4 ms·
The argument may be valid, but only as far as it argues an irrelevant case: Hardly any religious person would suggest that God came into existence sometime aft
by micwawa 11y ago
The argument may be valid, but only as far as it argues an irrelevant case: Hardly any religious person would suggest that God came into existence sometime after the creation of the Universe. Am I missing something?
You're suggesting half of the Bayesian argument: Given a universe without God, it is quite probable that religions exist. But what I would like to see is the other half: Given a universe in which (some) God exists, the current universe is nearly impossible.
- philipov 11y ago"It's a valid strawman argument" isn't my conception of a valid argument. Validity includes relevance, not just internal consistency. The point of religion is that there is no such thing as disproving the existance of god, just as there is no such thing as a valid proof of the existance of god. Religion is built on faith, which is the rejection of proof. Dawkin's faith in science is a religious view, not a scientific one.