As you all know, I am thoroughly fair and balanced. Much like Fox News. Yet somehow, despite this obvious fact about my fairy-balanciness, some have had the galldacity to accuse me of being a blatant partisan by only challenging theists with my last series of questions. I have quite lit'rally been flooded with e-mails and comments about this. I'm told by my people in Silly Cone Valley that the internets ground to a halt for several days last week, due to the weight of people commenting on what has been dubbed Thronger-gate.
Can you believe this scheisse? Of all the dirty, underhanded, no good, rotten pieces of...
Now that I've composed myself, I shall commence to shock the world by acceding to my
In the End Times (no, not the end of the world; the End Times refers to something far more monumental: namely, the day I finish this project), I will either be some sort of theist, or a much stronger atheist. Either way, I will be invincible to all challenges, questions, and counter-arguments. (Hope I'm not setting the bar too high.) For now, I meekly ask that you engage in a bit of intellectual Mortal Kombat down there in The Pit of Comments and Wailing...and Doom.
And now, fellow atheists, I challenge thee!
1. How do you deal with the Kalam Cosmological Argument for the existence of God? Here's the argument: Everything that begins to exist has a cause. The universe began to exist. Therefore, the universe had a cause, which (for reasons that are fleshed out in more detail) must be God. Many atheists confuse this more sophisticated argument with earlier (and easier to dismiss) versions of the argument. Please keep in mind which version of the cosmological argument we're discussing. This is the version I have in mind. Also, we atheists often criticize theists for "God of the gaps" theology. Can we deal with the Kalam without engaging in "Naturalism of the gaps" atheology?
2. How do you respond to the Fine-Tuning Argument for the existence of God? It is difficult to state this argument briefly, but I'll try: There are a number of physical constants that must be arranged in a certain way in order for life to arise in the universe. Many different combinations of physical constants are conceivable, but if you make even slight changes to the constants as they appear in our universe, life is unsupportable. In fact, some changes result in no universe at all! The best explanation for the "fine-tuning" of these physical constants is that some incredibly powerful, incredibly intelligent being created the universe with human beings in mind. (I wonder who could do such a thing.) Again, there are simple versions of this argument which are rather easy to dismiss. However, listen to Luke Barnes as he dismantles common objections to the Fine-Tuning Argument, without even breaking a sweat! Better yet, read what he has to say about things at his blog. You think you can take Luke Barnes? What, do you have a death wish?
Okay, so let's compare. I posed ten challenging questions to theists and two challenging questions to atheists. Yep, that sounds about right. By the inestimable standards of Fox News, I'm not only totally fair but also completely balanced. That ought to put a stop to the banshees screeching and caterwauling at me.
This has been entirely too legit.
R to tha Ezzle, V to tha Pizzle-Muff
Why do we need to deal with Kalam? Can't we just say "we don't know yet what the ultimate cause was/is"?
ReplyDeleteIf anyone else wants to posit a cause then it's up to them to bring on some pretty convincing proof.
(I don't know how to "choose a profile" so I'll post as anonymous but it's me, your favorite South African!)
As far as the fine tuning argument, it's a happy coincidence that we are the ones who can survive in the universe as it is. If the constants were not as they are, we would not know about it b/c we wouldn't be here.
ReplyDeleteIt's possible that life would come to exist in a way that is unfathomable to us with other constants.
I'll take a quick stab at them.
ReplyDelete1.) I need to read on it more, but I agree with the comment above. The argument, at least in my mind, is mostly academic and borders on being a false dilemma in that it assumes a cause must exist. As far as "Naturalism of the Gaps"... I don't really see how that is a thing, let alone a negative thing, as it merely follows from what already is.
2.) It's been a while since I've watched his videos and read his blogs, but if I remember correctly there were some fundamental issues with Luke's arguments on Fine Tuning. For one, the entire thing is based on the premise of the universe being a one-shot deal. In one video I saw, he derided the idea of a multiverse. Then there are the fundamentally flawed analogies and examples he gives. For instance, the one concerning the firing squad missing the target and thus making it intentional. That is predicated on prior knowledge of what a firing squad is and knowing that they are almost always accurate. In another explanation he jokes about the possibility of silicon life-forms and how they would be breathing sand. At first I thought he had to be kidding. First of all, in another universe with a different configuration of matter, would there even be silicon? If so, couldn't it posses different properties and possibly support life? Or at the very least it makes his comment about sand completely pointless. If there was silicon as we know it, then that would mean we are talking about our universe (or a universe with the same configuration as ours), which does support life, and the conversation would instead be about a real question of biology related to the possibility of non-carbon based life forms. Anyways, he makes some good points at time. However he often comes across as completely biased.
I forgot to add my thoughts on Fine Tuning in general. It seems to me that there would be an inverse relationship to a hypothetical creator's constraints to a finite set of parameters and their omnipotence. While a strong Fine Tuning argument could advance the case for a watchmaker god, in doing so would weaken the case for Christianity's god.
ReplyDeleteHello, my favorite Anonymous South African person! You seem so familiar to me, but your voice is throwing me off. Or perhaps you just look different on the blog.
ReplyDeleteI'm inclined to agree with you on the Kalam. As of right now, I think it may be guilty of the argument from ignorance fallacy. However, actually picking the premises apart and showing what is wrong with them...I find that to be quite difficult, especially when WLC seems to have an argument against every objection I can come up with.
Still, again, I'm with you. I think we simply need to wait until we have better information and hard data (or at least the best data we can get) regarding the origin of the universe before we make the leap to supernatural explanations.
Anonymously yours,
Revvy-pooh
Hello again C...I mean, Anonymous South African person! What a pleasure and a delight and an honor to speak with you again!
ReplyDeleteRegarding the Fine-Tuning argument, Luke Barnes deals with this in the interview that I link to. He gives it very short shrift, noting that if it's true that the fine-tuning is just a coincidence, then the universe is much more boring than we thought it was. Also, he paraphrases Miss Marple, saying every coincidence is worth noting. If indeed it does turn out to be just a coincidence, then we can throw it away. But let's at least explore all our other options first.
I wasn't nearly as taken with this response having listened to it again. I think his reply was a bit vague and he didn't take the possibility seriously.
That said, I agree that we should investigate various possible explanations for the so-called fine-tuning of the universe. However, I think we need to exhaust all naturalistic explanations before (as with the Kalam) making the leap to the supernatural.
I'm in the process of listening to the interview again. He may say more about this later. If so, I'll chime in again and drop some more knowledge.
Till then, Cheerio my sweet!
-Pudgemonster
Hey Adam,
ReplyDeleteMan, I hate to agree with people so much, but I'm with you on the "naturalism of the gaps" critique. As Richard Carrier has pointed out, over the course of human history, we've seen naturalistic explanations overturn supernatural explanations every time. As an analogy, he says (I'm paraphrasing) imagine two racehorses. One has won every one of his million races. The other has lost every one of his million races. It's possible that the second horse is going to beat the first horse in the race this Sunday, but who are you actually going to bet on? Which is most likely to win? (Oh, and just for the record, I find horse-racing to be vile and cruel. I'm just paraphrasing someone else and am too lazy to invent my own analogy.)
So, I think theists who accuse atheists of using "naturalism of the gaps" are missing the mark. There's a difference between invoking the supernatural when we don't know the answer to a particular question and positing that the solution to some quandary is more likely to be naturalistic (given the history of such issues) than to be the result of supernatural agency.
That said, I'm still not 100% clear on Barnes' theological disposition. He seems to support theists and discredit atheists, but I haven't heard him come out and say what he does/doesn't believe. So he may not be making a leap to the supernatural to explain fine-tuning. And if he believes in God, he may have a naturalistic understanding of God.
Thanks again Adam! Take care!
-Everyone's Favorite Reverend
Clarification: Toward the end of the interview, Barnes appears to make it pretty clear that he is indeed some sort of theist. This is probably pretty obvious to everyone else. Please keep in mind, I'm a bit slow. And thick-headed. And really ugly.
ReplyDeleteHello again Adam!
ReplyDeleteThanks for your comments. I'm afraid I don't understand some of your points, mostly due to my own ignorance. Perhaps you can clarify.
For example, while I agree that the Fine-Tuning Argument makes the case for a more generic sort of God, I don't see how that necessarily weakens the case for Christianity. Also, as WLC has pointed out, it would be a very strange version of atheism that accepts even a generic watch-maker God. (Not that you're agreeing to that.) At any rate, can you flesh out your statements about the FTA a bit more?
Secondly, regarding your thoughts on Barnes...Again, I may be misunderstanding something, but it appears to me that all analogies require accepting some shared/agreed background a priori assumptions or accumulated knowledge and understanding. Otherwise, no analogy could ever get off the ground. So, while I might think Barnes' analogy is flawed, I don't think we can criticize him in this way.
That said, again, I may have misunderstood you. Please correct me and clarify if this is the case. Might need to dumb it way down for me!
Much appreciated!
-RPM