Creationism

[GrandizerII]

A god may be intuited, but a god is not argued for.  It's simply tacked on as a non seq, in the conclusion.  For the argument to be valid, the god conclusion would need to follow from the premises of the argument, not the predisposition of his intuition.

It's more like a note that whatever it is that was concluded is God. This is how he (and many others) see/saw God.

That said, feel free to take that "God" part off, and critique the "Godless" argument, your choice.

Is this what I was asked to explain, or is it not?

A lot of things have been said in a relatively short time during the last several pages of this thread. I don't know/remember what was initially being asked pages ago and by whom to whom.

Wouldn't get too carried away stating that it logically leads to the conclusion of a prime mover, either - we're only discussing the first of many issues with the argument.  There's still a concern over composition, even after we remove the god conclusion to correct the argument for the most basic validity.  Then there are concerns over the soundness of a number of the premises.   I can stand back and let you or our other noted tommy scholar explain those for the peanut gallery.

Or can I?  Are you both going to continue to run with the insistence that people reject the argument for atheism reasons™?

Go ahead. Feel free to do so. But please keep in mind the metaphysics presumed by Aquinas in his arguments. You might want to address (and look into) that as well.