Fundamentalist vs Liberal Christian vs New Atheist

The Bible?

Fundy: the Bible is the Word of God
Liberal Christian: the Bible is a bunch of myths
New Atheist: the Bible is a bunch of myths

What books do you read?

Fundy: you should read Norm Geisler books
Liberal Christian: you should read Spong books
New Atheist: you should read Spong books

What about prayers?

Fundy: God has answered my prayers
Liberal Christian: God has never answered my prayers
New Atheist: God has never answered my prayers

Hell?

Fundy: Hell is a real place
Liberal Christian: Hell is imaginary
New Atheist: Hell is imaginary

What are you going to do now?

Fundy: I'm going to pray for you and read the Bible.
Liberal Christian: I'm going to pray for you and read the Bible.
New Atheist: I'm going to pray liberal Christians come out of the closet.

The fine-tuning of the universe

The universe contains x atoms. If the universe had one less atom, or one more atom, then the universe would be different. If the universe would be different, then maybe life would be impossible in it. It is quite an extraordinary coincidence that the universe has exactly x atoms, and any small variation in the number of atoms means that perhaps life would not be possible. I must conclude the universe was finely-tuned by an intelligent designer.

Why is there something rather than nothing?

In the "Atheist Tapes", the theologian Denys Turner asks the troubling question "Why is there something rather than nothing"? Then the interviewer Miller rightfully answered with another question: "Why is there God instead of nothing"? Turner then claimed "God is not a kind of thing". I suppose what he meant by that is that God is somewhat indistinguishable from nothingness, he's a sort of abstract entity.

So the only reason - according to Turner - there can be something instead of nothing is if a not-a-thing entity, existing inside the state "nothing", suddently decides to create a universe.

Theology is really fun. We learn a lot about entities that are not "things".

Plantinga Argument Against Naturalism

Plantinga argues: "the probability that our minds are reliable under a conjunction of naturalism and evolution is low or inscrutable. Therefore, to assert that naturalistic evolution is true also asserts that one has a low or unknown probability of being right."

So, if naturalistic evolution is true, then Plantinga's mind is not reliable. He has a low probability of being right about anything.

Therefore, we should reject his argument, as it is most probably wrong.