Vlad the Irrelevantist,
Yes but observe what's going on here. If your two things in question look as though they might be epistemiological different. Change the definitions to make them the same category.......Lines five and six. Sorry to rumble you.
I am only rumbled on falsification if it is impossible to survey every rainbow in Ireland or even the world. All that seems to be lacking here is the will.
As far as extra terrestrial leprechauns are concerned. They are unlikely to be humanoid or irish.
Top of the morning to you.
As you’ll have some more time today on your way to A&E again to get the hole in your other foot fixed (is that what you meant when you claimed to be "holistic" perhaps?), let’s have one final go at explaining to you where you keep crashing and burning here.
Fundamentally, you don’t know what the word “analogy” means. An analogy is a comparison between
different objects in order to explain or clarify an argument. “It was a roller-coaster of a film” for example doesn’t mean that the cinema threw you around the place, but rather that your emotional response was analogous to the experience of a fairground ride.
Your mistake responding with the equivalent to “but one is a room with soft seats and a screen, the other is an outdoor ride so they’re not analogous at all”, thereby entirely missing the point.
You can talk all you like about whether leprechauns are natural, supernatural or anything else just as you can talk about the differences between a cinema and a fairground ride. In each case though the effort is utterly, entirely, unequivocally, categorically, irredeemably
irrelevant.
What
is relevant though – and this is the bit you never get around to dealing with – is that “God” and leprechauns are epistemically the same
when the same argument produces either outcome with equal facility. What that argument is doesn’t matter at all: “You can’t disprove god/leprechauns, therefore god/leprechauns (the NPF); “Other people agree with me about god/leprechauns” (
argumentum ad populum); “I don’t like the idea of no god/leprechauns (
argumentum ad consequentiam); “I prayed to god/leprechauns for a promotion and got the job, therefore god/leprechauns” (
post hoc ergo propter hoc); “I know god/leprechauns exist because it says so in a book, god/leprechauns wrote the book (circular reasoning) and, wearily, on and on they go.
You’ll notice that none of these bad arguments are bad because of any of the characteristics of their outcomes – you can claim anything, assert any behaviours, describe any features and characteristics about god/leprechauns that take your fancy – none of that though makes one jot of a smidgin of an iota of a snippet of a difference to the
point of the argument which, yet again, is:
WHEN AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD WORKS JUST AS WELL FOR LEPRECHAUNS, THEN IT’S PROBABLY A BAD ARGUMENT.
Your choice here is either to continue your relentless dishonesty with a, “but god is X, whereas leprechauns are Y” irrelevance or – finally – you could at least try to engage with the argument that’s actually been made.
Up to you really.
