Re: Richard Dawkins - the God Delusion - Chapter 1.1 - A Deeply Religious Non-Believer

On Fri, 22 Feb 2008 12:53:13 GMT, pashby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter
Ashby) wrote:

Alec Brady <alec.brady@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Wed, 20 Feb 2008 19:47:47 GMT, pashby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter
Ashby) wrote:

Alec Brady <alec.brady@xxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

On Tue, 19 Feb 2008 10:59:06 GMT, pashby@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Peter
Ashby) wrote:
yet the mechanism by which is achieved is nowhere to be seen.

There is no such mechanism.

then this one is a logical inconsistency. As soon as an effect is
effected on the universe there will need to be a mechanism. It is you
whose understanding is blaring out for all to see.

You call it a logical inconsistency, but you haven't said why. Which
fallacy have I committed? What false logic am I guilty of?

I have explained it Alec, you have obviously not got it. What bit of
things changing or being stopped from changing in the universe needing a
mechanism did you not understand?

All of it. You said that I was guilty of a *logical* inconsistency.
What *logical* inconsistency am I guilty of?

Let me give an imperfect analogy. Suppose a novelist wants to get two
characters to meet. What mechanism do they use? *Outside* the world of
the novel the author is using things like word-processors and
printers; but *within* the novel, what is the mechanism that connects
the author's decision with how events turn out? They might use
coincidence, or the conniving of other characters, or a tragic
misunderstanding, or all manner of other mechanisms. But what is the
mechanism by which the author makes those things happen? The answer is
that - within the world they've created - they don't need *any*
mechanism.

Now, if my claim (that the same thing is true of how God relates to
the created order) is a *logical* inconsistency, you should be able to
point me to the *same* logical inconsistency in my analogy. Can you do
that?

Except that, using your analogy the characters don't actually have real
existence.

It's an *analogy*, one which has a similar *logical* structure to the
theory I'm defending. So if the theory I'm defending has a *logical*
flaw, then the analogy should display the same *logical* flaw. The
fact that the map is not the territory, and that the analogy differs
*factually* from the reality, is really beside the point.

So are you positing that we don't have real existence outwith
the mind of god?

That's not a bad analogy.

I have dealt with a chap in another group that was a
devotee of some 19thC bishop who had this idea. I will gladly reprise
those arguments if required.

No, stick to the point. What *logical* sin have I committed by saying
that God does not need a mechanism to effect his decisions?

No. There is no mechanism. There could only be a mechanism if God were
a part of the universe. But he isn't.

If he had no effect on this universe that would be true, but you
answered Yes to that question.

Indeed. I answered yes to that question, and no to the question of
what the mechanism is. Any supposed inconsistency is in your mind.

But Alec you are the one who has been telling me that the the universe
must have a cause,

Am I? Am I really?

Got a message ID?

which is another word for 'a mechanism was used'.

So you continue to assert - but that is precisely what I'm disagreeing
with. Unless you can justify your assertion, I see no reason why I
should have to agree with you.

Now you are telling me that this cause is not a cause at all.

No, I'm saying that this cause does not produce its effects by means
of a mechanism.

There that is the nub of your inconsistency and it is not in my mind.

I'm afraid it is - the supposed inconsistency is down to your
assumption that I must have the same axiom as you: that 'cause' means
'mechanism'.

It may be in
your very sloppy use of language and terminology, but I suspect that it
is because you are simply not consistent but have spent little time
worrying about it. It is only when someone like me corners you and
forces you to look that it comes out.

I look forward with eager anticipation to you justifying that
assertion.

I suggest you 'forget' the thread of the argument here, it will be
easier.

Yes, like the way I 'forgot' something that Eric never said? Ha!
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Request for Peer Review - Refutation of Cantor Theorem Conclusion
    ... If D is an element of the powerset, ... Looking over some of his messages, I think Scott may be starting out by ... prove an inconsistency in a set theory that adds that, ... for example where there is a universe and there is no universe in ZF ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Re: Hiroshima - not all bad?
    ... or that *there is* no particular reason why they're ... Yet based on what I understand about what you believe about the nature of the Universe, I'm stumped as to what basis you have for determining that something is intrinsically wrong. ... I don't see any inconsistency with atheism ... It's inconsistent because looks like it implies there must be something that exists, that could be the thing that gives rise to the wrongness of certain actions. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Deconversion
    ... god to explain the existence of the universe, ... that there was an inconsistency in saying "something big and ... to exist" about God. ... A pity he didn't look for the inconsistency in the description of ...
    (uk.religion.christian)
  • Re: Deconversion
    ... god to explain the existence of the universe, ... that there was an inconsistency in saying "something big and ... to exist" about God. ... A pity he didn't look for the inconsistency in the description of ...
    (uk.religion.christian)