I explained it above, in the example with the mother and her child.
While the analogy is appropriate in terms of expressing cause/effect and dependence, it fails in that there is no discernible evidence of God looking after the universe... there is nothing that one would not expect in a universe that looks after itself.
Yes, one can ask "where did the universe come from" - but while there is ample evidence of where a child comes from (DNA testing for example) there is nothing equivalent with regard Universe and God.
So please don't assume your analogy is appropriate in this regard.
If Thomas has two children, does this mean that he now in fact has to go and buy two bicycles?
If God exists, there is His input in everything.
Sure, because you believe it is that way. However, if you believed that God does not exist then His input is not in everything:
- If God exists then the Universe looks like it currently does.
- If God does not exist then the Universe looks like it currently does.
Can't then use the way the universe looks as evidence for either.
And if His input looks exactly the same as no-input... :shrug:
One simply needs to start with actually expressing gratitude to one's parents, friends, teachers. Doing so, one will eventually reach the source of all existence - whatever it may be.
I'm sorry... perhaps I'm a bit slow, but are you putting this forward as a means of reaching / identifying the "source of all existence"?
You and Rav are the ones stretching the Sun-sunlight analogy into invalidity.
We call it as we see it. Thus far the arguments haven't been countered.
Because there are analogies that are partly useful. And by providing several such analogies, it is possible to narrow down the field of questions.
This is how people often understand abstract topics.
Useful analogies are generally ones that are appropriate.
But combining inappropriate analogy with inappropriate analogy will do nothing.
Do you want me to play your mother or what?
If you can't counter the argument decently, you should try to do better than pointless quips.
It's what people go to school for and such.
I think the topic of whether school broadens one's horizons would be best served elsewhere. Needless to say, the only sense of "broadening one's horizons" I can grasp from your posts is a willingness to accept stuff we don't agree with and that we consider flawed. You seem to take rebuttal as being close-minded.
If you want us to accept that which we don't agree with, without discussion, examination and review then threads will be short... and pointless.
And I have.
I have pointed out how the inquirer's attitude (in this case, you and Rav and some others) plays a part in the discussion.
If you think that was an example of you countering any argument or issue with the appropriateness of the analogy then you are, simply, wrong.
Arguing that one's attitude plays a part in a discussion is NOT a counter to an argument but a plea for leniency, or waiver, or acceptance. It might allow a discussion to sweep the perceived flaw under the carpet but it is no way a counter.
And as for attitude... as said, if the purpose of discussion is to accept things we disagree with, to roll over and not to raise criticisms as we find them then discussions here are neutered and rather pointless.