RE: Creationism
August 18, 2020 at 6:31 am
(This post was last modified: August 18, 2020 at 7:03 am by The Grand Nudger.)
(August 17, 2020 at 4:22 pm)Grandizer Wrote:They would still be non seqs even if we didn't include the god bits. All invalid argumentation is a non seq. Stop trying to swallow the koolaid.(August 17, 2020 at 3:56 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Ever consider assessing these arguments critically?
OP:
The one fallible aspect of creationist thought is that all must have a creator.
What's the cosmological argument that contains such a premise?
Notice that, on the first page, at least one atheist (aside from Bel) acknowledged that this was a strawman argument.
Regarding the lawyer question:
That's easy. If this is the only context to go by, the argument isn't valid. It might've been not just one burglar but many, with the possibility that none of them would be me.
That is not analogous to what Aquinas is saying in each of his Ways (unless you willing to add further context to your burglary argument).
Aquinas, in each of the Ways, argues specifically towards a specific "entity" that turns out to be what Aquinas believes is God in the first place.
For your analogy to work, you'd have to have argued beforehand that I am the only being who would ever commit burglary or something like that.
If you want to strip Aquinas' arguments out of context and treat them strictly as standalone syllogisms, then yes, they would be non sequiturs if you want to include the God part. Otherwise, without the God part, they would not be non sequiturs and that would be the primary way to look at these arguments if you were to treat them each in isolation.
Everything that exists must have a creator/cause/explanation. That creator/cause/explanation must be uncreated/uncaused/unexplained. This we understand to be a god. Scratch that third statement and see if you can spot another fallacy. For my analogy to work, like the analogy before it, you need to understand valid and invalid argumentation. The issue is not understanding of aquinas, mine yours or anyone else's - this is just you calling people dumb, and you're being about as specific as Bel was when he levied the same complaint earlier. I think you should leave that to him, it's his entire schtick, as a feckless troll.
The validity of these arguments are an item of academic trivia. There's no debate as to whether or not they succeed, and there are better versions of each argument - which still fail. The first through third are the same argument. The unmoved mover, the uncaused cause, and the non contingent being in contingent reality.
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!