Saturday, July 14, 2012

Grundy Disagrees! #1

I think of Deity Shmeity as the home of Grundy, me, but what kind of internet citizen would I be if I never left the house? Taking my opinions on the road sometimes clash with fellow bloggers...and by sometimes I mean often. So, as an argumentative travel log, I introduce Grundy Disagrees! If you, kind readers, find value in my comments outside to DS proper, let me know. Grundy Disagrees! may become a regular thing.

Over at A-Unicornist, Mike D wrote a post pimping a comment about the Fine-Tuning Argument for God. I felt that the comment, which said that the unlikelihood of our universe being life-friendly is more meaningful without a deity than with, totally missed the point of the argument. Fine-tuning isn't about meaning, it's about probability. I'm on record as saying it is one of the very few, if not only, arguments for God that at least has the potential to be compelling. As usual, any comment not toeing the extreme atheist line drew comments painting me as an apologist. This urks me, but the other comments from Mike and Tony where mostly correct, yet still missed what I was initially trying to say.

Speaking of apologists, I found a duzy in Luke Nix. To his credit, he was perfectly nice throughout to exchange. If he believes I'm destined for hell, he didn't rub my face in it. However, I found his reasoning somewhat circular and very confusing. While the initial post was about the atheist question of "who created God," the comments went somewhere else entirely. He talked of logic like many theists talk of morality and claimed that the law of non-contradiction proves existence outside of our universe among other things.

If you have a chance, please check out the comments of these posts and let me know either here or there if I made good points or where I went wrong. If I'm missing something, I really want to know.

BTW, I recommend A-Unicornist and hope to have Mike D as an interview sometime soon.


  1. As usual, any comment not toeing the extreme atheist line drew comments painting me as an apologist.

    I don't know why that is. Do you?

    I used to hope atheists were generally smart enough to avoid that sort of thing. Now, I'm older, wiser, and somewhat sadder.

    1. Yeah, it's a bummer. I think there is a problem with antitheist solidarity leading to close-mindedness.

  2. I like this segment. I have not had a chance to read the links you posted, but do want to offer a comment.

    It has become clear to me that some bloggers (I do not mean Mike D or his commenters---I am not familiar with his site, but will check it out based on your recommendation) are not very tolerant of views that differ from theirs. This irks me. As a freethinker I like to be challenged with new ideas. I really try to not dismiss them out of hand, particularly if I hold an opposing view.

    As atheists, the only thing that we have in common is a lack of belief in dieties---the rest has some or even plenty of wiggle room and space for discussion. Let's have it! It only makes me think more, which I consider a good thing.

  3. To be honest, I used to think the same thing about fine-tuning, until I considered that an omnipotent creator wouldn't have to fine-tune anything, since he could make life compatible with any conditions imaginable. So fine-tuning really isn't that compelling, since if god meant for us to live in this universe, it would make more sense if we could exist in every condition possible without evolving (underwater, in a vacuum, etc.). As it is, over 99% of our universe is fatal to us.