Wow, this comment really opened my eyes.
One can only hope.
I mean, this is powerful stuff. I mean, we are all atheists towards Thor, right? Some people are just enlightened enough to take it one step further.
I’m sure you mean to be sarcastic, but ‘many a true word spoken in jest’ as the saying goes.
And we all know Darwin has already explained how the entire universe can function without any need for a creator.
Darwinism explains the development and diversification of life. For the rest of that you want physics, not biology. As to the universe, yes, it seems to carry on just fine with no need for – or evidence of – a creator.
This’ll be good.
the Kalaam Cosmological Argument,
The cosmological argument, as regular readers will know, is that every effect needs a cause. It argues that the cause of all it god. Obviously, this runs into issues as if you’re arguing everything needs a cause, then that also applies to god. If you make an exception for god, then it’s no longer a universal rule and you’re just engaging in special pleading. If god doesn’t need a creator, then why can’t the universe do without either? Kalaam doesn’t solve the paradox, it just makes explicit the special pleading for god.
Is the ‘argument from design’. This was most strongly supported by life, but Darwin demolished that utterly. The universe is a chaotic place that is in a state of temporary, localised equilibrium. If ‘design’ is going to be your argument, you need evidence.
First Cause / Unmoved Mover, the impossibility of infinite causal regress, the necessity of at least one unconditioned reality,
These are the cosmological argument again.
the Argument from Reason,
Just flatly doesn’t make sense on its face. The brain is an evolved organ, correct answers and products of reason have survival utility. It’s false to describe neural activity as ‘random’, an attempt to dismiss it and to argue for an unevidenced ‘specialness’ to the quality of being able to think.
Fine Tuning of Universal Constants,
They’re not. There’s ‘wiggle room’ in the constants and if things were different, they’d be different. This is the ‘puddle argument’, as Douglas Adams put it.
irreducible biological complexity,
There are no examples.
the argument from morality,
Morality is subjective, any relative universality can be explained via evolutionary psychology.
Plantina’s modal ontological argument,
The ontological argument fails yet again, as becomes rapidly apparent if you just change what it’s talking about:
- My perfect sandwich has maximal deliciousness in a given possible world W if and only if it is entirely delicious in W; and
- My perfect sandwich has maximal deliciousness if it has maximal deliciousness in every possible world.
- It is possible that there is a sandwich that has maximal deliciousness, to me. (Premise)
- Therefore, possibly, it is necessarily true that entirely delicious sandwich, to me, exists.
- Therefore, (by axiom S5) it is necessarily true that an entirely delicious sandwich, to me exists.
- Therefore, an entirely delicious perfectly good sandwich exists.
For it to be perfect, it would have to be here for me to eat it. It isn’t. It turns out that making spurious arguments about possibilities doesn’t make them true.
the free will defense to the problem of evil.
Leaves god evil via inaction and doesn’t solve the problem.
…Your entire world view lies shattered at your feet. If you truly honor the gods of reason and critical thinking half as much as you claim, you would plant your face firmly into your hand, step away from the device, find a quiet place, and rethink your life. Otherwise, thanks for this steaming nugget of regurgitated, pseudo-intellectual blather, you Hitchens-Dawkins parroting, basement dwelling, faux-analytical, GNU-Reditt obsessed asshat.
And ending on an ad hom.
You’ve got nothing, as usual.