It's a shame you have so few friends you consider a Wikipedia article to be a friend. I couldn't be more dishonest then you a person who claims to be fair minded and impartial yet only attacks what I write. Let's talk about honesty and being disingenuous. You have stated to me several times you're not an atheist and you claim below if a person isn't an atheist there a theist, I don't believe that's true and I don't think you do either but it is what you say. Since according to you you're not an atheist then you are a theist. Yet you have disagreed with nearly every line of evidence or argument I have made in spite of the fact you evidently agree with my conclusion that we owe our existence to a transcendent creator of great power. After all this is what you wrote ' If they aren't "fellow atheists," then they must be theists' in fact according to you, you found that amusing. Now I am taking you at your word and that you couldn't be so damn stupid that you made this statement but forgot you yourself don't fall into either category. Since you are a theist, but disagree with the evidence I have submitted and it appears you disagree with any evidence in favor of theism, why not tell everyone on this board your reasoning, logic and evidence that leads you to believe in theism? Even if you disagree with my reasons and evidence, maybe I'll agree with yours.
Quote:My theological views are not relevant except insofar as they refute your claim that only dyed-in-the-wool atheists find your arguments unpersuasive. And seeing that your inquiry seems more strategic than social, I feel fully justified in rejecting your request; it's not my job to help you make your case, and my specific theological views won't help you any.
Its not your theological views I'm questioning, its your integrity, credibility and sincerity that is at issue. If you don't wish to defend that so be it.
Now they do a complete 180 degree reversal on the previous objection they don't believe in and claim that our universe maybe one of an infinitude of universes with differing characteristics and we by that old gospel standby time and chance happen to be in the one that allows our existence. They probably lack belief in this claim also but it is objection worthy as is any potential rebuttal regardless of evidence, something they always demand of others but never require of themselves. But since you evidently share my belief in theism even though you disagree with the evidence I submit I suppose it doesn't really matter in the long run.
Quote:This is remarkable given that the author you are using in support of your arguments, Martin Rees, is actually a proponent of this view. Anyway, as outlined earlier, if you fail to provide reasons for discounting a valid alternative interpretation of the evidence or alternative theory, your argument runs afoul of the law of the excluded middle and renders its conclusions without force. I personally find the multiverse hypothesis, whichever one you prefer, to be an entertaining hypothesis, but lacking empirical support for preferring it over other potential hypotheses, I'm content to wait and see. You don't have that luxury, as a consequence of the structure of your argument.
Not at all I stated that was his conclusion. I used Martin Rees as a source for three reasons. He's highly regarded, he's an atheist and I have his book. And your quite right, true to atheist form he ignores the evidence that would lead most people to conclude design and instead argues for a naturalism in the gaps explanation even though he himself admits such an idea isn't grounded on evidence and may in fact be unfalsifiable.
