The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[R00tKiT]

I am not sure how you reach the additional fact that all these minds out there are embodied. That's what your senses are telling you, but they're not proof. The existence of God is not really "based" on the existence of other minds. It's just the observation that our reasons to believe in the latter should lead us to the former, if we are honest and coherent, that is.

All the minds we know with a reasonable level of certainty to exist based on observation are associated with brains. It does not necessarily follow that if embodied minds exist, disembodied ones must also exist. There's a disconnect. Literally, since you're imagining minds disconnected from bodies. It is perfectly honest and coherent to accept the existence of embodied minds without also accepting the existence of disembodied ones. It's like saying if you accept the existence of humans, you must also accept the existence of Sasquatch, else you're dishonest or incoherent.

One small reminder, I never presented the full case for why the analogy for other minds is equivalent to that for god. The part explaining that in Plantinga's work is highly technical. I am merely conveying the underlying intuitions of what I understand so far. Roughly speaking, he argues that the objections to the telological argument are exactly the same objections to analogy for other minds.

---

If we're being honest and coherent, after all, god simply doesn't exist.

No conclusive argument against the existence of god was ever presented. By contrast, the reasons to positively affirm god's existence are as good as those we have to believe in the existence of anything other than ourselves