The Dawkins' Fallacy

[humblesmurph]

This article elaborates a little more. I have no idea how they can claim God to be almighty, worthy of worship, beyond their puny human comprehension and yet simple at the same time.

Thanks for the article Sophus.  I have to agree with you regarding the proposed simplicity of God.  I might have a little less of a Magic Puddingesque suspicion if it wasn't always religious types making these strong cases for God.  Where are the theistic, non religious philosophers that have proofs for God?

Getting back to simplicity.  In the video, Dr. Craig insists that God is simple.  He described it the same way one would describe a single person's immortal soul. He doesn't even bother to discuss omnipotence. God is infinitely complex, to suggest otherwise is an insult to the intelligence.  I also find it unappealing that he equates finding machinery on the moon with us having evidence of God.  If any actual physical evidence suggests the Universe was created by God, I'd love to see it. He  represents God as the best solution to the creation of the universe. It's only a "solution" because those offering it aren't concerned with evidence.

[Thumpalumpacus]

There are multiple problems with Dawkins' argument:

1. If DS is true, in the weak form modern philosophers advocate or the strong form I advocate, Dawkins' argument is just factually false.
2. Darwinian evolution seeks to explain the complexity of biological complexity, which Dawkins misunderstands by equating biological complexity with complexity generally.
 Again, evolution does not try to explain complexity generally; it looks to explain biological complexity. Thus, even if God is complex in another way, proposing God as a means to explain biological complexity isn't logically invalid. The study of His complexity can be perfectly well left open to future inquiry.
3. Dawkins' argument proves too much, because if it were true, all of science is impossible. We do not have to explain causes before we can assert that they caused an effect. If so, we could not do science, because science is always asserting causes based on a study of effects. It then goes back and studies those causes as effects to look for other causes. If, however, we had to understand the cause before we could understand the effect, then we would never be allowed to study the first effect. William Lane Craig makes that argument here:

[youtube:mpdj4jrw]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wcHp_LWGgGw[/youtube:mpdj4jrw]

Whether god's complexity is biological or otherwise, it still needs explaining.  I mean, if you were walking on a beach and came across a watch ...

Also, you're right that causes need not be fully understood to be considered.  However, they should be reasonable.  A god is obviously an unreasonable "cause" -- particularly the Judeo-Christian variety.

Also, Craig is an a priori apologist par excellence.  You may as well cite Lee Strobel.  Both these men discard evidence which contradicts them, and this disqualifies them my attention.

[i_am_i]

MP,

Nothing in life is simple. Science certainly isn't simple. It takes years of technical training to do it properly. Does that make you suspicious of it? History is technical. Mathematics are technical. All disciplines are technical.

Every ordinary person, however, has the capacity to learn the discipline and test it for themselves. If you want to take the time and learn this material and discuss it as others here are, you'll find it's all very clear. The fact that some of the people I am discussing these things with here are making the exact same arguments as philosophers in the past, probably people they've never read, proves we aren't dealing with random thoughts, but a certain and testable system of ideas and their consequences.

The information is right here for you to access if you want to. If you decide not to, that doesn't speak ill of philosophy, knowledge, or truth.

True, but not every "ordinary" person has the time or inclination to learn these disciplines and test them for themselves. What you're doing here by presenting everything you have to say in a highly classical/academic way is playing with a deck that's stacked in your favor, which I see as being a little intellectually dishonest. You're dazzling us with your very scholarly and erudite presentation. In music we call that playing with all chops and no musicality. In other words you're playing a lot of notes just for the sake of playing a lot of notes.

I don't think anything is much worth saying if only a few people are qualified to understand it, not on a forum such as this anyway. And I'll be the first to admit that I'm just not qualified to understand what you're saying the way you say it.

[Martin TK]

I am not a scientist, but I would think that anyone, god or otherwise, would have to be infinitely complex in order to have the capacity to imagine the complexity of the universe.  Remember, there is a LOT we do not understand about science and the cosmos, so to even suggest that god is somehow simple and NOT infinitely complex is absurd.

NOTHING I have read or heard from Theists goes very far from smoke and mirrors.  It's really not that hard to take something that doesn't exist and give it a very convincing back story and sprinkle in some science and bingo bango you have Harry Potter, Santa, and a host of other make-believe entities.  All of this "science" to prove god fails when you consider several things.  1- there have been thousands, if not more if you consider the countless groups in history who worshiped gods that we don't have knowledge of, gods with NO evidence of the existence of even ONE.  2- it simply doesn't make sense that god would have chosen the time in history that he did to "reveal" himself, send his son Jesus, and so forth, without considering that man would evolved beyond the superstitious creature he was at the time. Think about it, why didn't god put into the bible something about nuclear energy, or particle excelleration, and surely ancient man wouldn't have understood, but it would have been a remarkable thing to see once man evolved enough to realize it was in the bible; and 3- arrogance of man:  simply to limit god to having so much concern over a species of animal on ONE planet, when there are nearly infinite planets in the universe, why this one blue marble?  God would have to be infinitely complex in order to be able to just think about all of the complexity of the universe.

Just my humble atheist view.

[Recusant]

I admit, in some ways I admire Craig, and have done since I first encountered his ideas, thanks to phillysoul11, in this forum.  That I admire him does not mean that I think his arguments are flawless, however.

"In order to recognize that an explanation is the best explanation, you don't need an explanation of that explanation."

This, I think is valid.  However, Craig provides no reason to accept that the "God did it" explanation is "the best."  If it had always been accepted as the best explanation, then science would never have advanced, since many of the workings of the universe that scientists have examined and have provided theories to explain were once in the realm of "God did it."  That explanation has proven to be less than adequate in many many cases, so it's reasonable to suspect that it's not the best explanation for any given case. There is an element of the burden of proof in this, whether Craig would like to acknowledge it or not.

"Archeologists could infer that arrowheads are the products of a lost tribe, even if they knew nothing else about them."

The archeologists could infer that, but would they have sound reasons for doing so?  There is at least one alternate inference that might be made-- That the arrowheads are from a branch of a known tribe.  I'm not sure why Craig uses the term "lost tribe" here.  Really the only sound inference that might be made is that the artifacts are the product of people who lived in the area at some time in the past, and perhaps a rough date might be gained from the layer in which they were found. The whole "lost tribe" idea is spurious.  I might imagine that Craig is adding a spurious element so that we won't blink when he does the same later, but that would be imputing a devious motive for Craig's argument, which I don't think is justified, even if it might not be far from the truth.

"In order to recognize that Intelligent Design is the best explanation of biological complexity, you don't need to explain the designer."

I think that Craig has a point here.  However, in order to recognize that Intelligent Design is the best explanation of biological complexity, you do need to explain why a designer is a more plausible explanation than the mechanisms currently understood as the origins of biological complexity. You must show why introducing an added (I would say spurious) layer of complexity to your explanation (designer) is justified by the evidence.  Ockam's Razor would lead us to discard the added element in our explanation that introducing a designer would entail, if there is an explanation that works just as well without that element.  Intelligent Design advocates have consistently failed to prove that the designer is a necessary element in explaining biological complexity.  One famous example cited often by ID advocates is Michael Behe, whose concept of "irreducible complexity" is expounded in the book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.  Behe's thinking is taken apart and shown to be false in this review. The linked review is only one example of many which have shown that Behe's "irreducible complexity" is not what it claims to be.

"God is immaterial, mind without a body.  God is remarkably simple, having no parts, no composition, simple in nature."

This is hand-waving.  Craig jumps to this from the "no need to explain the explanation" point, saying that the "God hypothesis" is actually simple. "An unembodied mind is an entity that is startingly simple in it's nature." True. Since we have no evidence that such a thing as an unembodied mind even exists, it's a simple conjecture, no more. It is indeed true that no explanation is needed, and in fact it seems likely that none is possible.  Unembodied minds are an extraneous element added on top of what we already know of the universe.  Are we justified in adding an element (for which we have no evidence), if we can explain the workings of the universe without that element? That is what Dawkins is talking about, not whether God's nature is simple or complex.  Craig is destroying a straw man here. Theists add the "God hypothesis" to their understanding of the universe, but are they following evidence, or their pre-concieved notions of the nature of reality? Physicists have thought about, and hypothesized on the origins of the universe, but all admit that they have no conclusive answer yet.  They will continue to explore the question, maybe for as long as there are physicists to do so. One thing is pretty clear though: So far no evidence of a divine origin has been found.  Thus, the hypothesis of a divine origin is no more valid than any other hypothesis, and in fact, adds an element to the origin that makes the theist's explanation more complex than a naturalistic explanation.

[Martin TK]

I admit, in some ways I admire Craig, and have done since I first encountered his ideas, thanks to phillysoul11, in this forum.  That I admire him does not mean that I think his arguments are flawless, however.

"In order to recognize that an explanation is the best explanation, you don't need an explanation of that explanation."

This, I think is valid.  However, Craig provides no reason to accept that the "God did it" explanation is "the best."  If it had always been accepted as the best explanation, then science would never have advanced, since many of the workings of the universe that scientists have examined and have provided theories to explain were once in the realm of "God did it."  That explanation has proven to be less than adequate in many many cases, so it's reasonable to suspect that it's not the best explanation for any given case. There is an element of the burden of proof in this, whether Craig would like to acknowledge it or not.

"Archeologists could infer that arrowheads are the products of a lost tribe, even if they knew nothing else about them."

The archeologists could infer that, but would they have sound reasons for doing so?  There is at least one alternate inference that might be made-- That the arrowheads are from a branch of a known tribe.  I'm not sure why Craig uses the term "lost tribe" here.  Really the only sound inference that might be made is that the artifacts are the product of people who lived in the area at some time in the past, and perhaps a rough date might be gained from the layer in which they were found. The whole "lost tribe" idea is spurious.  I might imagine that Craig is adding a spurious element so that we won't blink when he does the same later, but that would be imputing a devious motive for Craig's argument, which I don't think is justified, even if it might not be far from the truth.

"In order to recognize that Intelligent Design is the best explanation of biological complexity, you don't need to explain the designer."

I think that Craig has a point here.  However, in order to recognize that Intelligent Design is the best explanation of biological complexity, you do need to explain why a designer is a more plausible explanation than the mechanisms currently understood as the origins of biological complexity. You must show why introducing an added (I would say spurious) layer of complexity to your explanation (designer) is justified by the evidence.  Ockam's Razor would lead us to discard the added element in our explanation that introducing a designer would entail, if there is an explanation that works just as well without that element.  Intelligent Design advocates have consistently failed to prove that the designer is a necessary element in explaining biological complexity.  One famous example cited often by ID advocates is Michael Behe, whose concept of "irreducible complexity" is expounded in the book Darwin's Black Box: The Biochemical Challenge to Evolution.  Behe's thinking is taken apart and shown to be false in this review. The linked review is only one example of many which have shown that Behe's "irreducible complexity" is not what it claims to be.

"God is immaterial, mind without a body.  God is remarkably simple, having no parts, no composition, simple in nature."

This is hand-waving.  Craig jumps to this from the "no need to explain the explanation" point, saying that the "God hypothesis" is actually simple. "An unembodied mind is an entity that is startingly simple in it's nature." True. Since we have no evidence that such a thing as an unembodied mind even exists, it's a simple conjecture, no more. It is indeed true that no explanation is needed, and in fact it seems likely that none is possible.  Unembodied minds are an extraneous element added on top of what we already know of the universe.  Are we justified in adding an element (for which we have no evidence), if we can explain the workings of the universe without that element? That is what Dawkins is talking about, not whether God's nature is simple or complex.  Craig is destroying a straw man here. Theists add the "God hypothesis" to their understanding of the universe, but are they following evidence, or their pre-concieved notions of the nature of reality? Physicists have thought about, and hypothesized on the origins of the universe, but all admit that they have no conclusive answer yet.  They will continue to explore the question, maybe for as long as there are physicists to do so. One thing is pretty clear though: So far no evidence of a divine origin has been found.  Thus, the hypothesis of a divine origin is no more valid than any other hypothesis, and in fact, adds an element to the origin that makes the theist's explanation more complex than a naturalistic explanation.

Well put, and easily understood.  Thank you.

[Thumpalumpacus]

However, in order to recognize that Intelligent Design is the best explanation of biological complexity, you do need to explain why a designer is a more plausible explanation than the mechanisms currently understood as the origins of biological complexity.

Not only that, the ID hypothesis should be able to explain countervailing facts, such as organs like the appendix or the inverted retina, without appealing to the evolution is spurns elsewhere.

[dloubet]

Nothing in life is simple. Science certainly isn't simple. It takes years of technical training to do it properly. Does that make you suspicious of it? History is technical. Mathematics are technical. All disciplines are technical.

And all those examples produce tangible results establishing their level of trustworthiness.

But theology? Not so much.

[Jac3510]

If not existing physically, wouldn't that be to say he doesn't exist at all? Is there anything, other than thoughts (which are caused by physically existent neurons and such) which can be said to exist beyond physics?  

In popular terms, no, we can say God exists. In the purest scholastic vocabulary, God does not exist, because that would be to say something is common between God and the creature, which is impossible. God is the cause of existence in us.

Do you see your God as being supernatural? If so, there's no real way to conclude his existence because it's beyond anything we can measure or observe or even possibly give an explanation to.

We know God exists by His effects. An analogy is would be a black hole. You can't directly perceive it, but you know it is there by the effects it has on its surroundings. So likewise, we know God is there by a study of effects, most particularly, by the study of being.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes I know things aren't simple, but god is supposedly all powerful, why doesn't he provide an understandable message for the masses, why does he rely on corruptible priests?  

I don't know how an ipod is built, but it works, what priests provide is less reliable.

Theists say here is the world and god created it.
I say yes, who created god?
And you give me ineligible gobldy gook.
You are much better at gobldy gook than any I've seen, but still it doesn't satisfy.

This is not science.
You may say I don't know the language so I can't understand.
I say you can't explain because you don't understand.

I'll say again, I object to a god created universe only explainable by an elite.
I suspect a confidence trick perpetrated on the common people.

Lots of things aren't science (by which I assume you mean hard science like physics) that we know to be true. History is but one example. But even outside of that, you can't say, "The only thing we can know to be true is that which comes from science," because the statement itself is not scientific. It's philosophical and thus is self-defeating.

There's nothing difficult in the concept that God doesn't need creating. He is, by definition (should He exist), the cause of existence. It is meaningless to speak of what created Him. You may as well talk about a married bachelor. I can point you to quite a few atheists who are more than willing to admit this. They just don't think that this cause of existence actually exists.

As far as God providing a more simple proof, again, nothing in the universe is simple, including your ipod. I'd venture to say that you don't know how it works. You may know a thing or two about it, but there's plenty you don't know that you have to accept on authority. Most of what we know in life we accept on authority. You could, of course, go to school and get degrees in engineering, programing, and ultimately even quantum physics and you would be a lot closer to knowing how it works. You still wouldn't know completely.

Again, nothing is simple. Now, you can do what a great many people do in this world and accept the issue on authority (what we all call blind faith), which you do with a great many issues anyway, you can study the issue and come to a rational conclusion, or you can refuse to study and complain that it is the one thing in all the universe that isn't easy. There's not a lot to say if you choose the last option. I've pointed you to the road you have to go down if you want more than belief on authority. It's the same with this road as any other road in everything in the world. I can't make you travel it, but it isn't God's fault if you don't.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Whether god's complexity is biological or otherwise, it still needs explaining.  I mean, if you were walking on a beach and came across a watch ...

Also, you're right that causes need not be fully understood to be considered.  However, they should be reasonable.  A god is obviously an unreasonable "cause" -- particularly the Judeo-Christian variety.

Also, Craig is an a priori apologist par excellence.  You may as well cite Lee Strobel.  Both these men discard evidence which contradicts them, and this disqualifies them my attention.

If God were complex, you would be right. He is not complex. He is absolutely simple, which needs no explanation. It perhaps needs to be expounded on, but not explained, as it is the explanation.

May I ask for proof that God is an unreasonable cause?

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

True, but not every "ordinary" person has the time or inclination to learn these disciplines and test them for themselves. What you're doing here by presenting everything you have to say in a highly classical/academic way is playing with a deck that's stacked in your favor, which I see as being a little intellectually dishonest. You're dazzling us with your very scholarly and erudite presentation. In music we call that playing with all chops and no musicality. In other words you're playing a lot of notes just for the sake of playing a lot of notes.

I don't think anything is much worth saying if only a few people are qualified to understand it, not on a forum such as this anyway. And I'll be the first to admit that I'm just not qualified to understand what you're saying the way you say it.

Then ask questions for clarification. This is a discussion board, not a lecture hall. You are expected to have a certain level of competence to attend a college class. As such, some questions can rightfully be ignored and the student removed from the class for the sake of the group. No such competence level is required on a discussion board, and we should all be glad for that.

As far as complaining about my vocabulary, it's the terminology used to describe concepts. If a word isn't clear, then ask what it means (or, as my fourth grade teacher used to say, look it up), and someone can explain. There's no shame in asking for clarification. It is a waste of everyone's time, however, to ask a theist to demonstrate God's existence and then tell him not to use the tools necessary. You may as well ask a person to write an essay without using letters.

Now, if I were talking to children, I would obviously use different words. I wouldn't make so many distinctions. You, however, are all adults. You are very bright, extremely intelligent adults, and because of that, I am not capable of using simplistic language, since simplistic language covers up necessary distinctions. Being the intelligent people you are, you would immediately perceive the vagueness and challenge the argument, and rightfully so. To give one practical example, suppose I were to say:

A causal chain needs a cause.

That sounds simple enough, but what do we mean by causal? If I am thinking about the kind of cause in which every event is simultaneous (as in the case of a hand pushing a rock pushing a stick), are you going to perceive that? Probably not. You are likely going to think about the type of chain in which one event leads to another (like hitting a ball, it hitting a window, and the window breaking). I have to distinguish between those two ideas to get what I am talking about across to you, and so the first type is called an essentially ordered causal chain, whereas the second is called an accidentally ordered causal chain. The vocabulary is necessary. Again, we can always stop for clarification when needed, but it does you absolutely no good to ask me to explain why I believe in God and then complain when I make the necessary distinctions to be sure that we are thinking about the same thing.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And all those examples produce tangible results establishing their level of trustworthiness.

But theology? Not so much.

Philosophy has produced a great many tangible results. Empiricism is a fantastic philosophy that has resulted in a great deal of new knowledge being gained. Hegelianism has resulted in much bloodshed. Further, this objection ignores the fact that historically speaking philosophers continually end up making the same arguments from different perspectives. To take only one example, Davin and penfold, independently, came upon the same objection to the doctrine of simplicity, namely, that it makes "god-talk" meaningless. Further, that was the objection of Duns Scotus, and I would bet that neither has read him. It is, then, simply factually incorrect that philosophy and theology have produced no tangible results.

[Tank]

Do you see your God as being supernatural? If so, there's no real way to conclude his existence because it's beyond anything we can measure or observe or even possibly give an explanation to.

We know God exists by His effects. An analogy is would be a black hole. You can't directly perceive it, but you know it is there by the effects it has on its surroundings. So likewise, we know God is there by a study of effects, most particularly, by the study of being.

Chris you crossed the line here, in a very good way, you have said "We know God exists by His effects." you have entered the realm of the measurable, the domain of the scientific method. Please specify one effect that you feel is attributable to God. Your analogy of a black hole is interesting as the existence of black holes is underpinned by a huge amount of self consistent scientific theory and observation, by these measures black holes can be shown to exist. I am not aware of any such support for the God hypothesis and believe me when I say I think I would be aware of such a hypothesis given the amount of time I have spent on science and theology related forums, and from the nature of my interests in science throughout my life.

You have made a claim "We know God exists by His effects." that we can now collectively help you examine.  

[Sophus]

Do you see your God as being supernatural? If so, there's no real way to conclude his existence because it's beyond anything we can measure or observe or even possibly give an explanation to.

We know God exists by His effects. An analogy is would be a black hole. You can't directly perceive it, but you know it is there by the effects it has on its surroundings. So likewise, we know God is there by a study of effects, most particularly, by the study of being.

Chris you crossed the line here, in a very good way, you have said "We know God exists by His effects." you have entered the realm of the measurable, the domain of the scientific method. Please specify one effect that you feel is attributable to God. Your analogy of a black hole is interesting as the existence of black holes is underpinned by a huge amount of self consistent scientific theory and observation, by these measures black holes can be shown to exist. I am not aware of any such support for the God hypothesis and believe me when I say I think I would be aware of such a hypothesis given the amount of time I have spent on science and theology related forums, and from the nature of my interests in science throughout my life.

You have made a claim "We know God exists by His effects." that we can now collectively help you examine.  

Indeed, these effects can be attributed to anything. Maybe it is the Flying Spaghetti Monster.

[Jac3510]

Chris you crossed the line here, in a very good way, you have said "We know God exists by His effects." you have entered the realm of the measurable, the domain of the scientific method. Please specify one effect that you feel is attributable to God. Your analogy of a black hole is interesting as the existence of black holes is underpinned by a huge amount of self consistent scientific theory and observation, by these measures black holes can be shown to exist. I am not aware of any such support for the God hypothesis and believe me when I say I think I would be aware of such a hypothesis given the amount of time I have spent on science and theology related forums, and from the nature of my interests in science throughout my life.

You have made a claim "We know God exists by His effects." that we can now collectively help you examine.  

[Tank]

Chris you crossed the line here, in a very good way, you have said "We know God exists by His effects." you have entered the realm of the measurable, the domain of the scientific method. Please specify one effect that you feel is attributable to God. Your analogy of a black hole is interesting as the existence of black holes is underpinned by a huge amount of self consistent scientific theory and observation, by these measures black holes can be shown to exist. I am not aware of any such support for the God hypothesis and believe me when I say I think I would be aware of such a hypothesis given the amount of time I have spent on science and theology related forums, and from the nature of my interests in science throughout my life.

You have made a claim "We know God exists by His effects." that we can now collectively help you examine.  

Existence is one such effect. I'll make a new post later today that argues rationality is another. We'll continue down this line.

We should note here that everything in this universe is an effect. All effects need explanation. Not all explanations, however, are equal. There are also initial and ultimate explanations. For example (since my mind is on Dexter), a person's cause of death may be blunt force trauma, but obviously requires more explanation in both directions. Blunt force trauma doesn't kill. The blood loss it leads to in turn leads to the shut down of certain organs, etc. But "blunt force trauma" is no real explanation, because what is the cause of that? A hammer strike? But what of that? A murder? But what of that? His psychological condition? But what of that? This is what I mean by "we know God exists by His effects." Through study, we find that all effects must have a first cause. We'll continue to look at that in various ways in the future, but don't take my statement to mean that we can put God in a lab and weigh Him.

If you can't put your God in a lab and weigh Him then He is of no consequence to me at all. All your fancy words and clever rhetoric are meaningless and exist only in your head. If you can't put flesh on the bones of your ideas I can and will dismiss them as I would those of any historical flim flam merchant. You can obviously think and elucidate your ideas very eloquently. But that is simply not good enough for me and I would suggest many, many others that you present a case that only contains words. It just isn't good enough.

Logic is a fine tool, but using logic without a basis in reality is like trying to carve fog with a chisel. The chisel can been the best in the world but with no material to work on a chisel is useless.

[Jac3510]

If you can't put your God in a lab and weigh Him then He is of no consequence to me at all. All your fancy words and clever rhetoric are meaningless and exist only in your head. If you can't put flesh on the bones of your ideas I can and will dismiss them as I would those of any historical flim flam merchant. You can obviously think and elucidate your ideas very eloquently. But that is simply not good enough for me and I would suggest many, many others that you present a case that only contains words. It just isn't good enough.

Logic is a fine tool, but using logic without a basis in reality is like trying to carve fog with a chisel. The chisel can been the best in the world but with no material to work on a chisel is useless.

You can't put lots of things in a lab you hold to be true, Chris. You can't put "George Washington was the first president of the United States" in a lab, but it is both true and meaningful. Further, you are dangerously close to making an irrational statement here. If the only things that are meaningful, consequential, or true are those things which are scientifically testable, then the fact that the only things that are meaningful, consequential, or true are those things which are scientifically testable is itself not meaningful, consequential, or true, because it itself is not scientifically testable. That view is called verificationism. It was proposed by A. J. Ayer and was pretty much universally rejected a long time ago because it is self-defeating and thus irrational.

Again, I would encourage you the same way I encouraged Sophus, don't confuse philosophy with logic. The former employs the latter as do all disciplines, but they are not the same thing. The material with which philosophy works is the sensible world. Logic in and of itself has no material to work with. It simply tells us how to think about X. Did you read my brief historical example of the mistake Abailard made when he confused the two? I think it illustrates the difference quite well.

[Tank]

If you can't put your God in a lab and weigh Him then He is of no consequence to me at all. All your fancy words and clever rhetoric are meaningless and exist only in your head. If you can't put flesh on the bones of your ideas I can and will dismiss them as I would those of any historical flim flam merchant. You can obviously think and elucidate your ideas very eloquently. But that is simply not good enough for me and I would suggest many, many others that you present a case that only contains words. It just isn't good enough.

Logic is a fine tool, but using logic without a basis in reality is like trying to carve fog with a chisel. The chisel can been the best in the world but with no material to work on a chisel is useless.

You can't put lots of things in a lab you hold to be true, Chris. You can't put "George Washington was the first president of the United States" in a lab, but it is both true and meaningful.

Don't need to put it in a lab. The information available to both you and I is adequate to agree that "George Washington was the first president of the United States".

I understand that logic is not the same as philosophy.

If a God exists then it would have to be measurable for me to believe it existed. If God chooses to not be measurable that's not my fault and not my concern. I will stick with reality as I perceive it as it has never let me down yet and nothing any theists has said (that an atheist could not equally say) about the nature of reality has ever been worth listening to, sorry.