(May 6, 2023 at 10:26 am)Fake Messiah Wrote:

(May 6, 2023 at 10:19 am)The End of Atheism Wrote: Yes why not

Because people have observed the making of a snowflake and have not seen any personal agent, just forces of nature.

The forces of nature are God's instrument. Appealing to nature doesn't help you

(May 6, 2023 at 10:21 am)purplepurpose Wrote:

(May 6, 2023 at 10:15 am)The End of Atheism Wrote: Jesus is just a human being, Zeus is mythology by definition. God may refer to a first cause who created everything. If people dont' care about it they're in trouble

What denomination you are from, what religion?

I keep my religion private. I'll tell you though I believe in One God only and his prophets.

(May 6, 2023 at 10:38 am)The End of Atheism Wrote:

(May 6, 2023 at 10:26 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Because people have observed the making of a snowflake and have not seen any personal agent, just forces of nature.

The forces of nature are God's instrument.

Even those that cause earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and thus kill millions of people? What a cruel god.

(May 6, 2023 at 10:37 am)Angrboda Wrote: Analogical arguments don't prove or demonstrate things.  They are useful for illustration or pedagogy, nothing more. 

I don't think this is true. Sure, people use analogies in common parlance to do just that : pedagogy and explaining things. But in philosophy, analogical reasoning reportedly plays an important role

Quote : "Analogical reasoning is fundamental to human thought and, arguably, to some nonhuman animals as well. Historically, analogical reasoning has played an important, but sometimes mysterious, role in a wide range of problem-solving contexts. The explicit use of analogical arguments, since antiquity, has been a distinctive feature of scientific, philosophical and legal reasoning."

In the same link above there is an entire section about justifications of analogical reasoning, but I can't really pretend I understand what's in there. I need some time to work out a full answer

(May 6, 2023 at 10:37 am)Angrboda Wrote: The general consensus is that the argument from design is unsuccessful, for numerous reasons that we can get into if you like. 

What I know is that the argument of design has many variants. But I don't agree that even the oldest ones are unsuccessful. Even Hume in his dialogues ended up conceding that the argument of design does resolve into some vague theism (google Plato's reversal or just read the last paragraph in the dialogues). So the analogy of design does have plausibility.

In modern times they say darwin killed the argument from design, but from the bit of research I did this is also a big mistake : people who claim darwinism is bad for theism assume that they are two competing explanations (proving one disproves the other or makes it less plausible etc), but this is only a claim

(May 6, 2023 at 10:41 am)Fake Messiah Wrote: Even those that cause earthquakes, tsunamis, hurricanes and thus kill millions of people? What a cruel god.

oh gosh; you're getting into the problem of evil; this is a big big topic

Stop deleting all my links they're really important to the discussion

(May 6, 2023 at 10:56 am)The End of Atheism Wrote: Stop deleting all my links they're really important to the discussion

When you reach 30/30, if you reach 30/30, you can post links.

(May 6, 2023 at 10:57 am)arewethereyet Wrote:

(May 6, 2023 at 10:56 am)The End of Atheism Wrote: Stop deleting all my links they're really important to the discussion

When you reach 30/30, if you reach 30/30, you can post links.

can I send you the link to post it yourself, the last one you deleted is really important

(May 6, 2023 at 10:56 am)The End of Atheism Wrote: Stop deleting all my links they're really important to the discussion

You are not important until you reach 30.   So nothing that might seem important to someone as unimportant as you can really be important.

(May 6, 2023 at 10:51 am)The End of Atheism Wrote:

(May 6, 2023 at 10:37 am)Angrboda Wrote: Analogical arguments don't prove or demonstrate things.  They are useful for illustration or pedagogy, nothing more. 

I don't think this is true. Sure, people use analogies in common parlance to do just that : pedagogy and explaining things. But in philosophy, analogical reasoning reportedly plays an important role

Quote : "Analogical reasoning is fundamental to human thought and, arguably, to some nonhuman animals as well. Historically, analogical reasoning has played an important, but sometimes mysterious, role in a wide range of problem-solving contexts. The explicit use of analogical arguments, since antiquity, has been a distinctive feature of scientific, philosophical and legal reasoning."

In the same link above there is an entire section about justifications of analogical reasoning, but I can't really pretend I understand what's in there. I need some time to work out a full answer

Skip on down to section 4, Philosophical foundations for analogical reasoning, and you'll find that none of them ultimately pan out in the type of analogical argument you are making.  It's poor form to argue on the basis of something which you freely admit you don't fully understand.

(May 6, 2023 at 10:51 am)The End of Atheism Wrote:

(May 6, 2023 at 10:37 am)Angrboda Wrote: The general consensus is that the argument from design is unsuccessful, for numerous reasons that we can get into if you like. 

What I know is that the argument of design has many variants. But I don't agree that even the oldest ones are unsuccessful. Even Hume in his dialogues ended up conceding that the argument of design does resolve into some vague theism (google Philo's reversal or just read the last paragraph in the dialogues). So the analogy of design does have plausibility.

In modern times they say darwin killed the argument from design, but from the bit of research I did this is also a big mistake : people who claim darwinism is bad for theism assume that they are two competing explanations (proving one disproves the other or makes it less plausible etc), but this is only a claim

If you are to be successful at one or more of the arguments from design that I posed in the form of questions, you're going to need to actually answer the questions, not simply offer vague assurances and promissory notes.

(May 6, 2023 at 11:00 am)Angrboda Wrote:

(May 6, 2023 at 10:51 am)The End of Atheism Wrote: I don't think this is true. Sure, people use analogies in common parlance to do just that : pedagogy and explaining things. But in philosophy, analogical reasoning reportedly plays an important role

Quote : "Analogical reasoning is fundamental to human thought and, arguably, to some nonhuman animals as well. Historically, analogical reasoning has played an important, but sometimes mysterious, role in a wide range of problem-solving contexts. The explicit use of analogical arguments, since antiquity, has been a distinctive feature of scientific, philosophical and legal reasoning."

In the same link above there is an entire section about justifications of analogical reasoning, but I can't really pretend I understand what's in there. I need some time to work out a full answer

Skip on down to section 4, Philosophical foundations for analogical reasoning, and you'll find that none of them ultimately pan out in the type of analogical argument you are making.  It's poor form to argue on the basis of something which you freely admit you don't fully understand.

(May 6, 2023 at 10:51 am)The End of Atheism Wrote: What I know is that the argument of design has many variants. But I don't agree that even the oldest ones are unsuccessful. Even Hume in his dialogues ended up conceding that the argument of design does resolve into some vague theism (google Philo's reversal or just read the last paragraph in the dialogues). So the analogy of design does have plausibility.

In modern times they say darwin killed the argument from design, but from the bit of research I did this is also a big mistake : people who claim darwinism is bad for theism assume that they are two competing explanations (proving one disproves the other or makes it less plausible etc), but this is only a claim

If you are to be successful at one or more of the arguments from design that I posed in the form of questions, you're going to need to actually answer the questions, not simply offer vague assurances and promissory notes.

God itself is no more than vague assurance and promissory note backstopped by what morons stupid enough to believe them might conceive to be blood curdling threats.    So how can any words offered on behalf of god be anything other than vague assurances and promissory notes?