Spot the Fallacy #2: Fine-Tuning and the Prior Probability of Theism

Note: This post is another post in our series of articles designed to engage non-philosophers. Despite the title, you don’t need to literally name a fallacy assuming there is one. What these posts are really designed to do is to get you to describe, in plain English, why the argument (or objection) presented isn’t successful.

Instructions:

1. Read William Lane Craig’s Q&A here.

2. If you are not a philosopher, explain in the combox why his response doesn’t work.

"Another important conceptual issue is the scope of the word "exists":Does space exist?Does time exist?Do ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"What is clear, is that "the universe" includes physical objects, because we know that there ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"Numbers and ideas "may not be relevant" in terms of a significant objection to Kreeft's ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."
"He isn't talking about something Aquinas argued, but rather is talking about problems with Aristotelian ..."

Kreeft’s Case for God – Part ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment