God hypotheses

1« Previous thread | Next thread »
- Qtian
- Pub Regular
- offline
God hypotheses
OP - March 21, 2014, 10:19 PM

This thread is due to a request by Ishina. I'm sure you are all familiar with Dawkins' ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. Within this argument (and the God delusion itself), Dawkins mentions "The God hypothesis". With reference to his arguments, which lack a logical form(which makes sense) as it is a book for a popular audience. The argument he presents is essentially a teleological one for atheism. There are two God hypotheses which are relevant to his gambit.

They are:
(GH1) There exists a contingent, physical, complex, superhuman, supernatural intelligence that created the universe and has no external explanation.

(GH2) There exists a necessary, nonphysical, complex, superhuman, supernatural intelligence that created the universe and has no external explanation.

GH2 tends towards the God of Islam,Judaism & Christianity.

So yeah, just post your thoughts...

My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
- Qtian
- Pub Regular
- offline
God hypotheses
Reply #1 - March 21, 2014, 10:23 PM

This of course, can be a philosophical discussion. So as per usual, pretty much anything within reason goes. I'm not sure if I have anything to add to this discussion yet.

My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
- Qtian
- Pub Regular
- offline
God hypotheses
Reply #2 - March 21, 2014, 10:27 PM

Maybe if I present Dawkins' teleological argument, we could have a discussion on our hands. A philosopher named Erik Wielenberg identified the logical form of Dawkins' argument :

(1) If God exists, then God has these two properties: (i) He provides an intelligent-design explanation for all natural, complex phenomena in the universe and (ii) He has no explanation external to Himself.

(2) Anything that provides an intelligent-design explanation for the natural, complex phenomena in the universe is at least as complex as such phenomena.

(3) So, if God exists, then God has these two properties: (i) He is at least as complex as the natural, complex phenomena in the universe and (ii) He has no explanation external to Himself. (from 1 and 2)

(4) It is very improbable that there exists something that (i) is at least as complex as the natural, complex phenomena in the universe and (ii) has no explanation external to itself.

(5) Therefore, it is very improbable that God exists. (from 3 and 4)

Reference:http://philpapers.org/archive/WIEDGH.1.pdf

My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
- bogart
- Pub Regular
- offline
God hypotheses
Reply #3 - March 21, 2014, 10:36 PM

GH2's necessary being is a presupposition from theology and only theology. It is not a philosophical premise.
- Qtian
- Pub Regular
- offline
God hypotheses
Reply #4 - March 21, 2014, 10:43 PM

Indeed, I'll concede to that part of that point. However, if we want to distinguish between GH1 and GH2, philosophy is involved. Some don't agree with GH1. I don't really see a debate on this topic though, you can introduce one if you want.

My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
- Qtian
- Pub Regular
- offline
God hypotheses
Reply #5 - March 21, 2014, 10:51 PM

Quote from: bogart on March 21, 2014, 10:36 PM
GH2's necessary being is a presupposition from theology and only theology. It is not a philosophical premise.

Btw, I didn't claim that GH2 is an entirely philosophical premise, it is pre determined but relevant to the teleological argument at hand.

My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
God hypotheses
Reply #6 - March 22, 2014, 12:36 AM

What are these hypotheses supposed to be explaining?

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- Qtian
- Pub Regular
- offline
God hypotheses
Reply #7 - March 22, 2014, 12:45 AM

Essentially, the nature of what a God can be. I don't really believe that they have any explanatory value, they stem from Dawkins' teleological argument for atheism which is referenced above. A philosopher published his refutation of "The God Delusion" where he clarified upon these hypotheses which were touched by Dawkins.
Dawk. essentially treated them as scientific hypotheses in his book and many philosophers (even atheist ones) took issue with this.

GH2 as pointed out by bogart is the God that a Muslim, Jew or Christian would try to defend. GH1 is the God hypothesis that Dawkins tried to argue against.

My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
God hypotheses
Reply #8 - March 22, 2014, 12:52 AM

Well then it's a flawed concept. Intelligence contradicts the idea of having no external explanation. Intelligence is a functional state of problem solving systems. In order to be functionally intelligent, a thing must be restricted within a reality external to it.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
- Qtian
- Pub Regular
- offline
God hypotheses
Reply #9 - March 22, 2014, 01:02 AM

I agree that GH2 isn't a great explanation, I just stated what the hypotheses were. You wont see any arguments from me that try to justify their predictive capability.

My mind runs, I can never catch it even if I get a head start.
- RamiRustom
- Ex-Muslim
- offline
God hypotheses
Reply #10 - March 27, 2014, 03:14 PM

Quote from: Qtian on March 21, 2014, 10:19 PM
This thread is due to a request by Ishina. I'm sure you are all familiar with Dawkins' ultimate Boeing 747 gambit. Within this argument (and the God delusion itself), Dawkins mentions "The God hypothesis". With reference to his arguments, which lack a logical form(which makes sense) as it is a book for a popular audience. The argument he presents is essentially a teleological one for atheism. There are two God hypotheses which are relevant to his gambit.

They are:
(GH1) There exists a contingent, physical, complex, superhuman, supernatural intelligence that created the universe and has no external explanation.

I don't know what this means. One thing that would clarify it for me is the answer to this question: Can the GH1 theory be refuted by empirical evidence (at least in principle)? I'm guessing you would say 'yes' because you used the qualifier "physical" to describe GH1 -- and because in my view, if a theory is physical then that implies that the theory is empirically testable.
Quote
(GH2) There exists a necessary, nonphysical, complex, superhuman, supernatural intelligence that created the universe and has no external explanation.

The same question I have above applies to GH2. Here I think the answer to the question is 'no' because you used the qualifier "nonphysical" to describe GH2 -- and because in my view, if a theory is nonphysical then that implies that the theory is not empirically testable.
- Ishina
- Militant Atheist
- Ex-Muslim
- No Fate But What We Make
- offline
God hypotheses
Reply #11 - March 27, 2014, 06:43 PM

Quote from: Qtian on March 22, 2014, 01:02 AM
I agree that GH2 isn't a great explanation, I just stated what the hypotheses were. You wont see any arguments from me that try to justify their predictive capability.

GH1 isn't either. It isn't an explanation of any sort. It's just a whimsical creation for the sake of it, that explains nothing and solves problems that don't even exist.

Too fucking busy, and vice versa.
1« Previous thread | Next thread »