There are two approaches to a meaningless question: -stripes4 wrote:I was kind of a bit disappointed at his answer. As a well respected intellectual I thought he could have come up with something more profound than 'okay, so why do children get bone cancer?' ... limited.
Also, why don't registered atheists just not entertain the hypothetical question and not play the game? why would one answer a question on what one would say to someone/thing that doesn't fucking exist anyway??
Simply state that it is meaningless.
Or, allow the fallacious logic momentarily and then use reductio ad absurdum to show that it is meaningless.
Fry, knowing that he was speaking before an audience that was, at least in part, comprised of believers, chose the latter. To simply say, "That won't happen. There is no god." would only invite claims that he had no real answer and was refusing to address the issue (try it when put in a similar spot yourself, if you don't believe me!)
