Originally posted by Ordo
The problem with Dawkin's teapot analogy is that a teapot is a familiar, concrete object...His misuse of this analogy is typical of his severly damaged thinking processes.
You'll have to elaborate on why that's a flaw in the argument. It could be pretty much anything that there is no evidence for or against and the analogy makes sense.
Originally posted by Mindship
God can not be found with a telescope. Either conclude God does not exist, or that a telescope is not the proper tool.
I think the point is that God can not be found with any tool known to man. And the conclusion is that it is so unlikely that this random hypothesis is true that you may as well in practice act as if it wasn't, similar to what we do with unicorns and leprechauns.
The teapot is just an example of something we don't believe even though there are teapots and there is mars and the it is pretty much unknowable to us at the moment whether there is one or isn't
Originally posted by Bardock42A reasonable practice. Theoretically though, one could still see and touch a unicorn, such that, if one is never found, the conclusion that it doesn't exist carries more weight than lack of empirical evidence for something that - by definition - we can never, ever see or touch.
I think the point is that God can not be found with any tool known to man. And the conclusion is that it is so unlikely that this random hypothesis is true that you may as well in practice act as if it wasn't, similar to what we do with unicorns and leprechauns.
Originally posted by Mindship
A reasonable practice. Theoretically though, one could still see and touch a unicorn, such that, if one is never found, the conclusion that it doesn't exist carries more weight than lack of empirical evidence for something that - by definition - we can never, ever see or touch.
The problem is that we do not agree on what God is - we can dispute Torah, Bible and Qur'an and their definitions of God, but we do not all agree on what it may actually be.
For some nature IS God, for others Sun IS The God, therefore, they can not only believe in God, but see it and feel it. (Well not touch it, for obvious reasons).
We cannot begin to collect or think about empirical evidence of something we as humans fail to agree on what that may actually be, a man in the sky, universe as a whole, aliens, sun, nature, life force...etc.
Originally posted by Mindship
A reasonable practice. Theoretically though, one could still see and touch a unicorn, such that, if one is never found, the conclusion that it doesn't exist carries more weight than lack of empirical evidence for something that - by definition - we can never, ever see or touch.
That's not actually the definition of God though, in fact the God of the bible could be empirically wittnessed in multiple ways and by anyone. Which is superior to Unicorns which in some lore can only be seen by the pure of heart...does that make Unicorns more likely? No. The addition "and it can't be wittnessed by the senses" doesn't make something more likely logically. In fact I would say that I would rather believe the claim of something being perceivable, as it wouldn't raise the question how the claim-er knows of the thing/being in the first place.
When you claim there are "magical beings looking like horses and having a horn on their head", everyone will laugh at you, and rightly so, the addition "magical beings looking like horses and having a horn on their head, but they can't be seen" doesn't make the claim more plausible for unicorns and neither should it for God(s).
Originally posted by Bardock42
That's not actually the definition of God though, in fact the God of the bible could be empirically wittnessed in multiple ways and by anyone. Which is superior to Unicorns which in some lore can only be seen by the pure of heart...does that make Unicorns more likely? No. The addition "and it can't be wittnessed by the senses" doesn't make something more likely logically. In fact I would say that I would rather believe the claim of something being perceivable, as it wouldn't raise the question how the claim-er knows of the thing/being in the first place.
The Unicorn is based on early European descriptions of rhinos. The Romans brought them to Rome for gladitorial games, and the non-Romans who witnessed them brought the stories back home of these weird one-horned animals. In fact, rhinos are cousins to horses (odd-hoofed ungulate), so the desprictions weren't way off, so you can see how the idea of the Unicorn got started. You've seen those Exploration Era sketches of giant squids attacking ships, right? Well, giant squids exist, even though the stories got carried away. Kraken = giant squid, Unicorn = rhino, even though the former are very exaggerated versions.
Originally posted by Bardock42
When you claim there are "magical beings looking like horses and having a horn on their head", everyone will laugh at you, and rightly so, the addition "magical beings looking like horses and having a horn on their head, but they can't be seen" doesn't make the claim more plausible for unicorns and neither should it for God(s).
It should. Comparing God to a four-legged furry animal that lives in the woods, kind of undermines the whole idea of a transcendant creator. If god could somehow be detected or glimpsed in this life, it wouldn't seem that god would be seen galloping in a meadow.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
The Unicorn is based on early European descriptions of rhinos. The Romans brought them to Rome for gladitorial games, and the non-Romans who witnessed them brought the stories back home of these weird one-horned animals. In fact, rhinos are cousins to horses (odd-hoofed ungulate), so the desprictions weren't way off, so you can see how the idea of the Unicorn got started. You've seen those Exploration Era sketches of giant squids attacking ships, right? Well, giant squids exist, even though the stories got carried away. Kraken = giant squid, Unicorn = rhino, even though the former are very exaggerated versions.
Unicorns aren't rhinos, regardless of the development. I also don't know what that matters.
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It should. Comparing God to a four-legged furry animal that lives in the woods, kind of undermines the whole idea of a transcendant creator. If god could somehow be detected or glimpsed in this life, it wouldn't seem that god would be seen galloping in a meadow.
That again, just seems to fail to grasp the point completely. I am not sure what you are trying to tell me, and I am even less sure how any of it is related to anything I said, beyond sharing the word "unicorn".
Originally posted by Quiero Mota
It should. Comparing God to a four-legged furry animal that lives in the woods, kind of undermines the whole idea of a transcendant creator. If god could somehow be detected or glimpsed in this life, it wouldn't seem that god would be seen galloping in a meadow.
If God can't be detected in any way then how do we know God exists? God would have no way to communicate his existence.