Category Philosophy of Religion

Problems with the Fine-Tuning Argument

Here are some notes I made some time ago, based on various sources, some of which are linked below. Richard Carrier’s book “Sense and Goodness Without God: A Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism” provided an excellent backbone to the first set of points.

The methodological and other problems:

God Cannot Be Perfect Because Perfect Does Not Make Sense

I am reposting this article as it is relevant to a recent post on Justin Schieber’s non-God objects argument:

So in a recent post I was talking about how God, prior to creation (at least according to classical interpretations of God based on the Ontological Argument), had ontological perfection. That is to say, he was in a perfect state of being (since this is built into the definition of God). The argument followed that, in creating the world, God would be either lacking something and thus having a need, which is incoherent with ontological perfection, or he was downgrading his perfect state in the process of creating this world.

Oh, my! Randal Rauser on prayer (God or Godless)

I recently reviewed Randal Rauser and John Loftus’ debate book entitled God or Godless. I have also responded to Randal’s post on why I am an atheist as well as posting an article critiquing Randal on why he is a Christian. During my review, I noted that I was particularly frustrated at Randal’s prayer chapter.

4 counter-apologetics segments available on podcast!

So sorry to Skepticule podcast for being behind on plugging the podcast! I, as you may well know, contribute to the Skepticule podcast by recording a counter-apologetics segment for them, Pearced Off. My segment is always followed by an interesting discussion of ideas brought up by the ‘panel’ of Pauls.

The ‘Why I am a Christian’ series – Vincent Torley of Uncommon Descent (Part 2)

After having looked at Randal Rauser’s reasons for being a Christian, and having had my reasons and his defences intensely debated on his blog, I have in a previous post offered Dr Vincent Torley’s account. Some readers may know Vincent from the Uncommon Descent website which attempts to refute evolution. I have argued with him at length when I used to write for John Loftus more often at Debunking Christianity. Here is his bio:

The ‘Why I am a Christian’ series – Vincent Torley of Uncommon Descent (Part 1)

After having looked at Randal Rauser’s reasons for being a Christian, and having had my reasons and his defences intensely debated on his blog, I would like to offer Dr Vincent Torley’s account. Some readers may know Vincent from the Uncommon Descent website which attempts to refute evolution. I have argued with him at length when I used to write for John Loftus more often at Debunking Christianity. Here is his bio:

Robert Ingersoll

I recently heard Susan Jacoby wax lyrical about Ingersoll on the Reasonable Doubts podcast and I must confess, I know very little about him. I feel, though, that I should as he appears to have been an iconoclast in his time.

I was recently sent a message by Julian Haydon alerting me to this link (thanks also to Haydon for letting me know he thought my free will book was the best that he’d ever read!):

Randal Rauser on failing to answer my problem of evil question

So I was graciously asked by Randal Rauser on his blog recently to provide a synopsis of a few paragraphs to run in his series “Why I am an atheist” (or not a Christian. The series has been interesting and has elicited testimonies from Justin Schieber, Counter Apologist, Jeff Lowder, Ed Babinski and others.

I have since asked Randal to return the favour and he gladly accepted, furnishing me with a much more lengthy expression of the reasons for his Christian belief. But before I create a post on that (probably tomorrow) I thought I would analyse a little what he said about my testimony. Here is what I provided:

Quote of the Day – Russ on Rauser

Russ chimed in on my Why I Am An Atheist post, in response to Randal Rauser’s request for a paragraph or two on my reasons for my worldview.

Johno, does Rauser think he is going to refute all the “Why I Am An Atheist(or not a Christian)” paragraphs that you and the others wrote?
If he thinks he can do that why does he not just produce evidence which supports his claim that his god exists while it also refutes other’s claims, ancient or contemporary, that their god exists?

Why I am an Atheist

Randal Rauser, with whom I have had a radio debate about the Nativity, is running a series on his blog asking atheists why they are atheist (or not Christian). He has asked several atheist bloggers and authors, including myself, to produce a paragraph. Justin Schieber, Counter Apologist and Ed Babinski did a little more than that, so I added a tiny bit extra to mine, but it still remained more concise than theirs! See what you think – it is hard to be super concise:

A reply to Rauser on Loftus, God or Godless?, and evidence for God (pt 1)

The other day, I posted my first take on John Loftus’ and Randal Rauser’s debate book God Or Godless? recently. Randal Rauser has now posted two responses to the post:

Part 1

and

Part 2

In this return fire, I will be inter-paragraphically (that might be a new word) commenting on his claims and views. Thanks to Randal for engaging in this debate. For those who don’t know, we have some history in debating the Nativity on radio. Please comment below on what you think.

Is this the Best Possible World and does God have Free Will?

I wrote this some time ago at Debunking Christianity

Let us assume the triple properties of the classical approach to God: that he is omniscient, omnipotent and omnibenevolent. In terms of the classic Problem of Evil argument, if there is too much evil in the world, God knows what to do about it, is powerful enough to do it, and is loving enough to want to do something about it.