Egnor: Both atheists and theists make positive statements about the nature of the universe. If atheists shun the ensuing burden of proof, it should count against them.
Atheism
Michael Egnor: Atheist Claims about logical fallacies often just mean: Shut Up!
In Egnor’s view, what atheists fear most is having to explain themselves, and the invocation of fictitious “fallacies” is one of their favorite ways to evade scrutiny.
At Mind Matters News: 5. Egnor, Dillahunty dispute the basic causes behind the universe
Michael Egnor: All right, then what is a singularity? If you’re saying it’s natural, what is it?
Matt Dillahunty: So first of all, you’re not talking to a cosmologist, but the-
Michael Egnor: Then why do you say it’s natural? …
[Things became quite heated at this point.]
At Mind Matters News: 4: Egnor now tries to find out what Dillahunty actually knows…
Michael Egnor: What I want to establish before that is that your arguments are not based on any actual knowledge. You don’t know the arguments for God’s existence. So your claim that they’re not true…
William Lane Craig vs. Lewis Wolpert: Is God a delusion?
Lewis Wolpert (1929–2021) was “one of the giants of twentieth-century developmental biology. His name is most often associated with the “French flag model” and with his pronouncement that “It is not birth, marriage, or death but gastrulation which is truly the most important time in your life,” but he has made contributions to solving many key problems.”
At Mind Matters News: Atheist spokesman Matt Dillahunty refuses to debate Michael Egnor again
Egnor: I was amazed (but not really surprised) that Dillahunty would devote his life and his career to debunk arguments that he didn’t understand, and that he knew he didn’t understand.
L&FP, 47: The credibility of the concept and existence of God
I see from News, that Egnor and Dillahunty have had a debate on the reality of God. Egnor has put on the table ten arguments to God and Dillahunty has rebutted, as News reports. Some of this caught my eye and I took pause from an ongoing life crisis to comment on some things that Read More…
Steve Meyer bids farewell to Steven Weinberg’s “purposeless cosmos” thesis in the Jerusalem Post
Casey Luskin looks at the controversy, in part based on time he has spent in Africa, working on South African fossils.
Jerry Coyne vs Ross Douthat on science-based belief in God
Coyne makes a virtue of the fact that he finds typical, widespread points of view hard to comprehend. Uncommon Descent to Jerry Coyne: Come in Coyne, are you reading us?: Buckle that seatbelt, man! This is the BIG roller coaster, Flyin’ Annie. Not the little ones you are used to. Over and out.
One day, a longtime agnostic suddenly realized that Darwinism couldn’t be true
Witt: “Critics of intelligent design will have a hard time maligning Thomas as a “creationist in a cheap tuxedo.” He isn’t religious and is a longtime member of the British Rationalist Association, a group known for religious skepticism.”
Steven Weinberg on atheism, evolution, and such
A reader sends this interseting clip from 2004 in which he spells out his views on “evolution, George Bush, religion in America versus Europe, the utility of belief irrespective of whether it’s true or not, the response to science within Muslim countries, and whether or not Stephen liked God and religion in a personal sense.
At Evolution News and Science Today: Can you measure intelligent design?
Well yes, if you are willing to tolerate a positive answer. If you are not willing to tolerate a positive answer, well … your quarrel is not with us, really.
Bret Weinstein has been demonetized by “FaceTube”
Weinstein, an atheist himself, didn’t realize that atheism today means illiteracy, innumeracy, and total control by the biggest totalitarian power — with no appeal. 2 + 2 better make 5. Atheism has no values to defend.
At Salon: New Atheists accused of intellectual grift and abject surrender
Torres makes quite clear that, to get on at Salon, you’d have to be a stiletto Stalinist. The new atheists have the advantage of at least being interesting people.
Hey, we’ve always given them that. And who cares about Salon anyhow?
Frank Turek looks at Scientism of the gaps
To summarize Scientism of the Gaps: No mountain too high, no river so wide that sheer chaos cannot contrive to create an inextricably interlinked system that seamlessly navigates it. Even though chaos never works that way in your own life, you must believe — if you are really science-friendly — that it works that way at the foundation of all of life, the entire universe and all that.