RE: Creationism
August 13, 2020 at 7:28 am
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2020 at 7:35 am by The Grand Nudger.)
He'd have to have made an argument that it's -a- being, before he could validly conclude as much, just as he would have had to make an argument for it being -a god- before he could validly conclude as much.
He didn't. The argument simply smuggles being-ness as a component of the god-ness it also smuggled in at the end. Proved a cat, concluded a god.
This is what makes the argument invalid. The god conclusion does not follow, logically, from anything that preceded it.
Turns out the premises may be unsound as well, but it hardly matters, since the truth of the premises can't certify the truth of the conclusion. There's fairly broad agreement and centuries of study as to which, if any, of the god arguments are successful. Toms isn't one of them. None of the cosmological arguments are. They each commit a raft of errors, and the one mentioned above isn't the only error in toms version. It's not possible to launch any cosmological argument that doesn't run afoul of composition. Toms fuckup was just adding his own flavor of illogic to a fundamentally illogical type of argument.
He didn't. The argument simply smuggles being-ness as a component of the god-ness it also smuggled in at the end. Proved a cat, concluded a god.
This is what makes the argument invalid. The god conclusion does not follow, logically, from anything that preceded it.
Turns out the premises may be unsound as well, but it hardly matters, since the truth of the premises can't certify the truth of the conclusion. There's fairly broad agreement and centuries of study as to which, if any, of the god arguments are successful. Toms isn't one of them. None of the cosmological arguments are. They each commit a raft of errors, and the one mentioned above isn't the only error in toms version. It's not possible to launch any cosmological argument that doesn't run afoul of composition. Toms fuckup was just adding his own flavor of illogic to a fundamentally illogical type of argument.
I am the Infantry. I am my country’s strength in war, her deterrent in peace. I am the heart of the fight… wherever, whenever. I carry America’s faith and honor against her enemies. I am the Queen of Battle. I am what my country expects me to be, the best trained Soldier in the world. In the race for victory, I am swift, determined, and courageous, armed with a fierce will to win. Never will I fail my country’s trust. Always I fight on…through the foe, to the objective, to triumph overall. If necessary, I will fight to my death. By my steadfast courage, I have won more than 200 years of freedom. I yield not to weakness, to hunger, to cowardice, to fatigue, to superior odds, For I am mentally tough, physically strong, and morally straight. I forsake not, my country, my mission, my comrades, my sacred duty. I am relentless. I am always there, now and forever. I AM THE INFANTRY! FOLLOW ME!
