quote: No, I am talking about Straggler's apparent view of agnosticism.
And in doing so you claimed that money was analogous to some view of God in a way that refuted Straggler's argument. So what is that view of God ? It should be a simple question to answer if your argument had any merit - because it is implicitly part of that argument.
quote: No, there was no analogy intended or implied.
I was responding to Straggler's argument in Message 79, and pointing out that his argument, if correct, would prove too much. For, as worded by Straggler, that argument would also apply to money and to mathematical entities.
So basically you were just making a minor nit-pick that the wording was not absolutely airtight - and that's your only problem with the argument. OK. But if that is what you are doing, you really should make it clear that that is all that it is.
quote: I was pointing out a problem with the argument presented, not merely with the choice of words
However, if you understand the argument it is quite clear that it does NOT apply to money or mathematics in any sense that would be problematic. Which is why for there to be a problem you would have to show an analogy. So again, all you are doing is arguing that the argument could be misunderstood, which would be primarily an issue of the wording.
quote: Analogies never prove anything. They can be useful as illustrations, but do not constitute proof.
In this case showing a valid analogy would indicate that the argument had a genuine problem. And since you have changed the subject, I take it that you concede that all you did was point out a minor problem in the wording of Straggler's argument.
quote: You do, of course, have the right to jump to unwarranted conclusions.
In this case the conclusion is warranted by your evasiveness and complete failure to offer any reasonable defense of your argument. In fact I would say that it is the most charitable conclusion I could come to.