subscribe to our mailing list:
|
SECTIONS
|
 |
|
|
Letters
[Create a New Thread]
[Letters Index]
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| New Link to Shank's page on Irreducible Complexity |
Kassel, John |
Jul 20, 2004 |
Thanks for your link collection on irreducible complexity at
http://www.talkreason.org/evolinks/eng/Antievolution/Creationism/IDT/IC/index.html
A useful essay you may want to add is
http://www.etsu.edu/philos/faculty/niall/complexi.htm
by Niall Shanks, showing that irreducible complexity is just a special case of redundant complexity. |
write a reply
|
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Rebutting the blatantly empty discourse |
Rossow, Amiel |
Jun 20, 2004 |
In Mr.Tremblay’s essay he argues against William Kane Craig’s supposed proofs of God’s existence.
I fully support Tremblay’s thesis according to which Craig failed to provide anything even remotely close to the proof he endeavored to offer. In view of that it strikes me as odd that Tremblay, while rebutting Graig’s arguments, nevertheless joins the chorus of Craig’s admirers and claims that Graig’s work is a sophisticated discourse providing arguments deserving a serious consideration.
I submit that Graig’s literary output is mostly a puerile attempt to resurrect pro-theistic arguments that have a very long history: the so called Kalam argument, quite popular in the Islamic apologetics, is known, I believe, since the 10th century and Craig has not added to it an iota of any novel idea.
I also submit that Graig set out to perform Mission Impossible – to prove the existence of God through pure logic. This is an utterly impossible task – neither existence nor the absence of God or gods can be proven by any logical manipulation of notions – it has always been and remains the matter of faith, and faith of any kind, theistic or atheistic, requires no logic.
Therefore Graig’s quasi-logical constructions, which all are variations on the well-worn Kalam argument, are doomed to remain inconsequential plays with words incapable either prove or disprove anything of substance.
While rebutting Craig’s arguments, all of which contain at some points leaps of faith, and unveiling the illogical steps in Craig’s arguments, in some instances Tremblay unfortunately is losing his way himself.
Here is one example. Tremblay writes, “It seems here that Dr. Craig is committed to the illogical position that something can come out of nothing.”
While correctly pointing to Craig’s inconsistency in treating this notion, Tremblay seems to attribute to the statement in question the status of a statement belonging to a certain category within the “logical vs illogical” dichotomy. I submit that the statement “something can come out of nothing” is neither logical nor illogical. It may be true or false, it may be believed or not, but it has nothing to do with logic or the lack thereof.
Logic is just a system of rules determining the path from a premiss or premises to the conclusion. The statement in question is a premiss which may be either postulated or rejected, but the choice between the two options is not based on any logical procedure and therefore is neither based on logic nor contradicts it. Logic itself cannot vouch for the validity of a premiss or the lack of such validity.
Overall, Tremblay’s essay has, in my view, many good points and reveals the fallaciousness of many of Craig’s quasi-arguments. However, even if we forgive the few disputable points in Tremblay’s essay, its main shortcoming is, in my view, that he takes Craig too seriously. Craig’s arguments blatantly lack logic and hardly deserve a serious discussion.
Amiel Rossow
|
read replies (10)
write a reply
|
Related Article(s):
Dr. Craig's Unsupported Premise
|
| Title |
Author |
Date |
| Questions to Mr. Brian Spitzer (part 1) |
Farennikova, Anna |
Mar 02, 2003 |
Dear Sir,
My name is Anna Farennikova and I live in Belarus (part of former USSR).
I am twenty four and I majored in library and information science. I am a Christian and read Darwin on Trial several years ago. I am interested in apologetics and the next topic for our discussion is Evolution and ID.
I was impressed by Darwin on Trial and was going to base some parts of our discussion on this book. However, after reading your article on Darwin on Trial, I understand that I cannot use a lot of the points Pr.
Johnson had made in view of what you wrote.
You said that Johnson was criticized for "pretending that the personal views
of a few inflammatory scientists are the consensus view of the scientific community". I feel like I cannot lead that discussion group until I learn
and understand, no matter whether I agree or disagree, the consensus view of the scientific community on some questions that I have, since Johnson's conclusions cannot be trusted. Just to clarify - the goal of
these questions is for me to form an accurate opinion and have definitions
provided by evolutionists themselves and not creationists. I do not intend
to write back lengthy letters in support of creationism. My goal is understanding true evolutionists, what they really believe in. So here are my questions.
1. What is a widely accepted by true scientific community definition of evolution that I can quote to participants of my discussion group and use for my personal research?
2. Do you agree or disagree that in essence evolution, according to its widely accepted definition by true scientific community, is based on materialistic philosophy? Why or why not
3. Are there any scientists of the ID movement or scientists who are theists or Christians and not participants of ID movement whom scientific communities actually respect?
4. If such scientists exist, have they said or suggested any theories, ideas or issues that evolutionists have found valid or worthy to research? Which ones? (you don't have to explain, just name them so I can
start researching).
|
read replies (3)
write a reply
|
Related Article(s):
The Truth, The Whole Truth, And Nothing But The Truth?
|
Previous |
| Next
|
|
