Strong and Weak Arguments

[The Grand Nudger]

Bluster is all you have, Rhythm. You seem to think people don't notice that the "Who created God?" is a complete and total non-sequitur. In order to defeat a logical demonstration it must be shows either that one or more of the premises are not true or that the form of the syllogism is faulty. That particular retort does neither.

A complete and total non-sequitur in reference to what?  I would agree that the entire argument, from both sides, is a complete and total non-sequitur as a proof of or an objection to the vast majority of god concepts men have come up with.......?  

More unsupported assertions on your part.Please show how any of the demonstrations of the 5 Way support a conclusion that anything other than the God of Classical Theism exists.   You can't because they don't. And as far as I can remember, you have never tried to refute the 5 Ways.

You consistently assume that others have some responsibility to jump at the things you point at, but I've already commented on this.  You have a preference for a particular god, your favorite arguments are those which you find compelling with regards to that god.  There you go, supporting my unsupported assertions for me, which...like the rest of the universe...have nothing to do with the five ways.  The "god of classical theism" is about as specific as the term "lunch"..why would I care to object to this sort of god being the intended conclusion of those arguments? I'm sure you don't need me to lecture you on the history and motivation of aquinas, but for the gallery, he was trying to syncretize the christian tradition in which he was educated with recently rediscovered systems of arranging thought. The arguments he offered had been offered by other believers, in other gods, and still are. So who is the god of classical theism, anyway? Zues? Jupiter perhaps? Allah? At what point will pointing to that conclusion or these arguments be anything other than an exercize in preference.....and at what point will you be comfortable with all of those dissenting god conclusions?

But fine...you seem to believe that the lamest of lame objections are conclusive.  

As I said before, as stupid or as compelling as the proposition to which it was offered as an explanation of.  To the god of the cosmological argument, the objection is inescapable.  A believer in such a god could plead a special case, but that's not escape, it's rhetorical suicide.  To a person who does not believe in such a god..who does not offer up such an argument, it means nothing.