And my entire point throughout this whole trainwreck is no, those "nuances" are not some special integral part of the God debate we have to address.
Thank you. If you put your reasoning into clear words, like you're doing now, I can address them far better than if you're only aiming for smartness.
Not being snarky. I mean this.
Re. the bit quoted above, as I keep saying, no *you* don't have to address this unless you want to. No one is compelling you to do that. But I've clearly explained, more than once, why those nuances are signficant. If you can show me why you disagree with the specific reasons I've pointed out, rather than simply saying again and again that you disagree, then I can see if my views need to be re-evaluated in light of yours. And you could do the same.
*Head desk.* Yes the idea of an invisible dragon in my garage is too ridiculous to take seriously. That's... the... point.
If your neighbor tells you he has a dragon living in his garage and you look in his garage and don't see a dragon... THAT'S WHERE THE GODDAMN BLOODY STUPID DEBATE ENDS IT DOESN'T KEEP GOING AFTER THAT.
That's the moral you're supposed to take away from the garage dragon story and I'm going to keep using it until YOU GET IT.
Yes, because this is a dragon that no one believes in anyway, and because its existence is basically inconsequential (relative, that is, to the colossal consequences of the actual existence of God).
You did follow my "not guilty" vs "innocent" analogy, didn't you? You'd doubtless sport a bandaged head, from an endless banging of your head against your desk, if everyone went in for that level of hairsplitting about everything. Yet you don't do it when it comes to court cases, or other instances when such precision is actually relevant.
So, showing that this kind of precision is silly in some particular instance, especially a made-up hypothetical that is designed to be funny, does not really automatically make your argument for you.
True, that dragon analogy is great in order to get you to examine your position. But it isn't really a clinching argument at all, not if your examination throws up legitimate nuances.
Nobody is expected to nor is expected to put up with an endless game of recursive 20 questions about special magical properties of this particular dragon that excuses away why you can't see him.
If you looked into a garage and saw no dragon but someone turned around and pitched a hissy fit and started a new argument about whether "the existence of the dragon is scientifically disprove" you'd think they were daft.
And this is gonna just lead right back to more "God is different because of special pleading..."
I've clearly explained why I think it is relevant to accord greater precision to the God question than many other everyday matters. I wish you would clearly explain why you disagree with those reasons, rather than simply complaining of "special pleading". After all, like I've already shown, saying "not guilty" rather than "innocent" is special pleading too, in terms of the precision and the hairsplitting that that kind of terminology denotes.
Because none of them have been anything other than "We need more precision so I don't have to admit I'm wrong."
You're strawmanning, I'm afraid, when you impute those reasons on to me. True, theists sometimes do this for that very reason, but it's ridiculous of you to hint that that might be a factor in this case, that is, with me, especially given the discussions we've already had.
We could split hairs forever discussing the dragon in my garage and the chair in the room with no chair, always adding more precision, always invoking reasons to keep the conversation going so there's no consensus and nobody has to feel like they got shown to be wrong.
We don't though. And everything about God that's supposed to explain why its different is just "Because I say so" special pleading.
Look, you don't treat all things similarly. You don't give the same precision to all things. And, while "special pleading" is indeed a fallacy -- and it is good to be aware that it is a fallacy -- simply holding that up like a flag won't automatically win you an argument. There are times when special pleading is indeed justified, in court cases for instance.
And no, this isn't, as you describe it, a "Because-I-say-so" special pleading. I wish you wouldn't try to slip in these rhetorical flourishes in your comment, especially when they're clearly untruthful. I've clearly explained, more than once, why I think the God question deserves greater precision, and you know it. Feel free to argue against those reasons, aboslutely, but please don't try to pretend that those reasons haven't been presented.
