[Serious] Fallacies & Strategies

[polymath257]

Back on the second page of this thread, Neo said that it was a category error to speak of the God of classical theism as if it were an entity, like the Tooth Fairy or Santa Claus.

There are fundamental differences. For example, Santa Claus, if he existed, would have parts (feet and hands, for example) and would move around (delivering presents). But these are not characteristics of the God of classical theism.

I don't expect that anyone is much interested in learning about the thing they're arguing against. Still, in case anyone would like to know more, Edward Feser's blog describes this in a readable way.

https://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2010/09...heism.html

It seems to me that the simplistic concept of God is the one that has multiple category errors and basic philosophical mistakes.

For example, the idea that existence needs something to 'sustain' it seems fundamentally wrong. It stems from the mistake of dividing existence into 'necessary' and 'contingent'. That is old, Aristotelian and Thomistic, philosophy and needs to be discarded.

The idea that an 'absolutely simple' thing can be intelligent, good, or sustain anything is another basic category error. Simple things that do not change cannot be or do anything. So a 'simple God' is not the type of thing that *could* do the things claimed for it.

The article you linked to has, from my perspective, a host of irrationalities, philosophical mistakes, and abundant nonsense. And yes, I have just read it. That was wasted time.