3 ms·
I think many people may be missing the point. The point of the argument is to challenge people to question whether the existence of their god is any more plaus
by hugh3 17y ago
I think many people may be missing the point.
The point of the argument is to challenge people to question whether the existence of their god is any more plausible than any of the other thousands of deities whose existence has been postulated.
It works well against Christians or anyone else whose god has specific and well-defined properties. It doesn't work against deists since their "god" is sufficiently poorly-defined to be more plausible than Thor.
- lotharbot 17y ago> "It works well against Christians" No it doesn't. It amazes me how often I hear Christians say "this argument works well against atheists" and then make an utterly stupid argument that none of the atheists I know would take seriously. This strikes me as much the same -- it's an argument that atheists think should work well against Christians, but that most Christians will think is stupid and misses the point.
- hugh3 17y agoOddly enough I was brought up a churchgoing Christian, but was convinced by arguments of pretty much this same form that Christianity was almost certainly false.
- pyre 17y agoIt works well against the argument, "How can you not believe in God?" The belief that 'belief in God' is a given is equally stupid.
- Alex3917 17y ago"It doesn't work against deists since their 'god' is sufficiently poorly-defined to be more plausible than Thor." Contemporary thinkers might argue that god is well-defined, but ineffable.