Using your own argument, that would mean that 'god the father' could not exist since he would first need to make the universe and then his son (to be a father). Regardless, I can equally assert that spaghetti exists only because the FSM created it in his own image, the same way christians insist they are created in god's image. No more contradiction. Bottom line is, that when it comes to god, there's no (scientific) way to (prove or) disprove it's existance, regardless of which god(s) your are talking about, which is the whole premise behind Russell's teapot. (Just for sake of argument, you cannot view the entire solar system through the Hubble telescope at once, nevermind a teapot god that may wish to remain undiscovered.)
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
With all due respect, this discussion only digressed somewhat to semantics since you were implying these terms mean something they do not. I am not arbitrarily saying anything and have already linked sources to the validity my assertions. If you insist you can arbitrarily give words their meanings, then I suppose I have nothing left say.
I'm hardly arbitrarily giving words meaning when I quote the definition of 'god' from a dictionary reference and then apply that definition in context. But, then again, I'm not attempting to prove the existence of God, I'm simply arguing that the FSM is a bad analogy. It's a bad analogy specifically because analogies only work if the characteristics of the things being compared are similar.
Am I missing the point of the analogy? I thought these things were always brought up in the same abstract vein; that is, you can't prove god exists any more than you can disprove there is a teapot/FSM/whatever-else. The analogy isn't about which mythical creature exists or what properties and powers it may or may not have, it's about the existence of mythical creatures period. From this view, I think the analogy is fine.
It's not fine because god is not a 'creature.' Again, the problem with the analogy is that it tries to back a theist into a corner that doesn't exist by assuming that empiricism is the only means by which you can prove the existence of God when what we're really exploring is a totally abstract concept. It simply doesn't work. Imagine if I likened, for example, the abstract laws of mathematics to a "mythical creature" or the FSM or a space teapot. Would you let me get away with such an analogy?
FSM or the 'Teapot' aren't creatures either. They're gods. Analogy seems find to me.
So you're telling me the FSM is not made of spaghetti, can't fly, and is not a monster, all of which would invoke conditionality and therefore render it impossible of being a monotheistic god? And when Richard Dawkins asks us to imagine the assertion of a teapot existing in some unknown extra-planetary orbit that he's talking about an abstract teapot around some abstract orbit?
The ways in which we are asked to consider the FSM and teapot are irrelevant to the debate about the existence of God. They aren't asserted to be some conditional form, like Jesus, that an omnipotent God would be able to assume if it chose. The FSM and teapot would make better analogies for Jesus than God.
So yes, it's a bad analogy. It's a dead argument before it even gets off the ground. You're better off just arguing against the assertion of what God actually is according to whoever it is you're arguing against.
Ah, are you then referring to the existence of "god" vs. the existence of "God?" The former being a concept and the latter being a specific deity, such as the Christian or Muslim or what-have-you? I'm not sure it matters anyway, but if you're referring to the second, the analogy is a match.
