"Therefore it is highly unlikely any entity would possess even one of these qualities."
I never liked this sort of argument. Unless you can calculate actual probabilities, it is utterly meaningless to say something like this. Even if you did know the probability, what does that tell you? If you buy a lottery ticket, it is highly unlikely that you will win. But someone always does.
Furthermore, this is an argument about a particular kind of god (that has properties as described), not against any possible god.
2 comments:
Hello Victor,
These are not too bad arguments, much better than appeal to Ockham's razor to disprove God, as I explain here:
http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com/2013/08/04/deconstructing-the-popular-use-of-occams-razor/
I largely prefer to interact with the friendly arguments mentioned on this website.
Lovely greetings from Germany
Liebe Grüße aus Deutschland
Lothars Sohn - Lothar's son
http://lotharlorraine.wordpress.com
First argument:
"Therefore it is highly unlikely any entity would possess even one of these qualities."
I never liked this sort of argument. Unless you can calculate actual probabilities, it is utterly meaningless to say something like this. Even if you did know the probability, what does that tell you? If you buy a lottery ticket, it is highly unlikely that you will win. But someone always does.
Furthermore, this is an argument about a particular kind of god (that has properties as described), not against any possible god.
Post a Comment