Lack of evidence makes for an argument

Lacking evidence for the existence of a god makes it as likely as the coincidence of it existing, which is already not likely at all and gets even less likely with each word, action or feeling ascribed to it.

To change one's behavior because of the probability of a god existing is like not crossing a road on the basis that there might be an experimental stealthy and silent car that will hit us if we do. (Which is not even a feasible way of thinking to apply to every aspect of our lives. - which means it is another exception created there by believers) If all these baseless claims had 50% probability of being true then they would happen 50% of the time right? But they don't. Because a baseless claim is true only by coincidence, sharing probability of being true with all the other similar coincidences that would be incompatible with it, which clearly generates a very low value (which is why you can walk on what you perceive as an empty road and you will not be hit by the stealthy and silent car half of the times you do). Winning in a casino is more likely than to be hit by the "stealthy car" - just to put it in perspective...

And I didn't even mention that a "god" is meaningless on itself, that it is a quality or position that comes out of a relation of reverence, and not existing outside of that relationship.


Comments