(January 3, 2022 at 12:22 am)Rev. Rye Wrote: Looking a bit further, there might be another fallacy. It’s not the sort of syllogistic fallacy we were looking for: begging the question.
I did think for a while about whether the argument is circular and begs the question (after what FM said), but is it really? After all, P1 is not really assuming Thor exists.
It does almost feel a like a "rigged" argument, because thunder clearly does exist and therefore no questioning P2. On the other hand, P1 can easily be dismissed since we have better explanations for the existence of thunder.
It's a bad argument either way.
As for Cameron's argument specifically, there is a question of what the author means exactly by moral knowledge and why it should be linked to God. Then once that has been addressed, what other arguments can be provided that compellingly supports both P1 and P2.
