RE: Your Views on Dawkins?
December 18, 2012 at 4:17 am
(This post was last modified: December 18, 2012 at 4:22 am by Voltron.)
(December 18, 2012 at 3:34 am)clemdog14 Wrote: I wouldn't say per se that I am cherry picking. I am just quoting a section when he compares picking unguided Darwinian evolution over the existence of God.
Maybe it is an incomplete analogy. It's true that you could probably find the answer by researching the stadium, however, I think that when comparing the two (the scientific inquiry on unguided Darwinian evolution vs. the existence of God) one cannot really evaluate the existence of God scientifically.
Plantinga's analogy was meant to represent that given each option and their low probabilities, that picking one over the other (even though both are largely improbable based on the argument) does not really follow. He was not trying to ascertain the scientific study of the stadium noises.
You're really whittling it down to the point where you are portraying Dawkins as providing a hypothesis with no rational theory or evidence and making a simple choice between that or god.
Why believe in god then?
Again, these two improbable options differ greatly.
Improbable, no evidence
Improbable, with evidence.
What makes more sense? This is not merely flipping a coin.
