--- Yoshie Furuhashi <furuhashi.1 at osu.edu> wrote: Plate tectonics isn't a claim about the supernatural, so, however improbable a claim about it seemed in the early twentieth century, it could eventually be evaluated as methods of observation improved. But a claim about the supernatural isn't subject to such progress. A claim about God is an add-on that cannot be proved or disproved naturalistically, so it doesn't improve any explanation of natural phenomena. Those who make an improbable claim that it does ought to offer evidence of it.
--
Theists can offer lots of inductive evidence (infinitely more than atheists can). What is the design-like quality of the universe if not evidence of design? (I am not a believer in intelligent design BTW, but they do have a point.) None of it is enough to convince a nontheist, though, including me.
Who decides what's improbable anyway? This reminds me of Hume's amusing but lame argument against believing in miracles. My making that judgment presupposes that my understanding of things is correct, which I can't possibly know.
Nu, zayats, pogodi!
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com