Young Earth Creationism Vs. Science (Statler Waldorf Contd)

[Statler Waldorf]

---

Absolutely not, argument not refuted. Being eternal is just one of the attributes that makes something God. So to call that assuming the proof would be like saying the following syllogism is invalid…
Premise 1: All cats have cat DNA
Premise 2: Fluffy has Cat DNA.
Conclusion: Fluffy is a cat.
You would turn around and say, “Sorry! You are assuming that all cats have Cat DNA, can’t assume that!”. Well of course I can assume it because it is what makes a cat a cat. Being eternal is one of the attributes that makes God, well God. You may not agree with the premise that God is eternal, but disagreeing with a premise does not make an argument invalid logically.

O.M.G! Before you can even begin to present a validating argument that your God is eternal, you first have to prove that your God even exists. Unless you are arguing that your God is a cat named Fluffy. If so, I can almost believe that.

He hasn't even made an effort to provide evidence for the existence of this supposed "Fluffy", or it's DNA. Fluffy could be a hamster, or a piece of dandruff from a cat that would subsequently possess the DNA of a cat, or Fluffy could be a figment of his imagination -- and still other realms of possibility exist with this abstract concept of "Fluffy". Until we can assert Fluffy's existence, we can not assume it's attributes.

---