(August 21, 2020 at 12:27 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Tom can need whatever he likes - that has nothing to do with the metrics of a valid argumentative form.
You want to bicker over whether the assertions are sound-in-detail...but I don't care, since a fallacious argument cannot guarantee the truth of it's conclusion even if we supply it with sound assertions. Each argument asserts a cosmological x - it then proceeds to assert that a non-x x must exist in order to make sense of the x. That's what you asked me to explain, that's what I have explained, that's what you could have easily found with your own google search, and that's the end of my participation in your internal disagreement with the requirements of a valid argumentative form. If saint toms arguments are valid, the rules of logical inference are wrong. That may be true, but gl with that bullshit.
You tried to argue that the actual arguments are invalid by presenting so-called "example arguments" that are invalid. No shit. These example arguments don't contain premises that would render them valid.
Done arguing with you as well.