You understand that this is an analogy, right?
Hey hey
Thank you for helping me understand.
You intend to draw comparison between a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) - who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry - and God.
You do so for the purpose of explanation or clarification? What do you wish to clarify or explain by using a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) - who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry - and God?
I mean, I suspect English is not your first language,
Lets say - for fun - english is not my first language, does that justify prejudicial treatment? What does that justify?
Say you do infact have an idea or impression of my person (without certain proof). How does that effect your feelings?
but...I'm essentially asking YOU to put forward god as fact or basis for argument...and I'm doing so by way of metaphor.
No you did not my dear. You are now suggesting you used a figure of speech in which a word or phrase is applied to an object or action to which it is not literally applicable. What was the intention to apply it to a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) - who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry?
Or you used it as a thing regarded as representative or symbolic of something else? What were you representing? What is symbolic when we consider a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) - who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry?
A sarcastic question deserves a sarcastic answer. Please re-read what your request was.
Please excuse me my dear. My question here was not meant as contempt. Icon - "Would you preach this leprechaun entity to me?". I will explain why im interested in your conversation.
Lets consider the substance of what is being debated.
We have a situation where Daniel believes A is true and Samuel believes B is fiction.
Lets imagine a beautiful countryside and 2 unlikely friends on a journey of a life time. Daniel and Samuel were enjoying each others company and decided to park up somewhere to take in the sunset.
Daniel reflects on the beauty and majesty of his surroundings and declares "he does in fact exist. And by God, I mean Self-Existent First Cause With Intent, the One and Only such being. Omnipotence is by no means absurd for such a being. Our stance and comprehension and evidences for such are irrelevance as to his existence. If we find evidences, so much the better, but the facts remain regardless of our view of them. As such the facts are of value (again, IF it is a fact he exists), and so is apprehension to them, regardless of the reasons."
Samuel replies "But that is a tautological argument, and thus an epistemological hindrance."
Daniel looked into samuels eyes and said "I insist omnipotence is a necessary attribute of God", Samuel replies "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)?"
Have i got the below context right?
Samuel has suggested that A and B are not real and there is as much evidence for B compared to A? Samuel assumes A and B are in the same category?
If you were reading the entire conversation, you would know that my issue is this: Daniel believes A. Daniel says that if A is true, then everything sub-A is true. Samuel says: Ok, I believe B is true. If B is true, then everything sub-B is true.
Please excuse me. It seems i have an issue understanding modern english. What is meant by sub-A. And Sub-B.
How do you determine who is correct?
Well lets examine your 'analogy' and - methaphor?!? - some more.
Daniel believes A is true. Samuel believes B is fiction.
Samuel says "I can also posit (.eg put forward as fact or as a basis for argument) that there is a being called a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry)".
At that moment an old but very cool gentleman walked by named iconoclast who was curious about the conversation and what he observed.
Samuel continues "I CAN (posit that B is real) ....and IF I DID, it would be no different from somebody claiming that there exists a supernatural being who created the entire universe."
So do it?
Lets see if you can and if it would be no different?
Put your money where your mouth is and prove what you are saying?
Your argument is a Lepricorn (a unicorn/leprechaun hybrid) who can blind creationists to the evidence of common ancestry) can be reasoned just as much as The Christian God, well dont be shy show me how you do so?
In the above scenario, I represent neither Daniel nor Samuel.
In this scenario you are Samuel. If you do not like the name samuel i can change it to Jack Coolman or prehaps Eugene Schneider?
Cheers lets continue. Things are getting interesting my dear