3 ms·

I disagree. The point of the argument is that the same reasoning used to rule out all the gods you don't believe in can be used to rule out the god(s) you do.

• aero142 17y ago
  I think there are two points. The conventional use of this argument is the one you are talking about, and that is why I said at the end of my post that it IS useful for that. However, the article specifically says “So, I guess we're not compatible, huh?”, meaning that we can't get along because we are different. And the response to that is “Of course we are! I like you a lot. And we do agree on 519 of the gods, so we'll just not mention that last one.” My response is that zero to one is a big jump. Darek seems to be a "lets all get along" kind of guy, and that is great, but this quote doesn't justify that.
• lotharbot 17y ago
  > "the same reasoning used to rule out all the gods you don't believe in can be used to rule out the god(s) you do." Not if the reasoning you use to rule out the other 519 gods is "exclusivity of god #520". Or if the reasoning is "I haven't explicitly ruled them out, I just don't have any positive evidence for their existence, but I do for #520". It's certainly worth thinking about whether your reasoning for whatever god(s) you believe in is consistent. The original argument sort of touches on that, but it does it quite poorly.