Apparently Duke missed one of my responses. That's not surprising. My
news server (Comcast.net) doesn't seem to be the greatest. I frequently
never see original posts, although I find the follow-up threads.



Anyway, I thought it worthwhile to post my reactions to his "Evidence for
God" postings.

Some preliminaries.... First, in the title of this thread, I refer to
"Evidence for God." Duke says that he does not offer PROOF of God,
but he does claim to offer EVIDENCE. Duke also insists, based on the
definition of the word "evidence," that any fact offered in support
of a conclusion qualifies as evidence.



In previous discussions with Duke, I asserted that he had no
evidence. He argued that (1) since he had presented facts and (2)
since he had used these facts to support a conclusion, he had, by
definition, presented evidence. I will concede that under this
definition, he has presented evidence. However I will further argue
that the facts he presents are not logically related to his
conclusions and that therefore the evidence (under the narrow
definition of the word) is inadequate, even misleading.

Second, Duke claims to use logic in his posts, but he never posts his
syllogisms explicitly. He invariably takes his major premises for
granted, neither justifying them nor even stating them. That forces
me to "reverse engineer" his logic.

Third, when Duke writes "God," he has in mind Yahweh of the Old
Testament, manifesting as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit,
under the Catholic dogma of the Trinity. I refer to this concept
simply as "Yahweh."

DUKE'S THESIS AND THREE INSTANCES OF EVIDENCE



All that being said, Duke argues that Yahweh exists. In support of
this claim, he offers three instances of evidence: (1) an argument
from causality, (2) an argument from design, and (3) an argument from
extrapolation. Let's look at these in turn. As we do, I'll criticize
Duke's logic, concluding that the facts don't support the conclusions
(even though they are so used).



ARGUMENT FROM CAUSALITY

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN

ARGUMENT FROM EXTRAPOLATION

<snip>

Apparently Duke missed one of my responses. That's not surprising. My
news
server (Comcast.net) doesn't seem to be the greatest. I frequently never
see original posts, although I find the follow-up threads.



Anyway, I thought it worthwhile to post my reactions to his "Evidence for
God" postings.



PRELIMINARIES



Some preliminaries.... First, in the title of this thread, I refer to
"Evidence for God." Duke says that he does not offer PROOF of God, but he
does claim to offer EVIDENCE. Duke also insists, based on the definition
of the word "evidence," that any fact offered in support of a conclusion
qualifies as evidence.

In previous discussions with Duke, I asserted that he had no evidence. He
argued that (1) since he had presented facts and (2) since he had used
these
facts to support a conclusion, he had, by definition, presented evidence.
I
will concede that under this definition, he has presented evidence.
However I will further argue that the facts he presents are not logically
related to his conclusions and that therefore the evidence (under the
narrow definition of the word) is inadequate, even misleading.

Second, Duke claims to use logic in his posts, but he never posts his
syllogisms explicitly. He invariably takes his major premises for
granted,
neither justifying them nor even stating them. That forces me to "reverse
engineer" his logic.

As usual, Duke, if you don't like the ones I construct for you, please
supply something more to your liking.



Third, when Duke writes "God," he has in mind Yahweh of the Old Testament,
manifesting as the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit, under the
Catholic
dogma of the Trinity. I refer to this concept simply as "Yahweh."

DUKE'S THESIS AND THREE INSTANCES OF EVIDENCE



All that being said, Duke argues that Yahweh exists. In support of this
claim, he offers three instances of evidence: (1) an argument from
causality, (2) an argument from design, and (3) an argument from
extrapolation. Let's look at these in turn. As we do, I'll criticize
Duke's logic, concluding that the facts don't support the conclusions
(even though they are so used).



ARGUMENT FROM CAUSALITY



Duke argues that some thirteen or fourteen billion years ago, the universe
did not exist. Since the universe now exists, one must conclude that
Yahweh
created it and that therefore Yahweh exists. The logic is as follows.



Major premise (unstated): All things which did not exist 13/14 billion
years ago but now exist were created by Yahweh.

Minor premise: The universe, which did not exist 13/14 billion years ago,
now exists.

Conclusion: Therefore Yahweh created the universe.



The major premise has several fatal flaws. For one thing, no information
is available to us about circumstances prior to the Big Bang, so we can't
take
the major premise for granted. Thus the fact that the universe exists
cannot be related to anything prior to its existence. The fact that the
universe now exists provides no information about what came before its
existence. The evidence is therefore inadequate.



For another thing, the major premise can be rephrased to refer to gods
other
than Yahweh. Duke challenged me to come up with an alternative to
creation
by Yahweh. I found a Chinese creation story on the web involving one Pan
Gu. Substitute "Pan Gu" for "Yahweh" in Duke's argument and you have
evidence that Pan Gu created the universe. Substitute the Aztec god
Coatlique and you evidence that Coatlique created the universe. The
evidence is therefore misleading.

By the way, since there is no evidence that Yahweh exists, there is, a
fortiori, no evidence that Yahweh reflects any attributes (such as eternal
existence or perfection). Any such attributions would be ad hoc
assumptions

ARGUMENT FROM DESIGN



Duke argues that the human body is so complex that it had to have been
designed by Yahweh and that therefore Yahweh exists. The logic is as
follows.



Major premise (unstated): All things sufficiently complex are designed by
Yahweh.

Minor premise: The human body is sufficiently complex.

Conclusion: Therefore the human body was designed by Yahweh.



The problem with this logic is that the validity of the major premise
depends on the truth of the conclusion. This is the classical fallacy of
begging the question. Thus the fact that the human body is complex cannot
be related to the existence of a designer. Moreover, the argument from
design has the same problem as the argument from causality: one may use it
as evidence that Pan Gu or Coatlique or any other god has designed the
human
body. The evidence is therefore inadequate.

ARGUMENT FROM EXTRAPOLATION



Duke has examined nature and found a four-part hierarchy of entities in
which each layer but the bottom-most shows more awareness of and
responsiveness to its environment. The hierarchy is rock/plant/cow/human.
Duke then argues that we must conclude that there exists a fifth level,
angels, and a sixth level, Yahweh; therefore Yahweh exists. The logic is
as follows.



Major premise (unstated): All hierarchies showing a consistent difference
between levels can be extrapolated.

Minor premise: The rock/plant/cow/human hierarchy shows such a trend.

Conclusion: Therefore this hierarchy can be extrapolated such that the
next two levels are angels and Yahweh.



I spent several years in the U.S. Navy, which reflected consistent
differences between levels of rank. That hierarchy ended at the
president. Therefore not all hierarchies showing a consistent difference
between levels
can be extrapolated. Thus the major premise fails, and the logical
argument fails.



Second, neither Yahweh nor angels is a predicate in the premises.
Therefore the logical argument fails.



Third, one can, once again, substitute "Pan Gu" for "angels" and
"Coatlique"
for "Yahweh" in the conclusion and claim evidence for their existence.
The evidence is thus inadequate to support the existence of Yahweh



WHAT NEXT?



I argue above that Duke's evidence for existence of Yahweh is inadequate,
because the facts he presents are not related to the conclusions he draws.
Duke hasn't offered any complete or valid argument to make this
relationship.



Duke, you can call your posts evidence, but "facts used to support a
conclusion" would seem to imply VALID use. The facts you supply can't be
validly used to support the conclusions you claim.



Based on my reading of Duke's posts over the years, I expect him to reply
along the lines of, "Yes, but you haven't presented any evidence that God
(Yahweh, remember, Duke being a Roman Catholic) does NOT exist." This
implies that I have no right to dismiss his beliefs, inasmuch as I haven't
presented any arguments that Yahweh doesn't exist.

As I explain below, I definitely DO believe that I can dismiss Duke's
complaint (i.e., the one I predict---that I have failed to present
evidence
of Yahweh's non-existence). Before I get to that, I suggest that those
wanting evidence of Yahweh's non-existence should search this news group
for
material from posters Budikka and wbarwell. But bear in mind that Duke
seems to think he can ignore anything Budikka posts on grounds of
plagiarism
on Budikka's part. I don't know why Duke thinks Budikka has plagiarized,
but, even if such plagiarism exists, it would have no bearing on the
validity of Budikka's posts. Duke also seems to have been silent on
wbarwell's posts---but, remember, my news server is unreliable and I may
have overlooked something.



WHY I DON'T NEED TO SUPPLY EVIDENCE THAT YAHWEH DOESN'T EXIST



Duke asserts Yahweh exists. I have argued that no evidence has been
produced thus far to support that conclusion.



If somebody were to insist that I produce evidence, I can truthfully say
that I'm not arguing that Yahweh doesn't exist. What I AM arguing is that
there's no evidence that Yahweh does exist. Similarly, there's no
evidence that Pan Gu, Coatlique, et al., exist.



In an earlier post, I suggested that recent scientific results on the
inefficacy of intercessory prayer seem to be evidence that the God
petitioned does not exist. But that doesn't matter.



To quote Christopher Hitchens, an assertion made with no evidence can be
dismissed with no evidence. Just because you assert, "Is so," I need not
assert "Is not!" I can simply say, "Oh, yeah? What makes you think so?"
I
can then evaluate your reasons. If I don't like what you have to say, I
can simply walk away.



WHAT I EXPECT TO HEAR ON WALKING AWAY



Once again, judging from years of reading Duke's posts, I would expect him
to respond with something like this, "It's your funeral; two seconds after
you die, you'll be judged by Yahweh; if you die disbelieving in Yahweh, He
will torture you in burning fire and brimstone for all eternity." That is
to say, I expect Duke to play the risk-aversion card. I dismiss that card
too, but that's a topic for another thread.



CLOSING NOTE TO DUKE



Duke, the fact that I disagree with and criticize your thoughts on the
existence of Yahweh does not mean that I have it in for you personally.
In fact, if you plan to be in the Baltimore (MD USA) area, send me some
email.
I'll spring for dinner. (I know where the best calamari in town can be
had
:-)!)



Geo