Why I'm Not an Atheist: The Case for Agnosticism

[AtheistCrusader]

195. Context.

"In order for the tooth fairy analogy to be accurate, we would have to modify reality in one way: teeth would have to magically go missing from under pillows in a manner that science cannot even begin to explain. If that were the reality, no one could assert with any merited confidence that tooth fairies are definitely behind the inexplicable disappearance of teeth, but the idea would not be so patently absurd either. If that were the reality, then God would indeed be as probable as a tooth fairy."

That is precisely what is happening, in your analogy. But the context must be fixed correctly.

In the 'our place in the universe' model, we are the unknowing children, exploring and finding forces previously beyond our knowledge as we grow.
In your substitute model, the child, told by his or her parents that the tooth fairy exists, and later, surreptitiously replaces a toot with a coin like a thief in the night, is also growing, and learning, and will eventually someday discover his or her parent's duplicity.


So your analogy is ok, so long as you are talking about a child/humanity that simply hasn't yet learned the nature of the tooth fairy tale/universe's workings, rather than assuming that prior knowledge that the parents are taking the teeth is known to all.


You and I know that the tooth fairy is a tale, and is not required to explain how teeth become coins at night under pillows. There was a time we did not know, and likely were in awe at a seemingly supernatural occurrence.

The learning process that faced your hypothetical child, will in time reveal the truth. Same is true of us, with regard to our lack of understanding of the universe. So far we have discovered nothing that requires the intervention of a supernatural special pleading case to explain. When we do... then that'll be a different question that does not match your hypothetical..

"What is analogous in the real world to the magic disappearance of teeth is the very existence of existence. Yes, science can (and if we survive long enough, probably will) explain almost everything about our evolution and the development of the universe, but it can't explain why there is something in the first place rather than nothing. Dawkins argued that it is easier to comprehend simple beginnings to the universe than complex ones, but I would argue that, when it comes to the universe, beginnings are fundamentally unfathomable, be they simple or complex. What "beginning" could possibly stop us from asking, what was there before that? The alternative, of course, would be that the universe has always been here, which is equally unfathomable, as we have evolved in Middle World to think in terms of beginnings and ends because everything we know is temporary."

Dawkins, a biologist, isn't the proper authority on origins of the Universe. I suggest you read Krauss or Hawking, two leading scientists chipping away at that conundrum right now.

Science can and will explain why there is something rather than nothing. In fact, here's an hour long lecture on it.