Probability argument.
Posted: Sun Sep 05, 2010 6:40 am
Would it be fallacious to use the probability argument? The argument of the probability of our universe arising from natural processes?
It almost pre supposes the God hypothesis doesnt it? Theres no way to predict before the fact how these processes could get us where we are and certainly to calculate afterwards would be almost useless eh? The simplest logic would say you cant say that what happened shouldnt have happened when it did.
It did and thats all that matters. Probability doesnt have enough force in the argument. Thoughts?
Whats worse is there seems to be rarely an atheist, at least in formal debates ive seen, who brings this up. For some reason they only attack God and use the problem of evil. I think Dacy touched on this with Craig and there was an austrailian fellow who did this with Craig as well.
The problem of evil and Gods characteristics will always be the theists best argument but atheists at large seem to attack these very things. Do they really think they can win? It would make alot more sense to attack the fallacies such as in the probability argument if it does indeed contain fallacy. Rather most atheists in debate go for the emotional appeal. The theist would seem to try and impress people with large numbers of probability. These both are faulty it seems.
But im not saying Im right, Im trying to understand the probability argument. Can anyone give me their thoughts?
And based on this would the First Cause argument be the only decent argument there is sans of course the moral argument and whatnot?
It almost pre supposes the God hypothesis doesnt it? Theres no way to predict before the fact how these processes could get us where we are and certainly to calculate afterwards would be almost useless eh? The simplest logic would say you cant say that what happened shouldnt have happened when it did.
It did and thats all that matters. Probability doesnt have enough force in the argument. Thoughts?
Whats worse is there seems to be rarely an atheist, at least in formal debates ive seen, who brings this up. For some reason they only attack God and use the problem of evil. I think Dacy touched on this with Craig and there was an austrailian fellow who did this with Craig as well.
The problem of evil and Gods characteristics will always be the theists best argument but atheists at large seem to attack these very things. Do they really think they can win? It would make alot more sense to attack the fallacies such as in the probability argument if it does indeed contain fallacy. Rather most atheists in debate go for the emotional appeal. The theist would seem to try and impress people with large numbers of probability. These both are faulty it seems.
But im not saying Im right, Im trying to understand the probability argument. Can anyone give me their thoughts?
And based on this would the First Cause argument be the only decent argument there is sans of course the moral argument and whatnot?