Not quite, Dan.

<<Yes, on one hand you were claiming Don Batten 'made stuff up'. On the other hand you say that you weren't referring to Batten when you said Christians make stuff up.>>

I said I wasn’t “specifically” referring to Don Batten in my sixth point. You conveniently skipped that crucial word.

There is no contradiction. Batten was obviously included to the extent that he is a Christian.

<<Either way, what I was hoping was that you could point out in Batten's article where (or if) you think he made stuff up.>>

I did. Firstly, he invented the stances that he attributed to all atheists. Furthermore, as I mentioned before, part of his tactic here was to sneakily switch back and forthe between “atheism” and “materialism”. Basically, he attacked strawmen, such as the alleged belief that the universe just poofed out of nothing.

Secondly, he ‘makes stuff up’ by inserting a God into the unknowns, as if that answers anything.

Oh, I just realised. That makes seven fallacies. I didn’t count the God of the Gaps fallacy before. Sorry.

But what about you? We’ve been talking about me for so long, I’m starting to wonder about you. What do you think of the fact that Batten committed six, no, seven fallacies in a mere 2300 words?

If you have the word allowance to address each one, then that would be great, otherwise, just pick one that you think you can refute and let’s hear what you’ve got to say.

In the meantime, I've found Don on Facebook, I'm going to ask him to join this conversation. I betcha he doesn't.

AJ, consider the definition of free will once again:

“When a choice can be made that is not determined or necessitated by prior events then we can exercise freewill. The will is free when alternative choices could have been made with the same pre-existing conditions."

Suppose there is a God who has predetermined all actions. This does not rule out alternative choices.

God can have me raised by a caring family and yet i can choose between being someone who is grateful or alternatively someone with a sense of entitlement.

I can be made dirt poor or very ill, and still have the choice of being a person who is patient or a person who cries fowl.."why me?".

AJ,
I can see you've provided a list of alleged logical fallacies, but I don't think you've explained how anything on this list actually applies to Don Batten's article.

I understand the concept of a straw man argument, but I don't see where it is that Batten has created such a thing. I asked you where did Batten 'make stuff up'. You said that he made up a straw man (a feebler argument that is easier to attack.) So I'm wondering what was the example that you gave. Looking back into your postings, you allege that he made this up, -
<<The universe burst into something from absolutely nothing-zero, nada.>> "No-one has asserted that. This is a strawman."

However, Batten didn't make this up. It's a direct quote from Discover Magazine in relation to Alan Guth's theory of inflation. So Batten is not making this up. Rather, you should read what he's saying a bit more carefully.

Batten appears to me to be using the words materialist and atheist as synonyms, considering both words refer to those who deny the existence of the spiritual. This would seem reasonable given the context. The point of the article is that atheists acknowledge no forces other than the natural or material (the forces of physics and chemistry), but these forces are inadequate and even counterproductive in explaining the large scale events that atheists believe occurred.

I've glad you've made contact with Dr Don Batten. But I think you may need to be clearer in your understanding and criticisms of his writing before he'll feel obliged to respond. That's my opinion.

AJ says
That’s a big topic that is still hotly debated. More importantly, it has little-to-nothing to do with whether or not a god exists. Unless one believes in an omniscient god, in which case free will cannot exist; or is, at best, meaningless, because we could not possibly deviate what from an omniscient god already knew we were going to do. That would be a paradox."

AJ

Assuming God exists and He is omniscient, I can choose to go for a walk but it would be up to God whether in fact I go for a walk.

Furthermore, the choice would be made meaningful by the intention underpinning the choice.

Even choosing to walk, doing physical exercise, can be worship if I intend maintain my stamina as a means of doing what pleases Him, rather than any other worldly purpose.

If God instructs us to be grateful for the good we experience and to be patient in the face of adversity, we can choose to follow or ignore.

God would make some people more capable than others but what would count is what we choose to do with what we have been given.

AJ states:

"The ability to exercise choice is advantageous in a social species like ourselves. So those able to do so, would have been more likely to pass on their genes. Total, rigid conformance to a culture and its rituals would hinder a people’s ability to adapt to change and see them eventually disappear when circumstances changed or their cultural practices were proving harmful. Indeed, there’s probably many examples throughout history of the disappearance of certain peoples for this very reason."

Your argument presupposes "the ability to exercise choice".

grateful: I can choose to go for a walk but it would be up to God whether in fact I go for a walk.

No. You can choose to go for a walk, but the God already knew you made that choice. Going by the supposition that "The God" exists, then the God knew all of your actions in life before you were born & that you were going to Hell anyway. Yet, the God, allowed you to be born. Somewhat cruel don't you think.

A case for there being no God.

"No. You can choose to go for a walk, but the God already knew you made that choice. Going by the supposition that "The God" exists, then the God knew all of your actions in life before you were born"

Exactly.