RE: Creationism
August 12, 2020 at 9:46 pm
(This post was last modified: August 12, 2020 at 9:46 pm by brewer.)
(August 12, 2020 at 9:16 pm)Belacqua Wrote:(August 12, 2020 at 9:05 pm)brewer Wrote: Fair? Aquinas used completion backwards principle. He started out with God, then built an argument for it.
He didn't start out with "what is existence" having no other motivation. If he did, then inserting/asserting/concluding god would not have been needed.
Let's not be intentionally naive.
Textbook example of the ad hominem fallacy.
A logical argument must be judged on the basis of its logic. Disliking the motivation of the man who wrote it says nothing about the argument itself.
You could argue circumstantial ad hom, but circumstantial's are not necessarily fallacious. In this case probably not because he was a member of the church and had an agenda/motivation.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem#Circumstantial
I said he manufactured an argument for the existence of god. Adding god was not logical, making god the first cause without knowing is an argument from ignorance.
I judge his conclusion of "therefore god" only logical within the context of religion.
Being told you're delusional does not necessarily mean you're mental.
