Re: Logically refuting atheism in favor of agnosticism
Unless I have misunderstood your post, I'm afraid you are ignoring the difference between estimates of probability with confidence about those estimates.
Lestat is saying that we cannot make a prediction with probability 100% that the thoroughbred Skolansky will win his next race; you are saying that we can make such an estimate, since everything we know about the thoroughbred indicates that it will win its next race hands down.
But confidence (aka strength of conviction) matters. You ask people at the racetrack, Is there a horse that's likely to win the next race with 100% certainty, and which is it? Smith is a first-timer at the track who hears everyone around getting excited about the horse Skolansky, so he picks Skolansky. But, wait, Joey the experienced pro handicapper also replies Skolansky! (Smith doesn't know about Joey's opinion.)
When asked about the strength of their convictions, and presuming that both are brutally honest in their self-assessments, Smith should give a confidence level lower than Joey's.
Mickey Brausch
|