Quote:
Quote by: treme  |
Logical error: if Dawkins is misinterpreting Aquinas's proofs then a link to an unDawkinsafied version of Aquinas's proof would be helpful.
I say this because if Aquinas's proofs are rendered accurately the man was a moron. Yes, there had to be a prime mover unless everything is some sort of infinite closed loop (an idea I hate). Who said this prime mover is the one in Christian mythology? Who says it was even intelligent and not some mindless fractal process? I'm watching this and coming to the same conclusions as Dawkins one step ahead of his voice.
Moving on, next thing before Dawkins analyzes it for me is that because something exists in our heads does not make it real. I can make a moral judgment based on a hypothetical society where everybody follows an example I am trying to decide upon. Is a city full of nothing but evil people or good people necessary in the real world for my mental computations? Do you need imaginary numbers to break codes with them? Hello? This is dumb.
Dawkins agrees with me and gives a slightly ruder yet shorter version of the same argument. Moving on to the last one...
Oh my mathematics, I've actually heard people use this one. Snowflakes look designed. I can make food coloring combines with milk and dish detergent do things that look pretty artistic too. Fighter jets or computer code built by evolutionary AIs look very much like they were designed by an intelligence without actually being so. This is just empirically not true.
Dawkins produces the same criticism in wordier language.
In other words, unless there is a misrepresentation in the proofs themselves Dawkins is not wrong in my opinion.