It’s a William Lane Craig special here! He gave a gift of 5 terrible reasons why atheists are wrong and we kindly disprove all of them for him!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 41:40 — 15.2MB)
Subscribe: RSS
It’s a William Lane Craig special here! He gave a gift of 5 terrible reasons why atheists are wrong and we kindly disprove all of them for him!
Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 41:40 — 15.2MB)
Subscribe: RSS
What sort of critiques Thomas’s argument that there could be something outside of our universe is the idea that if anything was outside of our universe, we would just include that in the universe. If there were multiple universes that are seperately different, a more logical approach would be to include them in our universe, but I guess that only really applies if we assume this next “universe” is something we could ever prove; sort of the idea that it follows that supernatural things cannot be provable because if they were and they were proven, they would be incorporated into our definition of nature.
On the finetuning argument WLC misses at leat two more possibilities – the multiverse, which you alluded to, and the fact that the universe isn’t actually fine tuned.
The second one sounds a little off but it is essentially the conculsion if you consider that you can change one variable while holding the others constant and result in a viable, life containing, universe but you can change all the variables at once to find a new equilibrium where life is possible. This is Victor Stenger’s arggument I believe.
If the universe could have fallen into any one of a vast array of different configurations like this the fune tuning argument becomes less persuasive – not to mention that we don’t currently know enough about fundamental physics to know if the variables are interdepentent in such a way that if one has a certain value then the others must have values that fall in a certain range.
Another point (though not an argument against fine tuning per se) is simply: Do you really think the universe is fine tuned to be comfortable for life? Have you seen the universe?
We are restricted to certan habitable bands of a single planet! Go anywhere else and we die pretty much instantly.
This is the universe an all powerful being came up with just for us? Are you kidding? He is all powerful right?
I call this the “Argument from are you a moron?” or argumentum ad stultus es.
D’oh, the above should read “that you can’t change one variable while holding the others constant and result in a viable, life containing, universe” in the second paragraph.
I am currently listening to all the episodes starting from the first and I absolutely love this podcast. I have been dieing for a podcast that at least dabbled in counter-apologetics since Reasonable Doubts only releases once every 10 years. That being said however I have a very simple request. Can we as atheists please agree to absolutely never use the multiverse theory as a counter to the fine tuning argument. In quantum mechanics the idea of a multiverse posits that a new universe is created for every quantum event not that there is an infinite amount of universes for every law of nature. So claiming that that is the case is positing something without evidence which is a Christian apologetic’s wet dream. However it is important for me to point out that I am in high school so I could be completely talking out of my ass. But that is besides the point because if I don’t know the evidence behind the multiverse theory, chances are a Christian apologetic wouldn’t know it and chances are they won’t be convinced by the complex math. The argument from fine tuning is not at all tricky to debunk. Just look at it as a probability. All probabilities have a numerator and a denominator. The fact is for the fine tuning argument we do not have the denominator all we have is the numerator so we have absolutely no way of knowing with our current understanding of science what the chances are. Therefore while a Christian might boast that if gravity were only .0000001 units stronger the world wouldn’t exist, it is equally as valid of an argument if he had said 100000000000 units stronger. Without a denominator the numerator just means nothing. It is just our stupid monkey brains that make us think “hubba hubba that sounds like a small number”.
Oh crap I posted the last comment without adding this: I really love counter-apologetics and I can tell that you all do too so I would highly recommend you guys check out wiki.ironchariots.org. It has pretty much every bat-shit Christian argument that you could ever come into contact with.
I find one of the most interesting points about Christians claiming they have objective moral standards and atheists only have subjective moral beliefs.
Their argument doesn’t solve the objective problem.
They don’t have objective moral standards. They have subjectively decided that the bible provides objective standards.