RE: Do to really believe a snake talked?!
November 9, 2012 at 5:40 pm
(This post was last modified: November 9, 2012 at 5:44 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(November 9, 2012 at 5:09 pm)John V Wrote: It's the tautological fallacy, actually.
The question is whether the universe has always existed. You substituted existence for universe, then made the tautological observation that existence exists. I know it seems profound to you, but it isn't. It's a fallacy.
That would be the equivocation fallacy actually (unless the tautological fallacy is another name for the equivocation fallacy? Personally I've never heard of it). Because that would be equivocating "existence" and "universe". It would be the equivocation fallacy but in this case it actually isn't because I'm not suggesting that the universe and existence are the same thing. I'm saying that "existence" has always existed, because that's a tautology. So whether the "universe" had a beginning or not, something has always existed. And so why would existence, which has tautologically always existed, require God?