RE: On Belief in God X
July 14, 2013 at 6:12 pm
(This post was last modified: July 14, 2013 at 6:13 pm by Ryantology.)
(July 14, 2013 at 9:55 am)FallentoReason Wrote: I don't know if you're picking up on the subtleties here, or if you outright disagree with these subtleties, but the royal flush scenario highlights the irrelevance of probabilities. Think of this alternate scenario: I deal 5 cards to you. You turn them over and see cards p, q, r, s and t. The chances of that ever happening were going to be some ridiculously small number, yet you sit there with the experiential justification that rightly allows you to claim you indeed have been dealt cards p, q, r, s and t, regardless of the maths.
Going with the poker analogy, however, you have to remember that the claims made by the religious imply an abrogation of the rules as we all understand them. A theist is not really making a claim of a royal flush, because royal flushes are simply highly unlikely and they do happen. They are making a claim that they hold a super-duper-extra royal megaflush. Every one of them. At the same time. According to their claims, they hold a hand of one million cards and every one of them is an infinity of every suit at once. When we scoff and say that isn't possible in a game of poker, they insist that their hand, and only their hand, deserves a special exception; that the rules of poker don't apply to their hand. But, ask them to show the cards, and they say they can't, because the cards are magical and you can only see them if you believe the theist's claim.
Why, then, should any of the other players not simply ignore these obviously cheating players, finish the hand among the rest of them, and continue the game without the obvious cheaters?
