The following is a guest blog post by Fred, an agnostic, critiquing my use of the argument from contingency I presented at the Virginia Tech debate on the existence of God. Here’s a brief bio:
B.S. and M.S. in Computer Science, completing my formal education in 1978. I’ve taken precisely two philosophy courses during my student days, both in Logic. I took a lot of math and science courses. I am now in I.T. middle management at a multinational oil company, with about 90 people reporting to me.
I’m 58 years old, grew up as a devout Catholic – attended Catholic schools in Houston for 12 years. I credit the free thinking atmosphere at my high school with opening my mind up and allowing me to look beyond the dogma I had always been taught. This led me to question, to become skeptical, and ultimately to develop into an agnostic. I lack a belief that a God exists, but I have continued to explore. I am impatient with dogmatism, from theists and atheists alike. My engagement in discussions such as this is out of pure self-interest. I’m not trying to prove anyone wrong, I’m just trying to see if I’m missing some truths or overlooking some credible argument. I do so by challenging the position of the person I’m engaging, which can sometimes give the appearance that my position is more extreme than it is. In the course of my pursuits I’ve been forced to look a little into metaphysics, because it seems this is where the arguments for God’s existence reside. I’ve also looked into historical methodology, because this pertains to the arguments for Jesus sit.