Atheism analyzed is a site I dislike. His political views suck and he uses them more than he analyses atheism. A friend, JPspfn, alerted me to an exchange where an atheist claims to have read my God arguments and argues against them. Rather he dismisses them without really understanding them.
Martyn Cornell said...
JBsptfn: I've read all those arguments before, thanks. They all boil down to: "We can't think of another answer so it must be god." And many actually have two possible answers. Apparent fine tuning? Could be god - but could be the multiverse. Overall - not good enough. And exactly the same failing applies to the attempt to answer the "no proof" attack: "I can't think of another explanation for my mystical feelings, so it must be god." Again, not good enough. Incidentally, that page is in shocking need of a good copy editor: it's almost unreadable, the typos are so bad.
They get onto Fine Tuning and multiverse It's 200 and something comments, mine is qt the bottom but zi domnt actually expect anyone to read them, just for docs:
April 29, 2016 at 6:59 PM 
Martyn Cornell said...
“There is precisely NO evidence for a multiverse”
But nor is there any evidence that an immaterial being can call into effect, and affect, our material world: only your assertion that it must be so, because you can’t think of any other explanation. I fail to find evidence-free assertion convincing.
There appear to be three choices: the start of the material world was caused by an immaterial being; the start of the material world had no cause; or there was, in fact, no start. You seem to be rejecting that last one because it’s unprovable: but plenty of unprovable things are still true. I’m not saying the infinite multiverse IS true: but it certainly seems more parsimonious as an explanation than the idea of an immaterial being that can affect the material. April 29, 2016 at 8:57 PM
Martyn Cornell said...
Oh, and by the way: "Kimura proved that the only mutations to be passed along are deleterious, not beneficial." - no he didn't. April 29, 2016 at 8:59 PM
Joe Hinman said...
Martyn Cornell said...
“There is precisely NO evidence for a multiverse”
But nor is there any evidence that an immaterial being can call into effect, and affect, our material world: only your assertion that it must be so, because you can’t think of any other explanation. I fail to find evidence-free assertion convincing.
do you even know how to read? if you read my arguments as you claim to have. You probably just read the first line. Had you read my FT argument you would know that I have 26 reasons why Multiverse does not beat FT. April 29, 2016 at 10:17 PM
Joe Hinman said...
There appear to be three choices: the start of the material world was caused by an immaterial being; the start of the material world had no cause; or there was, in fact, no start.
Have you actually read anything about this topic? First you have no reason to suppose an immaterial from of being could not exist or create. Secondly being material or immaterial has nothing to do with it. Although it does seem all matter is cotangent so that's a reason to think the origin o all can't be material. Thirdly,
the start of the material world had no cause;
all material things have causes so attributing the universe to no cause is foolish,
or there was, in fact, no start.
science says there was. it's called the big bang,.
Martyn Cornell said...
They get onto Fine Tuning and multiverse
But nor is there any evidence that an immaterial being can call into effect, and affect, our material world: only your assertion that it must be so, because you can’t think of any other explanation. I fail to find evidence-free assertion convincing.
There appear to be three choices: the start of the material world was caused by an immaterial being; the start of the material world had no cause; or there was, in fact, no start. You seem to be rejecting that last one because it’s unprovable: but plenty of unprovable things are still true. I’m not saying the infinite multiverse IS true: but it certainly seems more parsimonious as an explanation than the idea of an immaterial being that can affect the material.
“There is precisely NO evidence for a multiverse”
But nor is there any evidence that an immaterial being can call into effect, and affect, our material world: only your assertion that it must be so, because you can’t think of any other explanation. I fail to find evidence-free assertion convincing.
do you even know how to read? if you read my arguments as you claim to have. You probably just read the first line. Had you read my FT argument you would know that I have 26 reasons why Multiverse does not beat FT.
Have you actually read anything about this topic? First you have no reason to suppose an immaterial from of being could not exist or create. Secondly being material or immaterial has nothing to do with it. Although it does seem all matter is cotangent so that's a reason to think the origin o all can't be material. Thirdly,
the start of the material world had no cause;
all material things have causes so attributing the universe to no cause is foolish,
or there was, in fact, no start.
science says there was. it's called the big bang,.
http://atheism-analyzed.