Here is John Loftus arguing that the size of the universe points to atheism. This wunderkind of atheistic apologetics actually writes this concerning the size of the universe:
I think it's even more damaging when it comes to an omnipotent God who supposedly created the universe for the specific purpose of gaining the affections of people on this lone planet of ours. If this is what he desired (for some irrational egotistical reason) he could have simply created us on a flat disk in a much smaller universe like the one the ancients believed existed.The worst argument for anything is "if I were God, this is what I'd do." It's dumb when Christians use it--and fundamentalists tend to use it a lot. And it's dumb when atheists use it.
There are at least two arguments for the vastness of the universe.
1) God just felt like doing it. (Not satisfying, but it can't be ruled out by saying but I'd do it differently if I were God!)
2) God turned the evolution of the universe over very early to secondary causes (physics) and there is plausibly a connection: habitability → galaxies → constraint on the initial baryon density of the universe → large universe.
Intellectual atheism in the 21st century:
• If God made everything, who made God? (Dawkins)
• Religion poisons everything! (Hitchens)
• Science and religion are not compatible! (Coyne)
• I'm a genius and can use Bayes's Theorem to show Jesus didn't exist! (Carrier)
• Menz suck! Theists is dumb! (Myers)
• If I were god, I'd make a small universe, ergo no god! (Loftus)
You don't have atheists who are professional philosophers of religion in your list, such as Draper, Oppy, Le Poidevin, Parsons, Martin, Schelleneberg, Rowe, Drange, Bundle, Philipse, or Howson.
ReplyDeletePlease consider interacting with my arguments for naturalistic atheism here.
So, I guess that means that David is right about Dawkins, Hitchens, Coyne, Carrier, Meyers, and Loftus.
DeleteLet's go through David's list:
Delete* Dawkins: I think there are big problems with his book, The God Delusion. I critique his "Ultimate 747 Gambit" here.
* Hitchens: I've read almost nothing by him so I have no opinion on whether David has accurately and fairly represented Hitchens.
* Coyne: I've only read some of his blog posts, but not his book(s), so I have no opinion on whether David has accurately and fairly represented Coyne.
* Carrier has defended numerous arguments for atheism that have nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus. David is being maximally uncharitable in his representation of Carrier.
* Loftus has much stronger arguments against theism than the size of the universe. Furthermore, he is caricaturing Loftus's actual argument about the size of the universe. Loftus never said God doesn't exist because Loftus would have made a smaller universe if he were God. As with Carrier, David is being maximally uncharitable in his representation of Loftus.
Honesty please. I have heard Carrier attack the existence of God based on the historicity of Jesus.
DeleteAnd did read the quote from John Loftus David based this post on? In none of David's examples does he claim to exhaustively describe the arguments of everyone he mentioned - just some more stupid ones he has noticed that they use. Loftus suggests that God, if God exists, should have made the universe smaller if all the point was was to make a single planet for us for us to love him. This is why it's stupid. That isn't the reason the Bible gives us for God making us and the Bible never tells us that our planet is the only one that has life. Loftus is always good for a facepalm worthy "argument".
Honesty please. I have heard Carrier attack the existence of God based on the historicity of Jesus.
DeleteYes, please, let's have honesty. Let's also have understanding. The fact, if it is a fact, that Carrier "attack[ed] the existence of God based on the historicity [sic] of Jesus" does not contradict what I wrote. What I wrote is this. "Carrier has defended numerous arguments for atheism that have nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus." Even if he presented an argument for atheism based on the idea that Jesus never existed, which I doubt*, that doesn't deny the fact that he has presented other arguments for atheism that have nothing to do with the historicity of Jesus.
In none of David's examples does he claim to exhaustively describe the arguments of everyone he mentioned - just some more stupid ones he has noticed that they use.
Exactly! The problem is not that David failed to exhaustively describe the arguments of everyone he mentioned. Rather, the problem is that David failed to describe representative arguments for each of the writers he mentioned.
* To be clear, I know that Carrier is a skeptic about the historicity of Jesus. What I doubt is that Carrier uses the (alleged) non-existence of Jesus as an argument for atheism.
1. I never said that Carrier has nor presented other arguments for atheism. That wasn't the point.
Delete2. I think David more than correctly represented stupid arguments from famous atheist. This was his point. And you seem to have missed it
The worst argument for anything is "if I were God, this is what I'd do."
ReplyDeleteNo, it's completely plausible. Christians are always telling us that their god is a person. We know a lot about how persons behave, and, by observing the work of a person, we can often make a reasonable guess about their intentions. We also know that good and reasonable people would not behave the way the Christian god is depicted, and therefore it is reasonable to conclude their god does not exist.
This does not rule out all gods, by any means. Personally, I think that if there is a god, he's a really nasty fellow.
I'm confused why people misunderstand what Christians are saying. There are no good or reasonable people. Any reason or goodness you have is given to you by God whether you acknowledge God or not. Therefore we are as far as being able to tell what God would or should do as an ant is equipped to perform brain surgery on a human being.
DeleteAnd that's giving us too much credit
Delete"Any reason or goodness you have is given to you by God whether you acknowledge God or not."
DeleteOK, that's just plain bat**** insane. I'm serious. You need psychiatric help. Is there any bull**** you don't believe? Try growing up instead of making a fool out of yourself.
Grow up? Sure as soon as you learn what "Apologetics" means.
DeleteTherefore we are as far as being able to tell what God would or should do as an ant is equipped to perform brain surgery on a human being.
ReplyDeleteSince your god is supposed to be a person, then claiming "there are no good or reasonable people" means you are ruling out your own god. Not so good.
On the other hand, if you're claiming you're that dumb, then maybe you also couldn't distinguish between your god and no god at all. Or between your god and the devil. Or between your god and Zeus.
Actually, I am saying that we are dumb and so far below God's level that we have no hope of fully understanding God. The only reason we know as much as we do is that God condescended to us. God stooped and made God known to us. The fact that there are no no good or reasonable people does not apply to God. God isn't a person or people. God is personal in three persons. On top of that: No one is good but God.
DeleteSo God is *not* a person, but he is "personal in three persons". God is also good, despite actively killing the innocent and failing to intervene when any good person would.
DeleteAnd you wonder why sensible people just laugh at the claims of religion?
I don't wonder why people who think they are sensible just laugh at the claims of God. It's pretty clear.
DeleteDon't keep embarrassing yourself because you don't understand fundamental Trinitarian doctrine. Get help instead.
You are a finite being who has no idea what's going to happen in the next second or why everything has happened the way it did. Why do you think you know God has failed to intervene in the best way or at the best times? And compared to God neither you or I are any where close to "good".
The words atheism and apologetic do not belong in the same sentence.
ReplyDeleteThe dictionary definition of apologetics: a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity
The reason for not having an idiotic belief in a god with unlimited magical powers is obvious. God = magic = bull****. Unless of course you're insane enough to believe magic is real. Then you might as well pretend Harry Potter is real.
My point is grow up and face facts. There is only reality. There are no god fairies waving a magic wand while hiding somewhere in the universe. The god fantasy idea is equal to the Easter Bunny fantasy, equally childish.
The dictionary definition of apologetics: a branch of theology devoted to the defense of the divine origin and authority of Christianity
DeleteNice that you only included Merriam-Websters 2nd definition.
The reason for not having an idiotic belief in a god with unlimited magical powers is obvious. God = magic = bull****. Unless of course you're insane enough to believe magic is real. Then you might as well pretend Harry Potter is real.
My point is grow up and face facts. There is only reality. There are no god fairies waving a magic wand while hiding somewhere in the universe. The god fantasy idea is equal to the Easter Bunny fantasy, equally childish.
Wow, how many begged questions and strawmen was that?
Jared, I count eight of them.
DeleteMerriam-Webster: the Intellectual Impetus of Contemporary Internet Atheism
Delete