Posted: Aug 14, 2013 3:20 am
I don't think will's off to a very good start by alluding to a deistic, or fine-tuning argument for a probable god. We'll see how this goes, but any argument proceeding from the notion that god is "highly probable" seems built on sand to me. But I'll be interested to see how he takes his argument - I'll be impressed if the only glaring flaw is the assumption of god's existence, because I think even assuming a deistic god doesn't allow a rational defence of Christianity.