Critique of "God is Not Great" by Christoper Hitchens

[phil-lndn]

What question? What explanation? 

I don't like making assumptions, so please be more precise - quote my question so I know what you are talking about, state the explanation so that I can test your claims about it.

Thanks!

Is there some reason that you need me to restate -your- question? The question that was the sole impetus for your rant about an author in the first place?  

WOW! But how? How can we possibly be sure about that? Given that we are located inside these "plans", how can we possibly see outside of them to know from whence the plans themselves came?

There are no givens.  We have a better and well evidenced explanation than "plans" and "from whence they came".  Wonder in one hand, shit in the other.

This is where the word "plans" came into the discussion:

"And we can be as sure as we can probably need be, that neither this enormous explosion that set the universe in motion, (...) nor this amazingly complex  billion year period of evolution, we can be pretty certain it was not designed so that you and i can be meeting in this room, we are not the objects of either of these plans." 

These are Christopher's words, not mine.

If you object to the reasonableness of the use of this word, it's just another criticism of Christopher.

---

prob·a·bly


/ˈpräbəblē,ˈpräblē/


adverb

adverb: probably


almost certainly; as far as one knows or can tell.
"she would probably never see him again"


synonyms: in all likelihood, in all probability, as likely as not, (very/most) likely, ten to one, the chances are, doubtless, no doubt; archaiclike enough
"I knew I would probably never see her again"

OK, so I think i'm sufficiently happy with my original definition of "probably" to leave my original text un-changed. If you consider my definition inaccurate, then perhaps consider your disagreement with my original post a semantic debate over our different understandings of the world "probably".