(April 13, 2016 at 4:50 pm)SteveII Wrote:(April 13, 2016 at 3:25 pm)Simon Moon Wrote: Fallacy - equivocation.From the "Objections so bad..." link I mentioned above...
Uses a different definition of the phrase "began to exist" than in the first premise.
The first premise is describing things we observe in the universe that are a rearrangement of existing matter/energy. THis is creation ex material.
While, in premise 2, you are describing creation ex nihilo.
Objection #7: The argument equivocates on “begins to exist.” In premise (1) it means to begin “from a previous material state,” but in premise (2) it means “not from a material state.”
Response to #7: In order to defeat the allegation of equivocation all one needs to do is provide a univocal meaning for the phrase in both its occurrences. That's easy to do. By “begins to exist” all I mean is “comes into being.” Everything that comes into begin has a cause, and the universe came into being. No equivocation here!
Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/media/obj...z45k3DhOvd
That doesn't help the premise.
The premises are still trying to compare things that come into being in different manners.
Renaming it does not save the premis.
You'd believe if you just opened your heart" is a terrible argument for religion. It's basically saying, "If you bias yourself enough, you can convince yourself that this is true." If religion were true, people wouldn't need faith to believe it -- it would be supported by good evidence.
