The Portable Atheist - Christopher Hitchens

by portcontrol7 15 Replies latest social entertainment

• 

  BurnTheShips

  I'm sorry, but according to the reasoning in the "new atheist" book The God Delusion Christopher Hitchens "almost certainly does not exist".

  There is also the "Dawkins of the Gaps".

  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QERyh9YYEis

  BTS
• 

  portcontrol7

  Hehe Funny to see the contortions and contradictions needed by those of faith to make their worldview seem less infantile. Christians are idiots, and arrogant little liars.
• 

  hooberus

  Hehe Funny to see the contortions and contradictions needed by those of faith to make their worldview seem less infantile. Christians are idiots, and arrogant little liars.

  And what of those who embrace "reasoning" against God that if applied consistently also disproves the existence of their own "new atheist" leaders? Note the following argument used by the "new atheist" book "The God Delusion" to disprove the existence of God:

  • "Complex things are improbable as to chance. (The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means).
  • Life is very complex and therefore improbable by chance.
  • However complex life is though, any creator of such life would have to be even more complex, hense even more improbable .
  • Therefore God being very improbable "almost certainly do not exist"".

  Now lets apply the same argument to the existence of the New atheists (Dawkins etc.)

  • "Complex things are improbable as to chance. (The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means).
  • The new atheist books ("The God Delusion", "Portable Atheist", etc,) are complex, hense improbable by chance.
  • However complex the books are though, any creator of such a book would have to be even more complex, hense even more improbable .
  • Therefore the new atheists (Dawkins, Hitchens, etc.) being very improbable "almost certainly do not exist"".
• 

  hooberus

  F.Y.I., The fallacy is the same in both the above arguments. That is equating improbability of coming about by chance, with improbability of existence, for something that need not have come about by chance. Such an argument in reality can only be used to show that God, or Dawkins is improbable as to coming about by chance, and not necessarily also improbable as to existence.Note what happens to the same arguments when the consistent phrase "by chance" is added (and not omitted) to premise #3.

  Example A

  • "Complex things are improbable as to chance. (The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means).
  • Life is very complex and therefore improbable by chance.
  • However complex life is though, any creator of such life would have to be even more complex, hense even more improbable by chance.

  Example B

  • "Complex things are improbable as to chance. (The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means).
  • The new atheist books ("The God Delusion", "Portable Atheist", etc,) are complex, hense improbable by chance.
  • However complex the books are though, any creator of such a book would have to be even more complex, hense even more improbable by chance.

  Observe how how the arguements now at best only prove improbability of coming about by chance and not also improbability of existence, since the creators in question (i.e.Dawkins, Hitchens, God,) need not also have come about by chance). Threfore the concluding point that they "almost certainly do not exist" is now easily seen as an invalid deduction.
• 

  hooberus

  The God Delusion book is crafty in that when it uses the phrase "statistically improbable" in relation to God*, it doesn't define it explicilty, as it does much earlier in the same chapter as referring to statistical improbabilityas to coming about by chance** . Thus, alllowing "statistically improbable" in reference to God to be easily equivocated in the minds of readers as statistically improbable as to existence, -the thrust of the chapter.

  *For example the book says: "a God capable of designing a universe, or anything else, would have to be complex and statistically improbable."

  ** "The greater the statistical improbability, the less plausible is chance as a solution: that is what improbable means."
• 

  hooberus

  btt