RE: Creationism
August 13, 2020 at 1:24 pm
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2020 at 1:42 pm by The Grand Nudger.)
Buddy, I'm not arguing that a cat and a first mover are the same thing. I'm pointing out that tom failed to argue for a god, at all, in his argument for a god. Just as I would fail to argue for a god, at all, by holding up a cat.
It doesn't matter a single bit what all of toms thinking was on this or any other subject. I was asked to show the issues of validity that a specific argument, as stated, presents. There's one, well known and well acknowledged and not at all controversial. Even the great tom himself came to realize this. Textbook non seq. There are more, equally well established, well commented on, and well studied.
There is at least one argument where, if you accept every premise, you cannot reject the god conclusion. Toms aint it. You can accept every premise, and reject the god conclusion, because the god conclusion does not logically follow from any of the premises, even if the first mover does. Similarly, my god conclusion does not follow from any of my cat premises, even if cats do.
A special note here, it also doesn't matter what tom or anyone else's metaphysics would allow to be considered as a god. Ask an egyptian if a cat was divine. Or a man. Or, really, anything with insufficient and or unacceptable potency™. Do I even need to comment on how impotent toms god is, in reality? Absolutely no bearing on the validity of the argument being considered, and a ludicrous grab at deference on it's face. So what if he wouldn't accept a cat, he wouldn't accept a prime mover as a god either.
It doesn't matter a single bit what all of toms thinking was on this or any other subject. I was asked to show the issues of validity that a specific argument, as stated, presents. There's one, well known and well acknowledged and not at all controversial. Even the great tom himself came to realize this. Textbook non seq. There are more, equally well established, well commented on, and well studied.
There is at least one argument where, if you accept every premise, you cannot reject the god conclusion. Toms aint it. You can accept every premise, and reject the god conclusion, because the god conclusion does not logically follow from any of the premises, even if the first mover does. Similarly, my god conclusion does not follow from any of my cat premises, even if cats do.
A special note here, it also doesn't matter what tom or anyone else's metaphysics would allow to be considered as a god. Ask an egyptian if a cat was divine. Or a man. Or, really, anything with insufficient and or unacceptable potency™. Do I even need to comment on how impotent toms god is, in reality? Absolutely no bearing on the validity of the argument being considered, and a ludicrous grab at deference on it's face. So what if he wouldn't accept a cat, he wouldn't accept a prime mover as a god either.
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!
