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

Spot the Fallacy #2: Fine-Tuning and the Prior Probability of Theism April 17, 2015

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.

"What I stepped into is a steaming pile of dog crap.When I stepped into Kreeft's ..."

OFF TOPIC: 6 “FACTS” Presented by ..."
"Nevin Climenhaga's theistic arguments about probability are something you guys might address. Maybe call Lowder ..."

OFF TOPIC: 6 “FACTS” Presented by ..."
"You stepped into politics. I'm done. Not the reason I followed this blog."

OFF TOPIC: 6 “FACTS” Presented by ..."
"I suspect you used too many big words. 😎"

OFF TOPIC: 6 “FACTS” Presented by ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment