Ivellious wrote:As a non-Christian, I figured I would give my personal responses to these arguments, as well as explaining why many atheists, agnostics, and non-Christians might reject them.
1. God provides the best explanation of the origin of the universe.
To me, this is both a good and bad place to start. On one hand, I find it hard to reject the logic that a beginning of the universe had to have a first cause. And most people (myself included) are not well-versed enough in physics of philosophy to seriously start making heavy arguments over this for either side. That said, I reject the notion that this proves that the cause in question absolutely has to be the God that Craig describes. So his argument might poke a hole in atheism, but not any other type of belief that includes any kind of god-like being.
I don't think he'd disagree with anything other than "any kind of god-like being." What does this mean? Remember, this is an argument for belief in GOD. God, being a creator who by definition would have to possess certain qualities to be the author of the universe. What world religions provide a creator that fits? That immediately discounts all religions other than middle-eastern mono-theistic traditions. Judiasm, Christianity and even Islam all share the books that speak to this.
The universe is nicely fine-tuned for us, yes (and the other living things on Earth and those potentially living elsewhere). But I reject the notion that it is impossible for a universe slightly different than ours to not support life of some sort, even if it wouldn't support us. Just like I think it is silly to think that life on distant worlds will look and live exactly like we do, and live on planets identical to Earth. I concede that our universe is good for our brand of life, per say, but a differently tuned universe could be just as good for a different type of life to flourish, even if it is infinitely different than life as we know it.
We are not talking petri dish stuff here. The reality is that slight changes to several physical constants make life impossible. Stars turn to either red dwarfs blue giants. Detailed paper here.
http://quake.stanford.edu/~bai/finetuning.pdf
Admitting that you are ignorant of the data and then stating you 'reject the notion' is extremely problematic. As Dom stated, you are arguing from ignorance. I'm showing you why that is the case.
Craig is wrong, in my opinion, to claim that life cannot possibly exist in any other universe than one with our laws of physics. Such theoretical life just couldn't be us.
Craig is familiar with the details of the argument, and you admit that you are not. So, from what ground do you claim that Craig is wrong? Ignorance? You state, 'your opinion,' which you already prefaced as being unfamiliar with those details.
Craig actually gives my answer in his explanation. I could very easily argue that human morality is just a function of evolutionary processes and that social norms are simply learned from those who raise us. It is undeniable that social behaviors and norms are evolved traits in every other species out there, so why can't our basic human morals be similarly evolved and learned?
Human morality is an ontological question. You seem to be actually dealing with ethics. Human morality is a metphysical issue. So, if you care to demonstrate how evolution accounts for this, I'm sure it would be groundbreaking. You say social NORMS are learned. But you are smuggling in an OM inference here without accounting for it. Norm accoring to.......? Where do the norms exist. How did they get there? Accoring to Maslow, who would agree with you, the basic instincts are all self-serving. So what about Self sacrifice and other aspects that are counter to survival that are considered virtuous?
If morals are simply evolved, then the implications are frightening. The problem with arguing norms is twofold. If you are appealing to nature, then you are presented with the fact that survival is a norm. So, only the strong survive can also be the norm. If you are appealing to statistics, then morals are relative and what is evil and good is simply a majority rule prefernece. If more people prefer puppy torture then it becomes the norm. I would recommend examining the cultural practices of Sparta. If you are right, then they were right. If you are right, then chatell slavery was right. If you are right, then the caste system is right. It's just passed down.
4. God provides the best explanation of the historical facts concerning Jesus’ life, death, and resurrection.
I'll be honest, I physically laughed out loud at this one. To claim that it is established historical fact and consensus that Jesus performed miracles, exorcisms, rose from the dead, and was God is absurd on so many levels. Maybe to Christian scholars such things are considered factual, but such events are not confirmed by any historical evidence beyond the Bible. No non-Christian who actually looks into this claim is going to go very far without finding it to be incorrect.
I think you misunderstood. It is a historical fact that Jesus existed. The NT Gospels are reliable in their history, and the authors were writing about real events, people and places. (Compare to traditional mythology, and paganism.) Therefore, they wrote that the miracles and the resurrection where actual events and facts in history. You can certainly disagree with those claims, but you can't reject that this is what the authors were claiming. So, yes, God does best explain those things. Especially in light of examining the other explanations. (Fable, lie, mass hallucination, etc.)
5. God can be personally known and experienced.
This just isn't a very helpful argument. It might be true, but a non-Christian who has never "experienced" God will find this to be a pretty lame proof of God. Combine that with the fact that, for centuries (or longer), people of literally every religion to ever exist have claimed to personally know and experience their religion...and this argument really only rings true to those already considered Christians.
On this we agree. Although I can testify to knowing and experiencing God, this is not empirical for you. Unless of course the other arguments hold true. Then you may have good reason to trust my testimony and taste and see if the Lord is good.
Such melodrama! Has only neo-x understood?
