God stinks!

Trenutno berem “The God Delusion” Richarda Dawkinsa, in na trenutke se moram na glas smejat njegovim domislicam. Med drugim se ukvarja tudi z dokazi za obstoj boga Tomaža Akvinskega. Čeprav je sledeči “dokaz” med šibkejšimi, in ga (vsaj upam) nihče ne jemlje resno, je vseeno zabavno prebrati Dawkinsov reply:

0618680004.gifAkvinski (parafraziran): The Argument from Degree

We notice that things in the world differ. There are degrees of, say, goodness or perfection. But we judge these degrees only by comparison with a maximum. Humans can be both good and bad, so the maximum goodness cannot rest in us. Therefore there must be some other maximum to set standard for perfection, and we call that maximum God.

Dawkins: The Counterargument from Analogy

That’s an argument? You might as well say, people vary in smelliness but we can make the comparison only by reference to a perfect maximum of concievable smelliness. Therefore there must exist a pre-eminently peerless stinker, and we call him God.

Za še več smeha knjigo toplo priporočam (a kdo kaj ve kdaj bo prevedena v slovenščino? Hudo upam, da pred Božičem!).


In pa še: 300+ dokazov za obstoj boga!

  • sl.rReddit
  • del.icio.us
  • co.mments
  • Ma.gnolia

5 Comments

  1. falka says:

    hihihihihi

    naj bodi dobro prevedena. potem se je se jas lotim! zdej sm zacela selfiš đin

  2. domn says:

    lol, teh 300 dokazov, en bolši od druzga D še mal, pa ne bom več budist!!

  3. Einherjar says:

    Ja, ni lepsega, kot poslusati zablode ljudi, da bog obstaja )

  4. tamaris says:

    What is smelliness? The absence of cleaness. There must be a maximum of cleaness and all degrees of smelliness are imperfect variations of cleaness, right to the maximum of smelliness which is total absence of cleaness. Dawkins builds his theory on wrong base.

  5. tea says:

    tamaris,
    I’m not saying this is a good argument for absence of god - i just thought it was funny, which is why i posted it. there are clearly many better reasons to not believe in god.
    dawkins builds his theory on scientific base - so, unless you’re only refering to this specific argument, you’re wrong.

Leave a reply