[Serious] Fallacies & Strategies

[Angrboda]

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

Said properties must be relevant to the comparison for it to invalidate the comparison. How do you see having parts vs not having parts as being a relevant property?

I'll have to read Feser's article later, but there's an element of No True Scotsman type argument running through his article from what I gathered skimming it.