More Arguments Against Christian Theism

Richard Carrier Tries To Defeat The Argument From 'Knowability' and 'Beauty'

12/28/2012

Here is the argument that Carrier tries to defeat in a debate with Wanchick:
Knowability and Discoverability

Additionally, many things within the universe indicate a God-like designer. Scholars have documented that our universe is not only fine-tuned for sentient life, but also for scientific discovery and knowability.[13] The universe is structured in just the right way to allow the study of natural laws and phenomena, greatly adding to our scientific knowledge. Such features make sense if God wants us to discover and enjoy creation; but why would these features exist on naturalism?

Beauty

Collins notes that "beauty is widely recognized by physicists as being an important characteristic of the laws of nature, one which has served as a highly selective guide to discovering the fundamental laws of nature in the twentieth century."[14] Moreover, the laws of nature (and many things in nature) exhibit simplicity, harmony, and elegance. It wouldn't be surprising for a creator to make such a universe, but, again, why would this be so if naturalism is true?

Here is what Carrier says:

What Does The Cognitive Science of Religion Have To Teach Us About The Probability of Theism: The Genetic Fallacy Part II (An Argument by Keith Parsons)

12/19/2012

ARGUMENT:

parsons.docx
File Size:	12 kb
File Type:	docx

RESPONSE TO PREMISE 2 of PARSONS' ARGUMENT:
Premise 2 ignores contextualism in epistemology in two important respects:

premise_2.docx
File Size:	13 kb
File Type:	docx

http://www.academia.edu/4059750/The_Problem_of_Contingency_for_Religious_Belief

FIVE ARTICLES THAT CONTAIN THE MATERIAL TO UNDERCUT THIS ARGUMENT:

God is Perfect, So We Should See Perfect Property 'x'

12/13/2012

Objection: http://www.3quarksdaily.com/3quarksdaily/2012/07/the-argument-from-ugliness.html
RESPONSE: All one would have to do is use a different (and better) argumentative structure than an argument from analogy such as a deductive, IBE, or Bayesian argument. Attached is a Socratic method type of response as well:

perfect_god_perfect_proeprty_x.docx
File Size:	12 kb
File Type:	docx

Is the Case For Christianity Truly Cumulative? Tim McGrew Responds

12/6/2012

cumulative_case.docx
File Size:	22 kb
File Type:	docx

Is Theism Explanatorily Bankrupt? A Brief Exchange About Gregory Dawes' Book Theism and Explanation

12/6/2012

The first attachment contains a summary of Dawe's entire book with my responses in red, green, and blue to his entire book:

theism_and_explanation_entire.docx
File Size:	78 kb
File Type:	docx

theism_and_explanation.docx
File Size:	14 kb
File Type:	docx

God would not have chosen to remain silent about our role in carrying out his purpose because this would be self-defeating?

12/4/2012

Objection: GOD’S SILENCE AS AN EPISTEMOLOGICAL CONCERN
by BROOKE ALAN TRISEL

gods_silence_about_our_purpose.pdf
File Size:	166 kb
File Type:	pdf

SUMMARY RESPONSE:

doth_we_haveth_a_role.docx
File Size:	17 kb
File Type:	docx

RESOURCES FOR AN IN-DEPTH RESPONSE: Robin Collins' Connection Building Theodicy As A Defeater (Collins' doesn't say that his theodicy undercuts this argument, I am implying it does though):

If Determinism is true, then Christianity is false?

10/30/2012

There are two main reasons Christians get nervous when determinism is brought up: 1) We wouldn't be morally responsible and hence no need for a savior; 2) God could make everybody 'freely' believe and do what is right so the problem of evil and the lack of Christian belief shows that God doesn't exist. This might be true on some kind of 'naive' determinism, but not state of the art determinism. The following article does a great job of showing what I am referring to:

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/compatibilism/supplement.html

See my other post about why it was metaphysically impossible (for all we know) for God to create creatures with contra-causal free will under: It is less surprising on naturalism then on theism that our
minds are dependent, or identical to our brains since on theism God's mind is
non-physical, and on naturalism, our minds could only be one way, the way they
in fact are.

Hume's Stopper-Natural Theology Doesn't Demonstrate The Existence Of The Omni-God

10/8/2012

OBJECTION: http://www.provingthenegative.com/2012/10/the-gap.html

RESPONSE 1:

anselmian.pdf
File Size:	120 kb
File Type:	pdf

RESPONSE 2: I prefer to call this objection Hume's Stopper since he came up with this idea before we did. The way I understand this objection is that if we grant any 'single' argument from the project of natural theology as sound (valid+true premises) then none of the 'Big 5' attributes of 'God' (personal, singular, omnipotent, omniscient, morally perfect) can be arrived at through the use of 'reason.' I think there are a number of considerations that need to be mentioned here:
1) Since we value the truth, we should pursue that the best we can and if any or all of the arguments from natural theology are sound, but they only allow us to rational conclude that a supernatural being with properties x,y,z exist then that is what we should believe even if this forces us to give up strong atheism or perfect being theism.

The Presumption of Atheism

3/16/2012

presumption_of_atheism.docx
File Size:	13 kb
File Type:	docx

If God Created Biological Organisms (either via natural and/or supernatural means) Then What About 'Poor Designs?'

3/2/2012

1) As Usual, Wikipedia does a good job of framing the argument, and giving the pros and cons:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_poor_design

2) (Taken from WLC's debate with Massimo):

Argument from Imperfections

...He says the universe is not perfect. For example, squids have better eyes than human beings. I don't think that this argument in any way disproves God's existence. Let me mention three reasons. First, that objection assumes a static theory of creation--that God created each individual creature, which never changes. But even creationists typically hold to a dynamic theory of creation which allows micro-evolutionary change within certain types, so that God could create a certain primal type of being and then there would be micro-evolutionary change within that type, and you might look at these sorts of imperfections (as he calls them) as by-products of micro-evolutionary pressures which gradually emerge.

Secondly, the objection presumes to know what God would do if He were to design something, that we know that God would create the eye in a certain way if He existed or He would create the digestive system in this way if He existed. And I personally think that's simply presumptuous. We have no idea how to speculate about what God would create if He were to exist. Maybe it's not important to God that we be able to have eyes to see in exactly a certain way, maybe there are other off-setting reasons why God permits systems designed in this way to exist. In other words, the argument is enormously presumptuous in thinking that we know what God would create if He were to exist.