@z10
It's a bit of both, but more than that still.
Kalam isn't all bad as it refutes the 'steady state' universe (though it doesn't nearly demonstrate all that Craig intends it to) and the fine tuning argument is not entirely useless, as it makes more plausible the notion of 'design,' and thus is evidence against atheism. The arguments do have major flaws though, they're not irrefutable by any means.
And Dawkins likes to make it seem as though the theism-atheism debate is entirely one-sided: stupid, misguided religionists believing iron-age nonsense on the one hand and enlightened and rational, scientifically-minded types bearing the banner of the advancement of the human race on the other.
I'd like Dawkins to debate Craig so he can get taken down a few pegs, but also so all his fanboys can see that things aren't nearly as simple as they like to believe. If atheism is given a philosophical kicking with rational and scientific arguments, then the atheists may think twice about bleating out the same old waffle about how rationality and empirical evidence is their exclusive domain.
As far as I'm concerned, modern atheists, materialists, Scientists, etc., can be every bit as arrogant and dogmatic, yet simultaneously misguided, as those religionists they claim to so vehemently oppose and contradict. They have to learn that they likewise don't have The Truth.
I'd probably agree with a lot of this as well - and yeah that dude getting kicked of that forum is a total nonsense.
I totally reject religion in all its shapes and forms these days but I can't totally discount the notion that a 'god' may exist (hence call myself an agnostic). The nature of this 'god' might also not be like anything that's ever been thought of by the human mind. If this 'god' does exist the most we could say is that it's probably concious and probably intelligent - but that's all, at least for now.
When I think about 'god' these days, the strongest argument for the beleif that 'god' does not exist (what I refer to as classical atheism - it gets a bit confusing these days), is a phiosophical one rather than a scientific one i.e. there's a lot of crazy fucked up shit that happens on this planet and the fact that no higher power appears to intervene to stop it probably means that such a higher power doesn't exist in the first place. But this of course would make the assumption that such a higher power would give a toss about us in the first palce - an assumption we have no right/reason to make. Therefore this argument is not a good one.
If I'm being totally honest, the more I learn about science, the more I learn about physics, the more in awe I become - and at times it becomes very difficult to believe that there is no designer behind these things. But I still know that there might be yet undiscovered scientific mechanisms that might explain how the universe came to be in all its awesomeness and wonderful inticracies. But here's the thing, we might not ever know what these mechanisms are. To be able to understand what we already have is truly amazing, but if we think about it scientifically, we are most likely limited in what we can understand. For example there's only so much an ant can understand about the universe, a cat can understand a bit more but then again not so much, an ape can understand a bit more perhaps, we can understand a huge amount but again the amount we can understand is more than likely to be limited. And this is the boundary between natural and supernatural - IMO the only thing that divides what we might consider supernatural from what we consider natural is
only what the human mind is capable of understanding/sensing. Things that we might laugh at or consider supernatural could
easily exist or be happening - it's just that our brains have not evolved far enough to sense them - and these 'unsensed' things in turn might explain the existence of this universe without the need for an intelligent/concious 'god'.
Topic: Atheist Censorship