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.
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.
Just had to chime in here... While I understand your points about the abstraction of god, I think you're reading into the details too much. I think the FSM/teapot analogy is totally valid.
The whole point of it is merely to show that it is illogical to assume that anything extraordinary exists without seeing evidence for it. By assuming an entity exists (for which there is no evidence, or even
no possible way to even test for its existence), you logically have to also assume that any other such entities are just as likely to exist, and therefore just as valid. It doesn't prove or disprove the existence of god, as much as it shows that assuming such things is illogical and counter-productive.
This thread sure has given me a laugh, and taught me a thing or two. I'm not religious, but I do find it funny listening to religious people try and validate their views by alternately cherry-picking science and quoting the Bible. BADecker - you are probably the worst offender in this respect, one minute you're saying things like: "Machine Universe proves the existence of God", "Evolution is a scientific impossibility" etc, and the next you're quoting Bible passages to back up your claims! Most religious people accept that their beliefs are not provable, that's why they call it "faith" when you believe weird stuff with no evidence.
The fact that some of you seem to be looking to science to rationalise your religious views strikes me as refreshing in a way, as it suggests that you're questioning your views and retaining at least a little open-mindedness. Try and lose the confirmation bias, and you might get somewhere!
The selection that I bolded above is precisely why it's a bad analogy, and again, it's bad because it's totally irrelevant.
I'm not reading into details too much, but rather those who assert this analogy are interjecting details where they have no business being interjected and glossing over them as if they're totally insignificant.
The whole point is that it's impossible to find evidence that would prove the existence of God specifically because the scope of the scientific method and empiricism doesn't extend that far.
The simple rebuttal to the analogy is that there are two major types of knowledge: 1)
a posteriori knowledge, i.e. knowledge based upon evidence/experience, and 2)
a priori knowledge which is independent of evidence/experience. The FSM and teapot analogies focus *only* on
a posteriori knowledge, and the problem arises when those who assert the FSM and teapot analogies fail to recognize that proof of God, if it can exist, can *only* be derived from
a priori knowledge.
Accordingly, again, it's a bad, totally invalid analogy. My simple rebuttal is, "Yeah, screw that analogy, what
a priori knowledge do you have that you can use to argue against the existence of God?"
It's. A. Bad. Analogy. Russel and Dawkins fucked up, deal with it.
Disclaimer: Though I've mentioned it before, I'm not Christian, and I don't adhere to any particular religion, though I do believe in God inasmuch as I believe the Universe is essentially a mental construct.
