Creationism

[GrandizerII]

Buddy, I'm not arguing that a cat and a first mover are the same thing.  I'm pointing out that tom failed to argue for a god, at all, in his argument for a god.  Just as I would fail to argue for a god, at all, by holding up a cat.

It doesn't matter a single bit what all of toms thinking was on this or any other subject.  I was asked to show the issues of validity that a specific argument, as stated, presents.  There's one, well known and well acknowledged and not at all controversial.  Even the great tom himself came to realize this.  Textbook non seq.  There are more, equally well established, well commented on, and well studied.

There is at least one argument where, if you accept every premise, you cannot reject the god conclusion.  Toms aint it.  You can accept every premise, and reject the god conclusion, because the god conclusion does not logically follow from any of the premises, even if the first mover does.  Similarly, my god conclusion does not follow from any of my cat premises, even if cats do.

A special note here, it also doesn't matter what tom or anyone else's metaphysics would allow to be considered as a god.  Ask an egyptian if a cat was divine.  Or a man.  Or, really, anything with insufficient and or unacceptable potency™.  Do I even need to comment on how impotent toms god is, in reality?  Absolutely no bearing on the validity of the argument being considered, and a ludicrous grab at deference on it's face.  So what if he wouldn't accept a cat, he wouldn't accept a prime mover as a god either.

Except he did accept the "prime mover" as "God", because of what this "prime mover" is, which is unlike contingent beings with potency like a cat. You explicitly stated you see "cat" as logically equivalent to "prime mover" in this arguments. This suggests to me that you believe if you were to substitute "prime mover" with "cat", the arguments would effectively be the same because as far as you're concerned "prime mover" to Aquinas could have just as well have been a cat because it doesn't lead to Aquinas' God. But again, Aquinas' God is the First Cause.

You can bring up theological objections to this, fine. But the arguments in and of themselves appear to be valid (at least I'm not seeing how the conclusion fails to follow from the premises in each of the arguments, when we're considering the arguments in fully fleshed out form of course). So can we concede that this particular counter you're using is a misunderstanding of Aquinas' view of God? Or do you want to keep arguing that I'm the one not getting you?

[The Grand Nudger]

No, Grand, he didn't. He accepted christ as a god, and only christ, not a prime mover. Has nothing to do with the validity of his argument, I just find it amusing that his non seq was so blatantly and lazily dishonest.

His god conclusion does not follow from any of his premises, it's a non sequitur. A non seq is not a valid argument. Full stop. No theological objections required. No need to wonder whether the premises are sound. DOA.

The arguments are effectively the same, because they commit the same fallacy, in the same way. Not because cats and prime movers are identical, or arbitrarily chosen, but because the use of either -in the structure of the argument- is identical. I chose a cat for much the same reason that he chose a prime mover - I think that it's easy to demonstrate a cat (hell of alot easier than demonstrating a god)...I can hold one up and say, look, a cat, and we all understand this to be god. If you think his argument must be good..then you'd have to accept that mine knocks it out of the park. I'm holding -my- prime mover™ in my hands right meow and using the same structure.

Let's see tommy do that with his.

[GrandizerII]

No, Grand, he didn't.  He accepted christ as a god, and only christ, not a prime mover. Has nothing to do with the validity of his argument, I just find it amusing that his non seq was so blatantly and lazily dishonest.

His god conclusion does not follow from any of his premises, it's a non sequitur.  A non seq is not a valid argument.  Full stop.  No theological objections required.  No need to wonder whether the premises are sound.  DOA.

The arguments are effectively the same, because they commit the same fallacy, in the same way.  Not because cats and prime movers are identical, or arbitrarily chosen, but because the use of either -in the structure of the argument- is identical.  I chose a cat for much the same reason that he chose a prime mover - I think that it's easy to demonstrate a cat (hell of alot easier than demonstrating a god)...I can hold one up and say, look, a cat, and we all understand this to be god.  If you think his argument must be good..then you'd have to accept that mine knocks it out of the park.  I'm holding -my- prime mover™ in my hands right meow and using the same structure.    

Let's see tommy do that with his.

It's a silly thing to call a cat "God" but you do you, lol

[The Grand Nudger]

No more or less silly than toms argument, and no more or less valid. That's exactly the point.

If I can provide for a more robust demonstration of the item that I'm going to say ...we all understand to be a god...and you can accept all of my brilliant and undeniable premises, like waving a cat in your face saying "see, a cat!" - and you or joe or anyone can still reject the god conclusion....

...then I can accept toms premises about the existence of a prime mover, even though he can't wave it around like I can with my cat...weaksauce, and reject his god conclusion.

It is silly, it's silly because it's a non seq, and non seqs are not valid arguments. I haven't proven a god by waving around a cat anymore than he's proven a god, any god, any kind of god, by waving around a prime mover.

[The Architect Of Fate]

You're being too kind. 

What Little Nudgeboy is saying here is the stupidest thing that he's ever posted, and that's saying a lot.

Nah every deluded dumb asinine thing you write on this site is the dumbest . You have won the universal gold metal of abject derp and durr her and the generally IQ of this forum would go up 70 points in your absence . So spare us the empty bloviating Bel

[GrandizerII]

No more or less silly than toms argument, and no more or less valid.  That's exactly the point.

If I can provide for a more robust demonstration of the item that I'm going to say ...we all understand to be a god...and you can accept all of my brilliant and undeniable premises, like waving a cat in your face saying "see, a cat!" - and you or joe or anyone can still reject the god conclusion....

...then I can accept toms premises about the existence of a prime mover, even though he can't wave it around like I can with my cat...weaksauce, and reject his god conclusion.

It is silly, it's silly because it's a non seq, and non seqs are not valid arguments.  I haven't proven a god by waving around a cat anymore than he's proven a god, any god, any kind of god, by waving around a prime mover.

Arguments can be silly without having to be non sequiturs. If you understand your cat (that exists) to be "God", then it logically follows that God (as you understand it) exists.

It's silly to intuit a contingent being with potency, that was obviously caused into existence, to be "God" but if people insist on doing so, they're free to do so. In your case, you're just using that as a gotcha argument, but it's not effective as you make it sound.

It's not silly to intuit the First Cause as God. Not in my book at least. It's understandable.

Imagining now the idea of Gae waving God around, lol.

[The Grand Nudger]

Sure they can, but it's not a non seq because it's silly, it's silly because it's a non seq.

Lets just cut right to it. Do you believe that a non seq can be a valid argument? It's not a gotcha, either you do or you don't accept the validity of a non seq.

Are we discussing intuition, or a logical argument? Sure, sure, tom intuited god, tom..apparently, intuited god everywhere he looked. The cat worshipper is doing the same. So what? Understandable? sure, he was a nut who saw god everywhere, completely understand that. At issue is that particular compulsion which lead him to cram a god into the conclusion of an argument for something else. The validity of the arguments form, not the state of his intuition or whether his screwup was understandable.

Cat
cat
cat
cat
cat,
Therefore god.

Prime mover
prime mover
prime mover,
Therefore god.


...or..is that not what I've been asked to explain?

[HappySkeptic]

His god conclusion does not follow from any of his premises, it's a non sequitur.  A non seq is not a valid argument.  Full stop.  No theological objections required.  No need to wonder whether the premises are sound.  DOA.

I agree that as a conclusion, or even part of the argument, it was a non-sequitur.

But, to give him the benefit of the doubt, Aquinas had a belief in Jesus as God.  He also believed that God is a prime-mover.  He gives an argument for the existence of a prime-mover.  He then tells the reader that he considers this prime-mover to be his God.

I doubt Aquinas had a pre-existing belief in Cats-as-God, though.

[GrandizerII]

Sure they can, but it's not a non seq because it's silly, it's silly because it's a non seq.

In what way is it a non seq? If cat is God, and cat exists, then God exists is the logical conclusion. Silly premise but whatever.

Lets just cut right to it.  Do you believe that a non seq can be a valid argument?  It's not a gotcha, either you do or you don't accept the validity of a non seq.

Irrelevant, but the answer is no (by definition).

[The Grand Nudger]

You might notice that there is no "if cat is god" premise in my argument, or saint toms. God only appears at the conclusion of either, poof, like magic.

That's not how any of this works.