'em comin'!
JasperAvi 2 years ago
I "hm"ed and nodded a lot.
great video. especially enjoyed the visuals around 3:41 and overall great thesis.
A+
AHughman08 2 years ago
Well thanks G-funk!
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
James, Craig is NOT USING the argument from design to prove his point that: Good explanations do not need explanations to have explaining power.
That is not what he is doing in this video.
I've seen this before. He is bringing up various scenarios to SHOW that if arrowheads and machinery were found, we could RIGHTLY infer explanations for those things without having to explain those explanations
He is NOT making a case for design in this video at all. The scenarios he is using are arbitrary
vbfl920 2 years ago
I mean, listen to what he's saying.
We find arrowheads, so we infer that humans made those arrowheads. But we know NOTHING about those humans who made the arrowheads. Does this render our explanation invalid?
We find machinery on the backside of the moon. We infer alien intelligence put this machinery there. But we know NOTHING about the alien intelligence at all. Does this render our explanation invalid?
No, of course not.
vbfl920 2 years ago
The scenarios he is using are not being used to reinforce design. That is not what this video is about.
They are being used to show that valid explanations need explaining power to be valid, NOT further explanation.
He could have used an assortment of scenarios to prove this point.
And that's all he is doing.
vbfl920 2 years ago
John, Craig's video makes three basic points: 1) Explanations of explanations are not required to recognize an explanations as best 2) Intelligence may be inferred given complexity 3) God is not a complex entity.
I fully recognize that the FULL point he's making is not design inference, however he uses design inference to support his fundamental claim: that god is a valid explanation for the existence of the universe.
Nothing that you said contradicted my reason for addressing his point.
DasAmericanAtheist 2 years ago
The video is only 5 minutes long. And those two scenarios that he brought up were not used AT ALL to prove the universe was designed. But you made the assertion in your video that that was what he was trying to do with them, which he wasn't.
Like I said, those examples were arbitrary.
He could've used ANY scenario that showed an ACTUAL unexplained explanation that is accepted by science to illustrate his point.
vbfl920 2 years ago