Posted: Jan 16, 2020 10:00 pm
by Spearthrower
Skimming through to actually get to the arguments rather than all the leading setup:

Paley's Watchmaker - I've noticed that this has crept into Islamic evangelism in the last few years... I believe it was popularized by Zakir Naik. As usual, taking objects of known human manufactured provenance doesn't allow you to then simply project that onto the sky by comparison. I can't make a watch, but looking at it, I can see how it might be made. I can't do that with universes.

Strong Anthropic Principle - i.e. arse-about-tit. The Earth's in the perfect position for life - how can we possibly explain that except by it being done on purpose? Well, life couldn't have evolved and thrived in a place that wasn't suitable for life: the counter thereby being the Weak Anthropic Principle.

Big Bang - the author wants us to talk about explosions that occur within the ordered universe we inhabit, then ask why we'd expect the Big Bang explosion to craft the universe, only the Big Bang isn't an 'explosion' and the result of the initial expansion wasn't finely crafted orderly ducks in a row, but the most basic particles which then, through the fundamental forces and time resulted in increasingly complex arrangements in localized areas, some tiny fraction of which became lined-up ducks.

Waffle about the way universal forces operate, but no actual argument as to how this is meant to support beliefs in gods.

Basically, a load of fine-tuning/dials of the universe nonsense that is poorly rendered by someone with only a passing grasp of the relevant physics but even with the best reading remains just an appeal to incredulity - but how can X be without Y? Well, X unarguably is whereas Y is not evident, so show me Y and then we can talk about it.

Appeals to 'created' things and whether X can be created in the absence of intelligence, i.e. begged questions.

An attempt to argue that there must be an ultimate creator by a really nonsensical and clearly motivated appeal to a chain of human command; what it doesn't manage to do is refute the existence of a god above their god. Nor does it actually indicate any necessity for that god when one could just as easily stop at the existence of the evident universe without needing to go another step to an unevident god.

So by page 11, he's decided he's provided enough wool to state that there must be an uncreated creator, for no other reason than because that's what he believes - he certainly hasn't provided any actual argumentation that could convince someone absent that supposition.

Essentially, it's a load of gish gallop waffle trying to make a case for a Creator. As the case fails on every account, and as the following chapters require one to accept the conclusion of the first as a working postulate, it's dead in the water.

I'd rather let a guy in red underpants in to read my meter than accept this load of tosh. It would be vastly more rational.