What the hell’s wrong with being confident? Expressing myself confidently doesn’t mean I think I’m 100% right about everything.

I agree, and that wasn’t what I meant. What irks me is when I see a blogger offer legitimately leaky responses to a particular idea, and commenters in the thread act as if said responses utterly demolished the idea in question. It’s a trend I see often, and I suppose it just goes to affirm my feelings that there are shallow-minded people of all stripe out there. For example, the people who show up to DaylightAtheism or AnswersInGenesis, and simply nod in backpatting agreement to everything their host says. Such is not intellectualism in my opinion. I saw this to a small degree in your thread. As for you, personally, you should write with confidence, as should myself and the next writer, but never smug arrogance (and I’m not implying you are smug or arrogant so don’t go there please).

As for the puddle analogy, you strengthened it somewhat, but something about it still fails for me. At best, it can deal with the ‘ontologically haunted’ part of Copan’s comment. If I ever articulate my problem with it any better, perhaps I’ll come back by this thread. And I understood it from the getgo, even if my words indicated otherwise. But let me ask you, would you say that we are just lucky to an astronomically improbable degree that violates current understandings of statistics and probability?

As for your fourth response, in the OP, you said, “Which makes us wonder why (God) didn’t make the world ‘good’.” The problem with this is that the Bible claims God did make the world good, so any believer who reads your statement here is liable to think you are ignorant about basic biblical concepts, and that won’t help you at all in persuading them - if that’s what you’re interested in, if not, then no big deal. But I just want you to know that from a believer’s perspective, your statement was akin to Ann Coulter speaking on science.

…it seems like the null hypothesis ought to be that nothing exists outside the universe…

But in the very act of saying that, you leave the NULL hypothesis. NULL means no value assigned.

But I’ll happily admit that I know very little of physics - this isn’t my area of expertise, so why am I expected to have any answers? Either way, when I said “no evidence for the latter”, I was actually again mostly talking about the christian god, as it’s a christian apologetic posing the question.

Okay, I’m here in good faith, but I gotta get a little fierce here if you don’t mind. Did they not teach the laws of conservation of mass and energy wherever you went to school? If you aren’t qualified to speak on this particular question, why raise your hand at all? Lastly, the two competing Big Bang theories have absolutely nothing to do with the Christian God. The concept of Koukl’s question was purely scientific, and I sense some conflating here.

We can’t know the “truth” about anything.

I disagree strongly, but I’m open to counter arguments. Perhaps this statement simply needs proper scope?

Do you really not see how natural selection would have favoured those individuals whose sense organs and nervous systems gave them information about their surroundings that actually correlates with reality rather than completely false ideas?

Of course I see how it would. Yet, when you said our senses were “somewhat” correlated with the real world, does that entail that our senses are “somewhat” reliable?

As far as your comments about Plantinga’s argument, perhaps I can’t get you to see that you’ve done the same thing that you called his argument “stupid” for. You default to naturalism because you perceive no evidence for theism. How is that different that Plantinga defaulting to theism because he sees no evidence for naturalism? Further, I still maintain that such was NOT Plantinga’s argument. His argument is not a proof-claim for theism. Rather, it asks you to justify how you can rely on your observations about the world and your conclusions about naturalism, and to me, this justification has not been provided.

Invoking god isn’t useful. It doesn’t further what we call knowledge in any way, it doesn’t bring me personally anything, and hence I don’t see why his argument should convince me. He’s trying to add something to the world that to me seems unnecessary - it doesn’t add explanatory power.

It seems we can agree that such is your opinion, and that’s good. To each their own, right? And I will agree that invoking God isn’t useful - in science. But is science the totality of life?

BTW - I really like the title of your blog - Life Before Death.

it also irks me how confident atheists seem to be in the responses

Ok, I’m sorry, but I never got this. What the hell’s wrong with being confident? Expressing myself confidently doesn’t mean I think I’m 100% right about everything. It just means I feel no need to pretend humility, which irks me far more than confidence does. If you don’t believe in what you’re saying, shut up. (Unless you’re purposely playing devil’s advocate or just airing half-formed thoughts of course. But if you’re talking about something you have a well-formed opinion on, don’t pretend it’s not.)

I read Greta’s responses, and I really wasn’t as impressed as you and other atheists seem to be.

I didn’t think Greta’s repsonse was better or worse than anyone else’s response. Mostly I was amused that our responses were so similar.

Now, I understand your reasoning behind it, and I agree with your overall conclusion - yes, if things were different (ground), then the universe would be different (puddle). However, I think the analogy is completely inadequate, especially in the context of Copan’s question, and using this analogy is liable to make believers think you just don’t have a valid response. I’m curious to know how the manner in which two pre-existing material substances fit together has absolutely any explanatory power pertinent to the overwhelming odds against life’s emergence? The odds that a puddle will perfectly fit a particular hole are always going to be 1:1. Do you really think it’s adequate to posit the puddle analogy as a valid answer to the fine-tuning argument?

Uhm, I think you’ve completely misunderstood the analogy. The universe is the ground, life is the puddle. Whatever the universe looks like, any form of life that shows up in it is going to feel the universe fits it perfectly. In fact, the puddle analogy is even better than this, as you can extend it - a puddle is small and only covers a tiny patch of ground, just like life in this universe can only exist in a microscopic part of it. Most of the universe is NOT suitable to our kind of life.

I agree that your second response to Copan is valid. However, you say: “Which makes us wonder why he didn’t make the world ‘good’.” But when you say that, it makes me wonder, what concept of God are you arguing against?

Since the question was posed by a christian apologist, we’re talking about the god of the bible. Also, the problem of theodicy is only a problem so long as you claim god is good. So I’m not really certain where you’re going with the question.

That there is a most good or moral best does not entail God.

That’s sort of our point, yes.

Perhaps my strongest disagreement, your comment to Greg Koukl totally missed the mark: “Because there is as yet no evidence for the former.” You say this as if there is evidence for the latter, when in context the latter violates known laws of nature!

Actually, I said it because for me, it seems like the null hypothesis ought to be that nothing exists outside the universe, and so long as there’s no compelling evidence to the contrary, that’s what I’ll “believe”. But I’ll happily admit that I know very little of physics - this isn’t my area of expertise, so why am I expected to have any answers? Either way, when I said “no evidence for the latter”, I was actually again mostly talking about the christian god, as it’s a christian apologetic posing the question.

IMO, you’ve misunderstood his statement, which is more a question than a proof-claim for theism: Given that our senses were selected for survival and not truth, how can you be sure that your ideas about naturalism are true? That wasn’t answered. The best you give is, “…what we experience is at least somewhat correlated with the ‘real world’.” So does that mean our beliefs are ’somewhat’ reliable?

I did answer, my answer was that we can’t. We can’t know the “truth” about anything. Why don’t you accept this as an answer to his question?

And I’m at a loss how to answer your other question. Do you really not see how natural selection would have favoured those individuals whose sense organs and nervous systems gave them information about their surroundings that actually correlates with reality rather than completely false ideas? (And I say “correlates” because much of what we experience only exists in our minds. For instance, colours don’t actually exist, but our experience of them correlates with certain frequencies of light.)

Also, you say Plantinga’s argument is stupid, but you do the exact same thing as Plantinga in reverse scope! You say you default to naturalism because we can’t prove theism. How is that any different than Plantinga’s argument?

I refer to occam’s razor and methodological naturalism. Invoking god isn’t useful. It doesn’t further what we call knowledge in any way, it doesn’t bring me personally anything, and hence I don’t see why his argument should convince me. He’s trying to add something to the world that to me seems unnecessary - it doesn’t add explanatory power. In my opinion, he has the burden of evidence. Until I see compelling reasons FOR believing that a given something exists, I’m going to default to believing it doesn’t.

Now, where we fully see eye-to-eye is in our willingness to live with unanswered questions. I sure do marvel at the awe and wonder of the natural world, and I sure do appreciate it and live in the present as much as possible, and I agree with you that especially for scientists and philosophers, unanswered questions make the world go around!

Here’s to unanswered questions!

Just so you know where I’m coming from, I don’t believe that a successful ontological argument exists. I don’t think God is a matter of debate in which one person can prove God to another, I don’t think I can convince you or anyone else that God exists, and I honestly don’t care to change your mind. I stroll the Aetheosphere only to see and comment on the reasoning atheists are presenting these days. Lately, I’ve been checking out different posts responding to Lee Strobel’s questions from FriendlyAtheist. Now, the questions themselves are just the same old washed-up arguments for the most part, but it also irks me how confident atheists seem to be in the responses. Even in your thread this pattern emerges. I read Greta’s responses, and I really wasn’t as impressed as you and other atheists seem to be. That’s a different story, and if you want my take on Greta’s post, it’s on my blog. Anyways…

The main reason I stopped to comment here was that like Greta, you also used the puddle analogy. Now, I understand your reasoning behind it, and I agree with your overall conclusion - yes, if things were different (ground), then the universe would be different (puddle). However, I think the analogy is completely inadequate, especially in the context of Copan’s question, and using this analogy is liable to make believers think you just don’t have a valid response. I’m curious to know how the manner in which two pre-existing material substances fit together has absolutely any explanatory power pertinent to the overwhelming odds against life’s emergence? The odds that a puddle will perfectly fit a particular hole are always going to be 1:1. Do you really think it’s adequate to posit the puddle analogy as a valid answer to the fine-tuning argument?

I agree that your second response to Copan is valid. However, you say: “Which makes us wonder why he didn’t make the world ‘good’.” But when you say that, it makes me wonder, what concept of God are you arguing against? The God of the Bible claims to have made the world good. You say we’re social animals and we define what is good or bad - I’ll grant that - yet, by very definition, isn’t there a most good or optimal way to live? I think even if you agree and say yes, Copan’s argument still fails. That there is a most good or moral best does not entail God.

Perhaps my strongest disagreement, your comment to Greg Koukl totally missed the mark: “Because there is as yet no evidence for the former.” You say this as if there is evidence for the latter, when in context the latter violates known laws of nature! And in fact, what emerging evidence we do have (Higgs Boson) supports the former much more than the latter. Lastly, belief in the former does not entail God. One can believe that matter came from outside the universe (as opposed to ex nihilo) and still be an intellectually fulfilled atheist.

As stated, Plantinga is not saying that because we can’t prove naturalism, we should default to theism. IMO, you’ve misunderstood his statement, which is more a question than a proof-claim for theism: Given that our senses were selected for survival and not truth, how can you be sure that your ideas about naturalism are true? That wasn’t answered. The best you give is, “…what we experience is at least somewhat correlated with the ‘real world’.” So does that mean our beliefs are ’somewhat’ reliable? Also, you say Plantinga’s argument is stupid, but you do the exact same thing as Plantinga in reverse scope! You say you default to naturalism because we can’t prove theism. How is that any different than Plantinga’s argument?

Now, where we fully see eye-to-eye is in our willingness to live with unanswered questions. I sure do marvel at the awe and wonder of the natural world, and I sure do appreciate it and live in the present as much as possible, and I agree with you that especially for scientists and philosophers, unanswered questions make the world go around!

One thing that irked me about the latest post is that some atheists have taken Licona’s bait about “doubting atheism.” Atheism isn’t something to “believe in.” It, itself, is doubt through and through. Thus, I don’t see how it’s possible to “doubt atheism.” Now, it might be possible to doubt the evidence and reason that led one to become an atheist; but what Licona is trying to do, again, is foster the notion that atheism is a belief system, based on faith, and thus not superior rationally to religion.