Posted: Dec 19, 2018 7:47 pm
by Cito di Pense
Hermit wrote:Nobody has managed to explain to me by what criterion we can determine the point at which something becomes so unlikely that it could not possibly have occurred without the intercession of a supernatural entity. Until then an (un)likelihood, no matter how great or small the odds, will always remain just that - an (un)likelihood.

There is a name for the error one makes when thinking otherwise: Divine fallacy. It's also known, somewhat ironically, as the argument from incredulity. "X must be the result of superior, divine, alien or supernatural cause because it is unimaginable for it not to be so." Theists usually resort to it in conjunction with the fine-tuned universe.

Next.


Well, you still have all your work ahead of you to show that your invention of a supernatural entity, whether or not you have a positive belief about it, is some kind of innovation, such that we can ask the question again. We don't take the goat-roasters seriously on supernatural entities, and so all the knowledge that has accumulated since they did their thing hasn't really layered anything onto the supernatural entity that intercedes in some magical way when you can't explain what happened. But you should know better than to consider such a cockamamie scheme, one you know was invented by goat-roasters and has not appreciated in value since then. Depreciated, that's what's happened, unless you like buying bullshit at a discount.

There's only one issue here, and it seems to be that some deep thinkers aren't prepared to accept their existence as profoundly and unmistakably unintentional. What a blow to the old ego is accepting that intentionality is a goat-roaster idea. We don't have to go down that road. Not one step. People think they have intentions. Why not then a God that you can't rule out? It amounts to saying the goat-roasters were onto something. Ah, the noble savage!