We've possibly all watched Gay Byrne's interview with Stephen Fry, as I've watched it several times, and Stephen Fry is spot on, in almost everything he states.
I cannot fault his extremely rational logic.
So, in case you have been hiding under a rock and missed it, here it is.
Here is the most popular section of the interview, when Stephen is asked, what he would say to god.
Here is Kyle Kulinski from Secular Talk, showing and exposing Russell Brand's extremely stupid attack on Stephen Fry's comments.
Though something Kyle did not include is that the Fine Tuning argument for god is also another "God Of The Gaps" argument. Because scientists really don't know what would happen if the cosmic values of gravity, etc.. were changed, because, they don't know how they all tie together to reach the equilibrium within the universe.
So, again, Brand is arguing about things he and his clueless comrades have really no idea of.
"“What, indeed, is an atheist? He is one who destroys delusions which are harmful to humanity in order to lead men back to nature, to reality, to reason. He is a thinker who, having reflected on the nature of matter, its energy, properties and ways of acting, has no need of idealized powers or imaginary intelligences to explain the phenomena of the universe and the operations of nature.”
Baron d’Holbach (1770)
And as a point made by Bertrand Russell states, that Metaphysical concepts like Russell Brand's cannot demonstrate, nor prove anything of value, so essentially, Brand's concepts are entirely worthless in every sense.
The Plato idea that all can be discovered through reason alone, is total nonsense!
Brand appears to have the same concept of god as Plato had of Forms.
Plato's forms were utter nonsense, just as Brand's universal consciousness/god is.
Plato was too stupid to realize, that the reason he automatically knew what a chair was (as an adult) was that he had learned such definitions as a child and thus as a child he had modelled much of physical reality, thus as an adult, most people will automatically recognize objects.
Because they had become familiar through experience, not because we have universal access to ideal forms that exist outside the universe.
For a smart man, Plato was actually rather clueless.
Plato was certainly lacking in what we might call social intelligence , as are all ideologs.
I think Epicurus was of a greater intellect than both Plato and Aristotle. Especially his social intellect.
Socrates was above Plato as well.
Though much of philosophy is drivel, especially the dualism of Descartes.
Metaphysics, though interesting, bears no resemblance to reality.