RE: Would you be an atheist if science and reason wasn't supportive of atheism?
December 5, 2012 at 11:18 pm
(December 5, 2012 at 10:54 pm)Darkstar Wrote:(December 5, 2012 at 10:36 pm)Vincenzo "Vinny" G. Wrote: We're talking about a regular old lottery system here. Just imagine someone who has a million dollars, is running a lottery, and knows what the winning numbers are.
This is conceivably realistic, is it not?
So the man would be god, the money would be the universe, and the ticket would be...I think this analogy is falling apart. We have no evidence the man rigged it, but cannot prove that he did not. However, no one has ever seen the man, and some think the money is coming from another source. Some claim to hear his voice in their head, and...no...that's not it. The fine tuning argument, even if it succeeded, would only apply to deism. The point of the analogy was supposed to be that it is nt impossible for life to arise by chance because we are here now, and there is no evidence that a god created life, even if he created the universe, for which there is no evidence either.
Yes, it would lead us to conclude that given fine-tuning, the existence of a God-like mind is more plausibly true than not. In effect, yes, at minimum, deism.
But besides that your analogy seems to be arguing that it's "not impossible" for the universe it come about through naturalistic means. I agree with you- it's strictly possible. Even a 1 in 10^10^123 chance is still strictly speaking a chance.
But at what number point do you stop and say "Yeah, it's still strictly speaking a possibility that a Dolphin puked out a baby who pooped out the painting of the Mona Lisa. It's just not a realistic consideration."
Where is one to draw the line?
