(August 13, 2020 at 3:12 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: No, Grand, he didn't. He accepted christ as a god, and only christ, not a prime mover. Has nothing to do with the validity of his argument, I just find it amusing that his non seq was so blatantly and lazily dishonest.
His god conclusion does not follow from any of his premises, it's a non sequitur. A non seq is not a valid argument. Full stop. No theological objections required. No need to wonder whether the premises are sound. DOA.
The arguments are effectively the same, because they commit the same fallacy, in the same way. Not because cats and prime movers are identical, or arbitrarily chosen, but because the use of either -in the structure of the argument- is identical. I chose a cat for much the same reason that he chose a prime mover - I think that it's easy to demonstrate a cat (hell of alot easier than demonstrating a god)...I can hold one up and say, look, a cat, and we all understand this to be god. If you think his argument must be good..then you'd have to accept that mine knocks it out of the park. I'm holding -my- prime mover™ in my hands right meow and using the same structure.
Let's see tommy do that with his.
It's a silly thing to call a cat "God" but you do you, lol
