(May 6, 2023 at 11:10 am)The End of Atheism Wrote:(May 6, 2023 at 11:00 am)Angrboda Wrote: 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.
I believe God's existence shouldn't be a highly challenging philosophical task. That being said the sole fact that there is extensive literature about analogies makes your claim wrong (that it's useless and just used for illustration)
(May 6, 2023 at 11:00 am)Angrboda Wrote: 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.
Since complex organisms can't be brought about without a creator, and since we have no good reason to assume evolution contradicts belief in creator, it's safe to say that belief in a creator is more than warranted
Ok, this god of yours must be very complex, who created him/her/it?
The meek shall inherit the Earth, the rest of us will fly to the stars.
Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud ..... after a while you realise that the pig likes it!
Never underestimate the power of very stupid people in large groups
Arguing with an engineer is like wrestling with a pig in mud ..... after a while you realise that the pig likes it!