Yeah but two of the dominant strains of monotheism hold (alternatively) that:
1. Humans won't go extinct, or at least not permanently. They'll be resurrected on judgement day and live forever thereafter.
2. Humans won't go extinct in the relevant sense. Their bodies might, but they will live on (and have a relationship with God) forever in a spiritual form.
I don't see how your argument gets going against the theist without begging a large part of the question against the central tenets of their religion.
Perhaps, but I'm skeptical: the evidence for human extinction at least weakly implies that such religious claims are false. However, it is admittedly weak evidence, as I said the piece. Or put differently: evidence for eventually human extinction fits better with naturalism than theism.
Yeah but two of the dominant strains of monotheism hold (alternatively) that:
1. Humans won't go extinct, or at least not permanently. They'll be resurrected on judgement day and live forever thereafter.
2. Humans won't go extinct in the relevant sense. Their bodies might, but they will live on (and have a relationship with God) forever in a spiritual form.
I don't see how your argument gets going against the theist without begging a large part of the question against the central tenets of their religion.
Perhaps, but I'm skeptical: the evidence for human extinction at least weakly implies that such religious claims are false. However, it is admittedly weak evidence, as I said the piece. Or put differently: evidence for eventually human extinction fits better with naturalism than theism.