The absurd need for logical proofs for God

[Angrboda]

I'll have to get back to Klor's reply to me later, but the argument for the existence of other minds is itself pretty weak and shitty. If the argument for God depends upon being analogous to the argument for other minds, then you have a weak imitation of an already weak and shitty argument. We don't reason toward the existence of other minds, and, as things currently stand, we have no real successful way of proving the existence of other minds. That should give Klor and Plantinga pause when their argument for the existence of God is claimed to be "just as good as" a failed argument for the existence of other minds. Just as good means just as bad in this case. We don't reason toward the existence of other minds. It's programmed into our DNA to act as if other things in our environment are agents if they meet certain pattern matching criteria. Unfortunately, this same strategy has led us to conclude that an agent is at work in a waterfall, an automobile, and the song randomizer on Pandora. History is replete with examples of false positives in which we attribute agency to things that have no agency, so if the contention is that the argument for God is just as successful as our attempts to reliably detect agency, then I'd say you're pouring money down a black hole, never to be seen again.