A finely tuned hand of cards (Addressing arguments for the existence of God) 1/2

A caller launches a salvo of arguments for the existence of God, which Matt Dillahunty and Tracie Harries address.

Further reading:

Iron Chariots (Counter-Apologetics Wiki)
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.ph...

Finely tuned argument
http://wiki.ironchariots.org/index.ph...



Credit:
The Atheist Experience
http://www.atheist-experience.com/
2008-11-16
#579

• Category

  Education

[Chris Williamson]

the fact that the universe and nature in general doesn't have a real plan or purpose for the living things that exist is kind of scary I suppose but countering that with an irrational belief in a magic guy in the sky having made everything, controls everything, loves and cares for us collectively and individually is a pretty thin substitute.

[sleepyeyeguy]

::drops pen:: "gravity" XD

[Roper122]

" Dawkins seriously suggested that aliens came and seeded earth with life. "

- Dawkins did not seriously suggest that.

Lying isn't helpful to anyone.

[GuyThreepwoody]

He didn't try to present it as a way to make God redundant. Again the above theories were all explicitly presented as making God redundant. You'd have to take it up with Hawking etc why he feels it is necessary to include his personal beliefs and preferences in his theories but he/atheists do, they are 'atheistic'; because the implication is the basis for the theory. I agree it's not a scientific approach.

& the only theory that actually advanced was the non atheist one, the big bang

[Ledwix]

Okay, Newton's law of gravity is F = - G*m1*m2/r^2. It does not include a god in it, so does that make it an "atheistic" model of the universe? Any model of the universe that advances our understanding of the realm we inhabit will be "atheistic" by your standards, yet you can easily insert "God did it" in front of the equation and make it theistic. So your labeling is overly suggestive; there is no theistic science and atheistic science, there is only science.

[GuyThreepwoody]

Each was presented by their founders and supporters explicitly as a way to try to explain the universe without a creator. So yes, they were explicitly atheist theories. All based on a general rationale of no creation= no creator

That's why the only major cosmonogical theory that was ever supported by evidence (more than hypothesis); Lemaitre's 'primordial atom' was mocked by academics explicitly for its overt theistic implications as 'Big Bang'

The wise man knoweth himself to be a fool!

[Ledwix]

Those aren't "atheist" models of the universe, fool. Are you limiting the power of your own god? Are you saying a mathematically definable model of the universe is inherently atheistic? Those frameworks could just as easily be ways to describe "how God did it" rather than whether he did. Science looks for proximate causes, not ultimate ones.

The ironic part of what you wrote is that scientists admit when an idea is a mere hypothesis, while in religion you treat it as an absolute fact.

[GuyThreepwoody]

I agree with you in general, every testable atheist model of the universe ever proposed has failed- static, eternal, steady state, big crunch etc. They were all 'in the math' just not in any actual observational evidence.

So I don't think it's a coincidence that today's atheist models all claim to be 'in the math' as always, but this time are placed inherently beyond any possible inconvenience of being tested.

[Gerry De naro]

Dawkins seriously suggested that aliens came and seeded earth with life. = a term called "panspermia"

Question is who seeded the aliens who seeded those aliens?

"Atheism doesn't believe in nothing. It believes anything"

Question 1.Doesnt multiverse theory imply an infinite no. of universes need to exist for 1 to be life-permitting?

2. Why do u to assume the "constants" of physics are NOT constant for all universes?

3. What kind of universe would exist if 2 is true - a random chaos perhaps?

[Gerry De naro]

Atheism doesn't believe in nothing. It believes in anything.

Whether God created one universe or an infinite number is superfluous. All we have is physical evidence for one. Multiverse theories (there r 9 to date) gained momentum when chance had no hope of explaining the existence of our FINITE rationally intelligible, law-abiding life-permitting universe.

What we do know is there cant be an infinite regression of past BB's. Hence an absolute beginning to time & matter i/e/ creation

Game over!!