RE: Creationism
August 13, 2020 at 4:44 pm
(This post was last modified: August 13, 2020 at 4:46 pm by GrandizerII.)
(August 13, 2020 at 3:55 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: No more or less silly than toms argument, and no more or less valid. That's exactly the point.
If I can provide for a more robust demonstration of the item that I'm going to say ...we all understand to be a god...and you can accept all of my brilliant and undeniable premises, like waving a cat in your face saying "see, a cat!" - and you or joe or anyone can still reject the god conclusion....
...then I can accept toms premises about the existence of a prime mover, even though he can't wave it around like I can with my cat...weaksauce, and reject his god conclusion.
It is silly, it's silly because it's a non seq, and non seqs are not valid arguments. I haven't proven a god by waving around a cat anymore than he's proven a god, any god, any kind of god, by waving around a prime mover.
Arguments can be silly without having to be non sequiturs. If you understand your cat (that exists) to be "God", then it logically follows that God (as you understand it) exists.
It's silly to intuit a contingent being with potency, that was obviously caused into existence, to be "God" but if people insist on doing so, they're free to do so. In your case, you're just using that as a gotcha argument, but it's not effective as you make it sound.
It's not silly to intuit the First Cause as God. Not in my book at least. It's understandable.
Imagining now the idea of Gae waving God around, lol.
