tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post3663508282671490768..comments2024-01-25T09:28:56.610+00:00Comments on Confessions of a skeptic: Swinburne: Teleological ArgumentsJonathan Westhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-51346133255346921902009-10-13T09:44:09.740+01:002009-10-13T09:44:09.740+01:00believeordoubt
I think that atheists and agnostic...believeordoubt<br /><br />I think that atheists and agnostics have been making that point for quite some time. Julian Baggini, in his series of articles on Hume, has shown that Hume made the point that <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/feb/12/philosophy-religion-hume-reason" rel="nofollow">miracles are implausible</a>. So the implausibility of a God with the characteristics claimed by Christianity (or other religions) is an idea with a long pedigree.<br /><br />Of course, that doesn't mean that if a plausible mechanism for the existence of God were to be discovered, we couldn't change our minds about it. But at the moment, no such mechanism is known.<br /><br />As for my line of reasoning being similar to Dawkins' "Ultimate Boeing 747", yes it is. But enough people have read TGD that I didn't think that Dawkins' version really needed repetition, so I chose to use my own form of words more directly addressing Swinburne's specific point.Jonathan Westhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00527063732905729010noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-13771778124451258642009-10-13T02:40:46.500+01:002009-10-13T02:40:46.500+01:00Your reply sounds like Dawkins's "Ultimat...Your reply sounds like Dawkins's "Ultimate 747 Gambit," or like Mackie's objection. It is well taken. <br /><br />Where the rubber really hits the road isn't about whether or not there can be evidence for God, but about the low prior probability of something like God -- so low as to render just about any evidence for God inconsequential. The argument is a deductive one. <br /><br />That doesn't count against the argument, but I think that atheists are best represented not as being such because there is a lack of evidence for God, but because the whole idea of something like God is implausible. Atheists should get the hint and stop demanding evidence for God, and start clarifying their position that the existence of God is the sort of thing that virtually no amount of evidence could support.Believeordoubthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13401663191628885051noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-6518202135348193859.post-43104189292419470122009-10-13T02:37:19.140+01:002009-10-13T02:37:19.140+01:00This comment has been removed by the author.Believeordoubthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13401663191628885051noreply@blogger.com