Not that different from the ones we read on this forum, which are some of the ones I used when I was a believer.
- How can you look at nature and not see god?
- The fine-tuning argument.
- The emptiness of life without purpose.
And many similar ones, that are effective because they are so facile. They appeal to emotion and appear logical if taken at face value. You pile enough of them upon one another and it seems as if there is an insurmountable wave of evidence for god, without having to produce any actual evidence for god.
Which is probably why they're so popular now.
- How can you look at nature and not see god?
- The fine-tuning argument.
- The emptiness of life without purpose.
And many similar ones, that are effective because they are so facile. They appeal to emotion and appear logical if taken at face value. You pile enough of them upon one another and it seems as if there is an insurmountable wave of evidence for god, without having to produce any actual evidence for god.
Which is probably why they're so popular now.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."
-Stephen Jay Gould
-Stephen Jay Gould
