Vlad the Divertonist,
You need to demonstrate and illustrate this with a justification.
I set out clearly in Reply 33 where you went wrong, and I set out clearly in Reply 69 where your attempt at a response went wrong.
Why have you just ignored both in favour of more mistakes and irrelevance?
Try again. Or don’t. It’s up to you. If you keep avoiding though you’re just exiting yourself from the discussion.
What you have done so far is to give bad arguments for, well, anything....and then merely illustrating them using the idea of God and Leprechauns.
Wrong again. Those bad arguments were used merely to illustrate the point, but any other bad arguments would do as well.
So without repeating that favoured approach you now actually have to make sense of the statement:-
WHEN AN ARGUMENT FOR GOD WORKS JUST AS WELL FOR LEPRECHAUNS, THEN IT’S PROBABLY A BAD ARGUMENT.
In other words WHY is it a bad argument.
It’s a bad argument because it leads to ridiculous outcomes with the same facility that it leads to outcomes you happen to think not to be ridiculous.
You’re really struggling here aren’t you.
Another point…
You can’t have an “another’ when you haven’t made a first one yet.
…is your claim of IRRELEVANT differences. You need to demonstrate a rationale for dismissing some differences between God and the little chaps and not others.
I have – several times in fact. That you just ignore them is your problem, not mine.
Finally…
You can’t have a “finally when you haven’t managed a “firstly” yet.
..the claim of faith based statements of fact. You need to demonstrate that people have faith in Leprechauns. You need to produce a Leprechaun worshipper and not a population of people who regard them as fairy tail or truly mythological. Both God and Leprechauns need not be posited as ''faith based statements of fact'' and can be stated as provisional as multiverse, dark matter etc.
Of course I don’t. Whether anyone actually believes in lerprechauns is entirely irrelevant (except in the narrow sense that someone may be attempting an
argumentum ad populum specifically).
You’ve shifted ground all over the place here (from the nonsense of “the objects of the analogy can’t be different” via the irrelevance of, “not many people use those arguments anyway” to the bizarreness of, “you have to find someone who believes in leprechauns”). Why?
Here it is again then:
WHEN AN ARGUMENT LEADS EQUALLY TO “GOD” AND TO LEPRECHAUNS, IT’S PROBABLY A BAD ARGUMENT.
Finally engage with it rather that endlessly throw sand at it or don’t – it’s up to you.
