Moral Realism is generally considered to be the belief that moral facts exist on an objective level, while Moral Non-Cognitivism is generally considered to be the belief that there are no moral facts, and that statements of morality are expressions of non-cognitive thought.
The "argument from fine tuning" (FTA) is a well-known feature in modern apologetics, in which some selection (which varies from presentation to presentation) of physical features of the universe are offered as evidence that the universe was designed by some transcendent designer, on the basis of the claim that they are "finely tuned."I think that this line of reasoning is fatally flawed, and I so I am issuing this open challenge to the community, here: I ask my challenger to present what he or she feels to be the strongest rendition of the argument from fine tuning they can muster, and see if they can defend it against my critique.
modus-Owens said : " Atheists do have a burden to meet, in claiming that it is not rational to be a theist, and of course, that burden has been more than met. ""He should be able to defend a claim once he makes it. But he to continues to refuse.
This is a 1v1 challenge debate between me and Saintnow. This debate is not to establish if god exists or not because that is impossible. God is an unfalsifiable concept that cannot be proven or disproven. However based on a collection of evidence and arguments we should be able to say with some confidence whether a gods existence is a likely possibility or an unlikely one. I am defending the position that it is unlikely that a god exists. Rules:As per saintnow's request there is no swearing in this debate.There is no insulting of eachother in this debate (insulting god is completely acceptable as it is fully on topic and not ad hominem)As per my making this a challenge debate there is no banning. Even though i control the debate i will not ban or censor a single post from saintnow. I will, however, address every single point that saintnow makes.