I come back from a few days away for New Year and find that, as usual, the blog has been well trolled by Mr Carr. Oh well, at least he has yet to say anything worth replying to and continues to make atheism look bad. The point about my alleged lack of compassion may or may not have come from Carr and is a typical example of nasty point scoring. I would only reply that I am indeed not the sort of person who never puts his heart on his sleeve. On the other hand, my final paragraph urged giving money as well as prayer and I stand by that.
Moebelwagon is way ahead of me as I was unaware that there were any other planets known to support [b]intelligent life[/b] (without which the concept of evil is meaningless). If we do find them, I'll bet my bottom dollar that they will have molten cores that produce a magnetic field to deflect cosmic rays as well. Moebelwagon also appears to believe the fact that the laws of physics are fine tuned to produce intelligent life is just chance. This may be the case but the odds seem to me to be astronomically against and I just don't have the kind of faith necessary to cling to the random-chance hypothesis.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
Welcome to Quodlibeta
The Latin word Quodlibeta means "whatever you like" and refers to the special occasions at medieval universities when the students (or clerks as they were known) could test their masters by asking any question they fancied. This blog is primarily concerned with religion, science, history and their interface. But like the medieval clerks, we reserve the right to post on anything we want.
Meet the Clerks
James Hannam
I am a historian of the relationship between science and religion, and also write on the UK tax system. My first book was published as God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science in the UK and The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution in the US. My apologetics website is Bede's Library. I am also the author What Everyone Needs to Know about Tax and write about tax at my other blog. I can be found on Twitter as @DrJamesHannam.
Humphrey Clarke
I am a historian of a very middling and amateurish sort. Having taken a Masters in Modern History at the University of St Andrews (2004), I completed a law conversion course at Nottingham Law School and embarked upon what has been an exciting career in legal technology. My chief interests are in Twentieth Century History, Colonial America, Historiography and, most recently, the History of Science. I also write a satirical blog at The Diary of Humphrey Clarke. I hope my contributions to Quodlibeta capture something of the pleasure I get from trawling my dusty collection of second hand history books.
Jim S
I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy and Master's degrees in Philosophy and Theology. I'm a generalist, my areas of expertise being epistemology, logic, philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion, and science and religion. I did my philosophical studies in Continental Europe, and currently reside in the Pacific Northwest. I also write the Agent Intellect blog. In my mid-20s I decided to refute Christianity to set my conscience at ease. Two subjects I turned to in particular were science and philosophy. I accidentally argued myself into it.
I am a historian of the relationship between science and religion, and also write on the UK tax system. My first book was published as God's Philosophers: How the Medieval World Laid the Foundations of Modern Science in the UK and The Genesis of Science: How the Christian Middle Ages Launched the Scientific Revolution in the US. My apologetics website is Bede's Library. I am also the author What Everyone Needs to Know about Tax and write about tax at my other blog. I can be found on Twitter as @DrJamesHannam.
Humphrey Clarke
I am a historian of a very middling and amateurish sort. Having taken a Masters in Modern History at the University of St Andrews (2004), I completed a law conversion course at Nottingham Law School and embarked upon what has been an exciting career in legal technology. My chief interests are in Twentieth Century History, Colonial America, Historiography and, most recently, the History of Science. I also write a satirical blog at The Diary of Humphrey Clarke. I hope my contributions to Quodlibeta capture something of the pleasure I get from trawling my dusty collection of second hand history books.
Jim S
I have a Ph.D. in Philosophy and Master's degrees in Philosophy and Theology. I'm a generalist, my areas of expertise being epistemology, logic, philosophy of mind, philosophy of religion, and science and religion. I did my philosophical studies in Continental Europe, and currently reside in the Pacific Northwest. I also write the Agent Intellect blog. In my mid-20s I decided to refute Christianity to set my conscience at ease. Two subjects I turned to in particular were science and philosophy. I accidentally argued myself into it.
2 comments:
Just a quick point, might be wrong but I do not feel that I am. If I do recall my astronomy class back in college earth and venus formed at approximately the same time.
Of course if I am wrong I would be open to correction on that point.
Thus I think it is wrong for Moebelwagon to argue that earth is simply in an evolutionary progress, that will eventually resemble venus, seeing they are the same age. Venus clearly has always lacked plate tectonics and Earth has always had it. So it seems the evolutionary argument will not work against the fine tuning argument.
I think about this analogy when I think of the fine tuning argument. Imagine if somehow man clearly landed on the sun using 21st century technology, which is patently impossible. That is the odds of the universe being as it is, a life suporting one.
Now Imagine a skeptic coming around who wanted to argue that wasn't impossible, cause he says man using 21st century technology landing on a sun in a distant galaxy would be truly impossible. Thats how I feel about rebuttals to the fine tuning argument. They simply try to replace one impossible event with another. They do not explain the first impossible event, they just offer one that is so to speak even more impossible.
Of course,the fine-tuning argument claims God is not omnipotent - that he is limited by the physically possible, that he cannot create any universe that he wants to create, but can only create a limited number of universes.
This is a refutation of the Christian god, who could create a universe where people could land on the sun if he wanted such a universe.
Post a Comment