| Scoobes said: I don't remember that particular argument in the book but his theological points tend to need extra work. And I think his comment about debates was directed to some of the more extreme examples where random people are self-proffessed experts and epitomise confirmation bias. He's had debates and televised conversations with actual religious leaders/scholars and it's all been quite amicable. |
Yeah, that's my general point. Its not that difficult to do some research on the argument, especially when you're writing a book on the subject. Maybe he's tightened his arguments a bit since then, but my general impression when reading the book, was that he took some fundamenalists arguments, argued against these, and then claimed he had proof that God was highly improbable. Now his argument against a complex God is better formulated although I think he still misses the mark on a couple of points and could have done a good bit more research.
As far as the debate comments, I think you're right. I read the book two or three years ago, and I'm trying to recall it off the top of my head. To me, the only notable part of the book is his argument against a complex God, so I've forgotten most of the other stuff. : )
Edit: Oh! I do remeber one part of the book that made me laugh. He claims early on that he's going to provide an inductive argument for the non-existence of God. Then, he proceeds to argue that omnipotence and omniscience are incompatible.......which would deductively proof that God does not exist. I remember thinking....well, if that's true, what's the point of the rest of the book?
