Yours truly is a bit tired. I went hiking today with friends and now am quite sleepy and tired but we wouldn’t leave you without something to keep your minds fully engaged.
You have already met Wintery Knight. He will for the time being be the site’s apologist until we can find a replacement for him, which will not take long.
I want to point out just a few issues and let you spot the rest.
The question being debated is: does a God who created and designed the universe, who has all the traditional properties of God, such as omniscience, omnipotence, omni-benevolence, etc. exist? That is the question being debated in a “Does God Exist?” debate.
This question, as you might as well know, assumes too much. It’s an extravagant an question. The claimant must necessarily tell us what god is coherently. It also must be demonstrated how they come to the conclusion that the universe was designed. To say that we are not talk about the god of a particular religion makes this debate appear to me to be like punching foam. The definition of god in such a system is so nebulous you try to get a definition, your opponent can say anything and it passes.
This line of argument
- the fine-tuning of the physical constants to support the minimum requirements for life of any kind
is descriptive of a person who fears to think. Life is fine tuned for the universe. It is not the universe that is fine tuned. I think for one to talk of a fine tuned universe, the theist has in the minimum to describe a universe he has observed that isn’t as it is. One must also remember that the physical constants are our idea of understanding the world. It is how we see the world around us and they couldn’t have been as they are or we would have a different universe.
We have had the discussion on morality and we consider that anyone who keeps on writing
- objective, prescriptive moral rules need to be grounded by the designer of the universe
is evidently a person not worth responding to. The theist must here too show that what these objective moral values are and that we couldn’t have arrived at them over the long period of our evolution.
The argument that
- free will, which is required for moral responsibility and moral choices, requires a non-material mind/soul
ignores the question of how are our choices free.