Q&A: Confusion from the Debate
Confusion from the Debate
Question
You had barely started discussing, and already you disagreed on methodology.
Aviv claims that philosophy/logic (in the context of proving God) is the weakest route; you think otherwise.
Aviv claims that in the case of the argument from complexity, you can’t conclude there is a designer because there is nothing to compare it to; you argue that you can even without comparison.
Aviv claims that recursion or infinite regress, when it is not within some framework connected to the concept of “time,” is perfectly fine; you argue that it is philosophically inferior.
Aviv asks, in general, for more serious proofs of God (even just a deistic God); you argue that your arguments are sufficient.
I assume that in the next discussion the atheist card will be pulled out, claiming that even if the world is complex, that certainly doesn’t mean there’s some master engineer behind it.
Even in just this methodological opening, there were disagreements that make things very difficult, and both of you justified your side pretty well.
How am I supposed to decide who is right if I found both of you compelling and convincing?
Answer
You mean this: https://youtu.be/LVTmRwitEUI
I do not understand how you direct this question to me. In my view, none of his arguments hold water, and I explained very well why. If you do not agree, then you will have to make up your own mind. Good luck.
Discussion on Answer
He was not talking nonsense. Some of the questions were completely relevant. What bothered me, at least, was that he did not come in order to listen but in order to answer. When you come with that kind of approach, it is very hard to internalize the answers you get, and at least to consider the possibility that they really do answer the questions you asked. There was also a certain lack of philosophical precision on Aviv’s part (I don’t think he understands the implications of his statement that logic is not absolute), despite his knowledge.
But overall the discussion was at a relatively high level for these kinds of debates, and it did not descend into clichés.
I watched and enjoyed it. Of course I am biased toward one side (theistic), and that affects my evaluation of the debate.
I get the impression that Aviv does not understand the concept of apriority and the seriousness with which it should be taken (and therefore also applied to the relations of the world and what preceded it).
As a more general remark: I get the impression that the philosophy of science he holds, which is very basic and not coherent in itself, is captive to pragmatism—in his view, knowledge is first and foremost instrumental and its role is to “make a change” in the world. In my opinion, that is a flawed outlook.
Not that the Rabbi needs backing up, but I really did try to understand Mr. Franco’s arguments and I couldn’t. He was making irrelevant claims, out of place, without justification—simply embarrassing. To put it in a not politically correct way: he was talking nonsense. That is my clear impression.