Richard Dawkins forum implodes

[SEF]

If you're willing to entirely dismiss the fields of history, science, and philosophy, as well as simple logic and reasoning, then yes, there's no evidence.

P.S. While I did cut and paste from myself (I see no reason to retype it every time), the term you were actually looking for is "expert citation".

P.P.S. If you have a substantive objection beyond sticking your fingers in your ears (hands over your eyes?) and saying (typing?) "la la la", I'd be happy to consider it.

I think you know exactly what I'm asking for. You just can't provide it, obviously. Thanks for proving my point. Take it easy.

[Midnight Judges]

You don't have any idea what you're talking about, but you're more than happy to disagree vehemently. There are several fundamentalist Christian sects that would be happy to have you.

For the record, s5 modal logic is not religious or theological or faith based or whatever. It is a very old system of modal logic, and widely (though not universally) accepted.

Plantinga makes use of s5 modal logic in his version of the Ontological Argument, which is a totally different matter, and cannot, by the way, be used to prove that Star Wars is a true story.

I understand Plantinga's argument perfectly. It's actually pretty simple. What I do not understand is why s5 modal logic is widely accepted, because I have not studied it.

And, in fact, I don't find any version of the Ontological argument particularly convincing (though some versions might be sound), let alone having "faith" in them.

I've wasted my time before with Plantinga's nonsense. Never again.

[Midnight Judges]

If you're willing to entirely dismiss the fields of history, science, and philosophy, as well as simple logic and reasoning, then yes, there's no evidence.

I have no problem dismissing your brand of evangelical "science" "history" and "philosophy" in favor of actual history and science.

I like how Christian Science works:

Step 1: Decide what you want to believe

Step 2: Try and prove it, and when you get shot down, move to a different field of study

[techboy]

I read his explanation of this but don't quite see any evidence or logic for it.

Well, remember that premise one is that "Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause)".

Premise 2 refers to the explanation of the universe, so such a cause (by premise 1) must be external to it. The universe consists of space and time, so such a cause must be timeless and immaterial. It must also be powerful, I should think it obvious.

In short, by the time we finish listing the attributes necessary for such an "external cause", we end up with something that's describing God, even if it's not any specific deity of any specific religion (much like the moral argument).

Additionally, which God?

This argument by itself can't tell us that.

Why not a pantheon?

Dr. Craig appeals to Occam's razor, here, noting that it's simpler for there to be one creative deity rather than many. That makes sense to me, but it's ultimately not important, since my use for his argument is mostly to establish the plausibility of any deity, and my goal is to demonstrate the truth of Christianity, and this argument doesn't go all the way there, whether or not one agrees that it establishes monotheism.

If everything that begins to exist has a cause, what is the cause of "God"?

This is a common objection (Dawkins actually uses it, too, when a little research should have let him know better), but it doesn't hold any water.

Remember that premise one is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. God is eternal, and so does not begin to exist, and so does not need a cause.

In point of fact, your "turtles all the way down" comment shows that you recognize the simple truth that ultimately, there must be an uncaused cause. Infinite regression makes no sense.

The question, then, is what. The typical atheist position over time has been that it is the universe that is uncaused, but that's looking kind of shaky these days.

This has led many physicists to the Many Worlds Hypothesis, which attempts to avoid the problem by having our universe be just one of many bubbling to the surface, but I see two major problems with that.

1. It just pushes the issue back a level, but it doesn't solve the problem. We can't have turtles all the way down.

2.The Many Worlds Hypothesis has (as yet, at least, the LHC might change that) no experimental verification whatsoever, leading many other physicists to call it "metaphysics", in other words, no better than religion.

I think morals are ultimately opinion or opinion/emotion (i.e. subjective), so the premise "2. Objective moral values and duties exist" fails.

Yes, if you bite the bullet and accept that there is no objective foundation for moral values and duties, and that the Holocaust, for instance, could have been good instead of always a terrible evil no matter what anybody thinks/thought, then the argument doesn't work.

I suspect, though, that most people would disagree with you (even, as you agree, most atheists), and I doubt that even you live your life that way, if you really think about it.

Thanks for proving my point.

Well, uh, glad to be of service I guess?

I've wasted my time before with Plantinga's nonsense. Never again.

Why, speak of the devil, it's the "courtier's reply", begging the question as usual.

[Perky72]

Breaking News! Richard Dawkins apologizes for his part in the fiasco and clarifies parts of his reaction that caused discontent.

The controversy caused by our decision to close the forums on RichardDawkins.net has greatly upset me. It has been raging for several days now and I have spent that time – frustratingly hampered by long haul flights, jet lag and the need to consult people in several different time zones – talking to colleagues and trustees, and reading a multitude of emails as well as open letters, blogs, internet comments and even newspaper articles, and I am now finally in a position to respond publicly. Please forgive me for replying collectively rather than individually. I am engaged in a strenuous book promotion tour of Australia and it would take too long to write separately to everybody who has written to me.

I would like to start by apologising for our handling of this situation. We have not communicated well with our forum volunteers and users (for example in my insensitive 'Outrage' post, which was written in the heat of the moment). In the process we have caused unintended hurt and offence, and I am very sorry about that. In a classic case of a vicious circle, some of the responses to our announcement also caused considerable hurt and distress to us, and in the atmosphere of heightened emotion that followed, some of our subsequent actions went too far. I hope you will understand the human impulses that led to this, and accept my apology for them. I take full personal responsibility.

More here: http://richarddawkins.net/articles/5165

So, perhaps some conciliation between him and his fans, if it's not too late.

My personal future revision of events will be that Dawkins read this thread and this caused him to issue that apology. :cool:

[techboy]

I have no problem dismissing your brand of evangelical "science" "history" and "philosophy"

Moving on to the Genetic Fallacy, I see.

P.S. If you actually read what I wrote, and follow the links to the sources I cite (and believe me, I don't blame you if you don't... it's way too long, and I wouldn't have read it myself if I hadn't written it... I just can't figure out how to cut it down any more without losing essential portions...), I think you will find that a good number (even a majority) of the sources I cite, like Michael Grant and Bart Ehrman, are not actually Christian at all, let alone evangelical.

So... even if you were inclined to dismiss facts based on their provenance (a fallacious approach), you couldn't do it here and remain intellectually honest.

Unless, of course, you do it because it's all coming from me. I'm biased.

[Midnight Judges]

Why, speak of the devil, it's the "courtier's reply", begging the question as usual.

Irony.

What I do not understand is why s5 modal logic is widely accepted,

The answer to this is simple: It isn't widely accepted.

[techboy]

The answer to this is simple: It isn't widely accepted.

Have you suddenly become an expert on modal logic when I wasn't looking?

Oddly enough, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy disagrees with you. From their Ontological Arguments:

Under suitable assumptions about the nature of accessibility relations between possible worlds, this argument is valid: from it is possible that it is necessary that p, one can infer that it is necessary that p. Setting aside the possibility that one might challenge this widely accepted modal principle, it seems that opponents of the argument are bound to challenge the acceptability of the premise.

Emphasis mine.

Now, as I said, I'm hardly an expert, so if you have something to share that contradicts this, I'm willing to consider it.

[Midnight Judges]

Moving on to the Genetic Fallacy, I see.

P.S. If you actually read what I wrote, and follow the links to the sources I cite (and believe me, I don't blame you if you don't... it's way too long, and I wouldn't have read it myself if I hadn't written it... I just can't figure out how to cut it down any more without losing essential portions...), I think you will find that a good number (even a majority) of the sources I cite, like Michael Grant and Bart Ehrman, are not actually Christian at all, let alone evangelical.

So... even if you were inclined to dismiss facts based on their provenance (a fallacious approach), you couldn't do it here and remain intellectually honest.

Unless, of course, you do it because it's all coming from me. I'm biased.

We've been down this road before. In the past I've taken the time to read your links. They are unconvincing, unnecessarily lengthy, and like prosperity said, laced with sophistry. Nobody is dismissing any "facts" based on where they come from. I've read your arguments.

I don't have a high regard for Evangelicals masquerading as intellectuals, or their philosphy which is transparently driven by their goals of legitimizing the Religion they grew up on.

Your token atheist was born and raised evangelical. Not that it matters. I'm not saying an atheist can't agree with Plantinga, but this atheist thinks it's nonsense.

[Midnight Judges]

Have you suddenly become an expert on modal logic when I wasn't looking?

Oddly enough, the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy disagrees with you. From their Ontological Arguments:

Emphasis mine.

Now, as I said, I'm hardly an expert, so if you have something to share that contradicts this, I'm willing to consider it.

Indeed I do. It's called common sense. "If I can dream something up, it must be real" is simply nonsense. And that is precisely the leap in logic contained in Plantinga's own writings.

[Perky72]

Well, remember that premise one is that "Everything that exists has an explanation of its existence (either in the necessity of its own nature or in an external cause)".

Premise 2 refers to the explanation of the universe, so such a cause (by premise 1) must be external to it. The universe consists of space and time, so such a cause must be timeless and immaterial. It must also be powerful, I should think it obvious.

In short, by the time we finish listing the attributes necessary for such an "external cause", we end up with something that's describing God, even if it's not any specific deity of any specific religion (much like the moral argument).

Hm. The only seeming attributes would be that the "creator" had the power to jumpstart the Universe. I don't see why a physical-only process couldn't do that. The question would remain that that creator had to have been beyond the current infinity problem, but the entire idea seems beyond any evidence at all as to the nature of that entity, if one exist/s/ed.

I don't see how one could describe the nature of a creator via pure logic any more than the ratio of hydrogen to helium atoms a second after the Big Bang.

This is a common objection (Dawkins actually uses it, too, when a little research should have let him know better), but it doesn't hold any water.

Remember that premise one is that everything that begins to exist has a cause. God is eternal, and so does not begin to exist, and so does not need a cause.

In point of fact, your "turtles all the way down" comment shows that you recognize the simple truth that ultimately, there must be an uncaused cause. Infinite regression makes no sense.

The question, then, is what. The typical atheist position over time has been that it is the universe that is uncaused, but that's looking kind of shaky these days.

This has led many physicists to the Many Worlds Hypothesis, which attempts to avoid the problem by having our universe be just one of many bubbling to the surface, but I see two major problems with that.

1. It just pushes the issue back a level, but it doesn't solve the problem. We can't have turtles all the way down.

2.The Many Worlds Hypothesis has (as yet, at least, the LHC might change that) no experimental verification whatsoever, leading many other physicists to call it "metaphysics", in other words, no better than religion.

This is sensible logic but I don't see it in the proof. i.e. "...therefore God has no precursor either", nor do I see specific explanation for why that particular entity (God) is the one that stops the turtles.

But on a tangent, the Many Worlds Hypothesis is very very cool. If true (and I understand it right) there'd be an infinite number of planets exactly like the Earth, including "doubles" of us, as well as infinite numbers with one atom in a different place, and so on.

The implications of that are pretty staggering--it would seem to mean that anything conceivable, that is physically possible and has a non-zero probability, would truly exist. There'd be infinite worlds where the Redskins have won all Super Bowls, worlds that duplicate Middle Earth (perhaps without the "magic" if that's physically impossible), "Earths" where all conspiracy theories are actually true, and Marvel Superheroes Universes. There might still not be any Star Wars galaxies if hyperdrive travel isn't possible, but it's pretty fun to think about these possibilities.

So I hope it's true. And that a "me" is enjoying the world where every other person is Scarlet Johannson, the males have all vanished in a remarkably unlikely series of random physics and "I" have to repopulate it.

Yes, if you bite the bullet and accept that there is no objective foundation for moral values and duties, and that the Holocaust, for instance, could have been good instead of always a terrible evil no matter what anybody thinks/thought, then the argument doesn't work.

I suspect, though, that most people would disagree with you (even, as you agree, most atheists), and I doubt that even you live your life that way, if you really think about it.

I generally hold firm to my own take on morality, but when I think it needs tweaking or that my morality has changed, I don't compare or justify it to any objective morality. So in practice I could act exactly the same as one who believed in objective morals, but I just don't have the same basis.

Thanks for the responses!

[Prosperity]

the key to those questions is to understand that something can be logically valid as long as the terms used are the same. If the first term is some idea of God and then the last term is the actual God then you know somebody just equivocated.

[Midnight Judges]

LOL @ the Ontological perspective. Shocker! A majority of the people trying to prove God exists support a theory that proves God exists!

This is just as good as the time you tried to use the Bible to corroborate that the Bible is true.

[techboy]

I don't have a high regard for Evangelicals masquerading as intellectuals, or their philosphy which is transparently driven by their goals of legitimizing the Religion they grew up on.

Michael Grant is an historian, not a philosopher, and he is not an evangelical.

Roger Penrose is a mathemetician and theoretical physicist, and he is not an evangelical.

That's just two, I could go on, but it's beside the point.

I will agree that the arguments I raise were all formulated by other Christians, and I am just presenting them with my own spin, but I hope you wouldn't expect atheists to argue for the existence of God.

If this is your summary of what I posted, I don't think you read it very carefully. Again, not that I blame you.

Your token atheist was born and raised evangelical. Not that it matters. I'm not saying an atheist can't agree with Plantinga, but this atheist thinks it's nonsense.

1. Bart Ehrman is now an atheist/agnostic who has debated William Lane Craig against the historicity of the Ressurection. He has the passion of the converted. Your attempt to paint him as somehow biased for Christianity is laughable.

2. I cite Dr. Ehrman on the field he has expertise in, Biblical history. That has nothing to do with Plantinga's Ontological argument, which, you will note, I actually don't use.

I again am forced to wonder how closely you really read anything I wrote if this is what you come up with.

Of course, it's fine if you don't want to read it (as I said, I wouldn't if I hadn't written it), but then I'd suggest not writing things out of ignorance. It doesn't cast you in the best light.

[techboy]

LOL @ the Ontological perspective. Shocker! A majority of the people trying to prove God exists support a theory that proves God exists!

I'd suggest you google "S5 modal logic" before you keep writing in ignorance. You're looking pretty silly right now, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, except that Plantinga made use of it in his proof.

What you are effectively arguing is similar to saying that the alphabet is biased towards God because I used it to construct sentences in defense of His existence.

P.S. Graham Oppy, who wrote that article I just quoted for you, is a rather significant atheist in philosophical circles, in case you were wondering.

[Midnight Judges]

Of course, it's fine if you don't want to read it (as I said, I wouldn't if I hadn't written it), but then I'd suggest not writing things out of ignorance. It doesn't cast you in the best light.

I've read their nonsense.

[Midnight Judges]

I'd suggest you google "S5 modal logic" before you keep writing in ignorance. You're looking pretty silly right now, because it has nothing whatsoever to do with religion, except that Plantinga made use of it in his proof.

You have completely failed to address what S5 logic is other than that you assume it is true (when in fact it is nonsense).

Feel free to make another 10,000 word post in an attempt to bury the salient points here. I'll keep defeating it with two sentences.

[techboy]

Hm. The only seeming attributes would be that the "creator" had the power to jumpstart the Universe. I don't see why a physical-only process couldn't do that. The question would remain that that creator had to have been beyond the current infinity problem, but the entire idea seems beyond any evidence at all as to the nature of that entity, if one exist/s/ed.

The universe comprises all of space and time. Therefore, something external to it must be timeless and eternal.

This is sensible logic but I don't see it in the proof. i.e. "...therefore God has no precursor either", nor do I see specific explanation for why that particular entity (God) is the one that stops the turtles.

Another word for timeless is eternal. And, again, once we start throwing around "powerful enough to create the Universe and all the energy/matter in it from nothing", timeless, immaterial, etc., you're basically just describing God, if not using the specific word.

But on a tangent, the Many Worlds Hypothesis is very very cool. If true (and I understand it right) there'd be an infinite number of planets exactly like the Earth, including "doubles" of us, as well as infinite numbers with one atom in a different place, and so on.

Actually, it's more like infinite (or at least lots and lots ) of universes, all bubbling to the surface. If you're intrigued by the idea, I'd recommend Vilenkin's Many Worlds in One (he's one of the physicists behind the theorem I mentioned earlier).

And, of course, as noted inAre There Other Universes? :

"It's not a testable idea," says Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University. Because the different universes would not be detectable by one another, he says, "You can't really prove it exists or doesn't exist." When you talk about multiple universes, Steinhardt says, you're not talking about science anymore. "In my view, you're into metaphysics."

Why that's like a (gasp) religion! :pfft:

Except with less evidence.

I generally hold firm to my own take on morality, but when I think it needs tweaking or that my morality has changed, I don't compare or justify it to any objective morality. So in practice I could act exactly the same as one who believed in objective morals, but I just don't have the same basis.

You can do this in practice because most everybody else acts upon the shared human experience that morals and duties are objective.

[grego]

I've never heard of Bill Phillips the biologist. If it's who I think it is I think he's a physicist and doesn't comment on biology.

While he does believe in a god who created the Universe he openly admits that its a position of faith rather than science (much as anyone claiming there is no need for a supreme being based on current science is arguing somewhat on faith too).

What I don't get is the relevance of any scientific discussion to a personal relationship with Jesus.

ya but if he was a biologist, it would be a better sugue.

not sure why i said biologist- must have had it on the brain.

he believes that science and religion are not incompatible, which, i believe, is different from what dawkins believes.

[techboy]

I've read their nonsense.

Michael Grant...

...was an English classicist and numismatist. According to his obituary in The Times he was "one of the few classical historians to win respect from [both] academics and a lay readership".[1] Immensely prolific, he wrote and edited more than 50 books of nonfiction and translation, covering topics from Roman coinage and the eruption of Mount Vesuvius to the Gospels and Jesus. He described himself as "one of the very few freelances in the field of ancient history: a rare phenomenon". His translation of Tacitus' Annales was published in 1956. His autobiography, My First Eighty Years, appeared in 1994.

Roger Penrose...

...is an English mathematical physicist and Emeritus Rouse Ball Professor of Mathematics at the Mathematical Institute, University of Oxford and Emeritus Fellow of Wadham College. He has received a number of prizes and awards, including the 1988 Wolf Prize for physics which he shared with Stephen Hawking for their contribution to our understanding of the universe.[1] He is renowned for his work in mathematical physics, in particular his contributions to general relativity and cosmology. He is also a recreational mathematician and philosopher.

"Have you ever heard of Plato? Aristotle? Socrates? Morons!"

You have completely failed to address what S5 logic is other than that you assume it is true (when in fact it is nonsense).

Actually, I'm having fun watching you disagree with anything I write, just because I'm the one that wrote it, so it must be wrong.

But, here...

Modal Logic

A modal is an expression (like ‘necessarily’ or ‘possibly’) that is used to qualify the truth of a judgement. Modal logic is, strictly speaking, the study of the deductive behavior of the expressions ‘it is necessary that’ and ‘it is possible that’. However, the term ‘modal logic’ may be used more broadly for a family of related systems. These include logics for belief, for tense and other temporal expressions, for the deontic (moral) expressions such as ‘it is obligatory that’ and ‘it is permitted that’, and many others. An understanding of modal logic is particularly valuable in the formal analysis of philosophical argument, where expressions from the modal family are both common and confusing. Modal logic also has important applications in computer science.

The most familiar logics in the modal family are constructed from a weak logic called K (after Saul Kripke). Under the narrow reading, modal logic concerns necessity and possibility. A variety of different systems may be developed for such logics using K as a foundation. The symbols of K include ‘~’ for ‘not’, ‘→’ for ‘if…then’, and ‘□’ for the modal operator ‘it is necessary that’. (The connectives ‘&’, ‘∨’, and ‘↔’ may be defined from ‘~’ and ‘→’ as is done in propositional logic.) K results from adding the following to the principles of propositional logic.

Necessitation Rule: If A is a theorem of K, then so is □A.

Distribution Axiom: □(A→ → (□A→□.

(In these principles we use ‘A’ and ‘B’ as metavariables ranging over formulas of the language.) According to the Necessitation Rule, any theorem of logic is necessary. The Distribution Axiom says that if it is necessary that if A then B, then if necessarily A then necessarily B.

The operator ◊ (for ‘possibly’) can be defined from □ by letting ◊A = ~□~A. In K, the operators □ and ◊ behave very much like the quantifiers ∀ (all) and ∃ (some). For example, the definition of ◊ from □ mirrors the equivalence of ∀xA with ~∃x~A in predicate logic. Furthermore, □(A& entails □A&□B and vice versa; while □A∨□B entails □(A∨, but not vice versa. This reflects the patterns exhibited by the universal quantifier: ∀x(A& entails ∀xA&∀xB and vice versa, while ∀xA ∨ ∀xB entails ∀x(A ∨ but not vice versa. Similar parallels between ◊ and ∃ can be drawn. The basis for this correspondence between the modal operators and the quantifiers will emerge more clearly in the section on Possible Worlds Semantics.

The system K is too weak to provide an adequate account of necessity. The following axiom is not provable in K, but it is clearly desirable.

(M) □A→A

(M) claims that whatever is necessary is the case. Notice that (M) would be incorrect were □ to be read ‘it ought to be that’, or ‘it was the case that’. So the presence of axiom (M) distinguishes modal from other logics in the modal family. A basic modal logic M results from adding (M) to K. (Some authors call this system T.)

Many logicians believe that M is still too weak to correctly formalize the logic of necessity and possibility. They recommend further axioms to govern the iteration, or repetition of modal operators. Here are two of the most famous iteration axioms:

(4) □A→□□A

(5) ◊A→□◊A

S4 is the system that results from adding (4) to M. Similarly S5 is M plus (5). In S4, the sentence □□A is equivalent to □A. As a result, any string of boxes may be replaced by a single box, and the same goes for strings of diamonds. This amounts to the idea that iteration of the modal operators is superfluous. Saying that A is necessarily necessary is considered a uselessly long-winded way of saying that A is necessary. The system S5 has even stronger principles for simplifying strings of modal operators. In S4, a string of operators of the same kind can be replaced for that operator; in S5, strings containing both boxes and diamonds are equivalent to the last operator in the string. So, for example, saying that it is possible that A is necessary is the same as saying that A is necessary. A summary of these features of S4 and S5 follows.

S4: □□…□ = □ and ◊◊…◊ = ◊

S5: 00…□ = □ and 00…◊ = ◊, where each 0 is either □ or ◊

I hope that helps...

[Midnight Judges]

I have no need to obscure my points or mislead people by saying something is "widely accepted" without mentioning that by "widely accepted" you mean within a relatively small community of evangelicals trying to prove Christianity as fact.

"If I can think it, it must be true" is nonsense. That's all I'm saying. No need for a complicated argument on my end.

1. Chewbacca is a wookie

2. Ewoks are from Endor

3. There for God must exist

[techboy]

I have no need to obscure my points or mislead people by saying something is "widely accepted" without mentioning that by "widely accepted" you mean within a relatively small community of evangelicals trying to prove Christianity as fact.

You're still apparently woefully confused, so

let me be perfectly clear...

1. You brought up s5 modal logic, not me.

2. s5 modal logic is, apparently, widely accepted, as noted in the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy article.

3. Modal logic is not theological or religious or even limited to the field of philosophy. It is also used in computer science.

4. The fact that Alvin Plantinga makes use of a certain set of (widely accepted) logical rules in one of his arguments does not suddenly make logic itself a dirty tool of Christianity.

5. This fact should be painfully clear if for no other reason than that the article I cited as suggesting that s5 modal logic is widely accepted was written by Graham Oppy, who is an atheist.

6. The fact that s5 modal logic is widely accepted does not mean that Plantinga's argument is widely accepted, and I never suggested that it did. It merely means that the logic Plantinga uses to connect his premises is valid. Many can and do reject one or more of his premises.

If I was trying to obfuscate this point, I probably wouldn't have linked you to an article that does a decent job of objecting to Plantinga's argument, now would I?

and finally...

7. I am not, and did not, propose the Ontological argument as one of my evidences for the existence of God. I find it unconvincing myself.

I am not trying to obscure anything or mislead anyone. Even if I was inclined to be dishonest like that (and I'm not), I am well aware that things I write are easily checked, and they stay up forever. I wouldn't put myself in that position.

So, even if you feel like questioning my integrity, hopefully you can see that it's in my selfish best interests not to do that, and you can drop this mislead/obscure crap.

[Midnight Judges]

1. Chewbacca is a wookie

2. Ewoks are from Endor

3. There for God must exist

BTW, this argument is widely accepted.

[techboy]

BTW, this argument is widely accepted.

I find it quite appropriate that you're quoting yourself, here.

[GhostofSparta]

I have no need to obscure my points or mislead people by saying something is "widely accepted" without mentioning that by "widely accepted" you mean within a relatively small community of evangelicals trying to prove Christianity as fact.

"If I can think it, it must be true" is nonsense. That's all I'm saying. No need for a complicated argument on my end.

1. Chewbacca is a wookie

2. Ewoks are from Endor

3. There for God must exist

Ah yes, resorting to the infamous "Chewbacca Defense":