How much pain can atheists withstand ?

[The End of Atheism]

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

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.

[Fake Messiah]

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.

[The End of Atheism]

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

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

Administrator Notice
Links removed per 30/30 rule.

[The End of Atheism]

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

[The End of Atheism]

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

[arewethereyet]

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.

[The End of Atheism]

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

[Anomalocaris]

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.

[Angrboda]

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.

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.

Administrator Notice
Links previously removed, removed again.

[Anomalocaris]

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.

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?

Administrator Notice
Links removed again.