RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 30, 2017 at 11:14 am
(This post was last modified: November 30, 2017 at 11:42 am by Edwardo Piet.)
Great post Jor. And as for this part specifically:
This is exactly what I've been saying as well. I'm glad I'm not the only one who recognizes this. If all points 1-3 are arguing for is some kind of eternal changeless uncaused cause then I believe in that (although I'm not sure about the changeless part. It depends what that means exactly). I just recognize that, no, that is not what "everyone knows as God".
I'm not willing to accept points 1-3 at all if they are going to end with the non-sequitur of "this is God" though. No it bloody well isn't, God means more than that shit. Even a fully non-intervening deist god is more than that.
The 5W is a failed argument as a whole. I don't have to disagree with every single part of all 5 of the ways to say that the 5 ways argument is an utter failure overall
You've already shown that you're terrible at playing Spot the Non-Sequitur™. How am I supposed to debunk something if you can't even notice that when Aquinas says something equivalent to: "2+2=4 therefore Jimbob The Three-headed Seven-Legged Custard Monster Is Going To Sell Your Salty Thigh Meat To Taco Bell" . . . it's a total failure of logic on his part?
Wrong.
1. If Aquinas has never presented a valid argument in the first place there's nothing worthy of debunking.
2. If I spot a faulty premise or non-sequitur that the argument as a whole depends on in order to be sound and valid then that does indeed demonstrate that the argument is a total failure.
If you don't want to call demonstrating that the argument is a total failure "debunking" then don't use that word. But I don't care what you call it if I've demonstrated that the argument is indeed a total failure. If Aquinas is going to make an argument that is at least valid he's got to at least make an argument that actually has premises that entail his conclusions, rather than just making total non-sequiturs. He's got to at least give us something worthy of debunking. I don't have to debunk 2+2=4 therefore Poop Biscuits to tell you that that makes no damn sense . . . and I don't have to pretend that 2+2=5 either. It's not my fault that you can't recognize a non sequitur when you flat out a fisted two forked arse nose so I guess Jesus must be gay then.
(November 30, 2017 at 10:49 am)Jörmungandr Wrote: That leaves 1W-3W, none of which require that the entity in question be possessed of an intelligence or a mind, and thus they are, "not what everyone knows as God."
This is exactly what I've been saying as well. I'm glad I'm not the only one who recognizes this. If all points 1-3 are arguing for is some kind of eternal changeless uncaused cause then I believe in that (although I'm not sure about the changeless part. It depends what that means exactly). I just recognize that, no, that is not what "everyone knows as God".
I'm not willing to accept points 1-3 at all if they are going to end with the non-sequitur of "this is God" though. No it bloody well isn't, God means more than that shit. Even a fully non-intervening deist god is more than that.
(November 29, 2017 at 11:40 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: You’re saying that the 5W have been thoroughly debunked. Debunking means showing that the arguments are fallacious.
The 5W is a failed argument as a whole. I don't have to disagree with every single part of all 5 of the ways to say that the 5 ways argument is an utter failure overall
You've already shown that you're terrible at playing Spot the Non-Sequitur™. How am I supposed to debunk something if you can't even notice that when Aquinas says something equivalent to: "2+2=4 therefore Jimbob The Three-headed Seven-Legged Custard Monster Is Going To Sell Your Salty Thigh Meat To Taco Bell" . . . it's a total failure of logic on his part?
(November 29, 2017 at 11:40 am)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: So I guess if you want to elevate a semantic point to the level of "debunking" I'm not going to stop you. At the same time, that's a far cry from pointing out a faulty premise or break in the chain of logic.
Wrong.
1. If Aquinas has never presented a valid argument in the first place there's nothing worthy of debunking.
2. If I spot a faulty premise or non-sequitur that the argument as a whole depends on in order to be sound and valid then that does indeed demonstrate that the argument is a total failure.
If you don't want to call demonstrating that the argument is a total failure "debunking" then don't use that word. But I don't care what you call it if I've demonstrated that the argument is indeed a total failure. If Aquinas is going to make an argument that is at least valid he's got to at least make an argument that actually has premises that entail his conclusions, rather than just making total non-sequiturs. He's got to at least give us something worthy of debunking. I don't have to debunk 2+2=4 therefore Poop Biscuits to tell you that that makes no damn sense . . . and I don't have to pretend that 2+2=5 either. It's not my fault that you can't recognize a non sequitur when you flat out a fisted two forked arse nose so I guess Jesus must be gay then.
