"Reasonable Faith"<---- funniest shit I've heard all day.

Because faith, particularly within a religious context, is anything but reasonable.

But I digress; let's address the five reasons.

1. The origin of the universe.

Kalam? zzzzzzzzzzz

He presents an argument from ignorance fallacy, god of the gaps dressed up with talk about quantum mechanics.

He then presents an intellectually dishonest statement that, as an atheist, you have to believe that the universe "popped up, uncaused, out of nothing".

Wrong.

As an atheist, you simply accept that you don't know what happened prior to the big bang, if "prior" is even a thing, or how it actually occurred.

Plugging god into that hole in our collective knowledge does not make god a sufficient solution to that problem.

My favorite thing about WLC is that believers tend to tout him as their big dog, and yet he uses the same inept arguments as every other apologist.

The kalam, at best, gets you to deism, but absolutely cannot get you to anything resembling the god of classical theism.

An egregious error here is that he adds the "personal" element, which doesn't fit with kalam, and absolutely cannot justify that claim.

I love when christians or muslims use kalam, because it's a diversion. This is far easier to present than a legit argument for their specific god.

2. Fine tuning.

The fine tuning argument is laughable.

Why?

Because all it does it address the circumstance that makes up what *is* as we know it, and the fact that what is would not exist the way we know it, where the circumstances other than what they are.

That's it. It doesn't address how it occurred, simply leaping to "god did it", but there's zero connective tissue from the "what" to the "how".

None. Zero. Zilch. Nada.

Fine tuning might be the most useless, masturbatory argument in the apologetics circle jerk.

For good measure, he cites quotes that are nothing but arguments from personal incredulity.

Again: this is the big dog in their yard.

3. Objective Moral values.

First, he has to make the case that objective moral values do exist.

He doesn't do that.

He asserts that they do, but does not make the case that they do. It's notable that he skimmed through this portion with the quickness, doing little more than making his assertion before moving on.

It's interesting that standards of morality have changed throughout time, and in fact does so in the very book that is the foundation of WLC's beliefs. more interesting, is that the morality of human beings improves the further it moves away from that book, to the point where the average christian has to cherry pick the parts that harmonize with their moral standards. They then fall back on the ever-growing list of post hoc rationalizations for the wealth of immorality present in the bible.

It's hard to reconcile the *idea* of objective moral values with the *fact* that our morality has changed so much over time.

The sad part is that all of these arguments are fundamentally the same:

"X is a thing, therefore god did it."

There's no actual evidence for the idea that morality comes from god. Sure, there's a book that says his word was written on our hearts or some shit, but then that presents the aforementioned apologetic minefield on the subject, because the bible gives us a how-to-guide on how to acquire and treat slaves.

4. The Resurrection?

really?

He cites the "fact" of the resurrection?

Well.. the four gospels have anonymous authors and one of them, Matthew, who, incidentally has the strongest case for a known author, has a pretty clear agenda, and none of these were first hand accounts. This is not great evidence, or even good evidence, particularly when we're discussion such an extraordinary event.

The fact that the explanation for both the conception and resurrection of Jesus is... drumroll.... magic.... is highly problematic. He was born of a virgin, and you know, got that y chromosome from the holy spirit.

There are no contemporary accounts of these extraordinary events.

Is it just coincidence that miracle claims decrease as our ability to record them increased, to the point where, right today, most miracle claims are things that are in fact completely mundane.

My cancer went into remission! praise jesus!

Yes, Mildred, cancer does that sometimes. Get back to us when that amputated leg grows back.

You'd think a deity of minimal competence, even one choosing such a poorly thought out method and time frame, would have ensured an iron clad chain of evidence for what is not merely an incredibly extraordinary event, but one of critical importance, given the stakes.

5. Personal experience?

He mispronounced "confirmation bias" and "argument from ignorance or personal incredulity", because that's the bulk of "personal experience".

Nothing he said is worth much as a foundation for believing in the existence of any god, much less the god in which he believes, which is also telling.

That's a trope among his kind, arguing for a generic god, sneaking in a personal attribute even when their argument doesn't allow for it, but rarely to they offer such arguments for evidence of the one in which they actually believe.

There's a reason for that.