That is not what I meant by pedophile, and thus a brilliant demonstration of why your assertion of "Any alteration of the original formulation is by definition a straw man." is in fact asinine. Thank you for that.leroy said:he_who_is_nobody said:[q
I define "Christian" as one who molests children.
Dandan/Leroy freely admits that he is a Christian.
Thus, dandan/leroy is a pedophile.
In fact the conclusion doesn’t follow from the premises; one can in theory molest children without being a pedophile. (If a pedophile is someone who feels sexual attraction for children then; you don’t necessarily need to feel sexual attraction for children in order to molest them)
I am not. I am just exposing the equivocation in the arugment. You are bending over backwards trying to save this failed argument.leroy said:But anyway, your failure is that you are making thinks more complex than what they need to be.
Look at that, you are now modifying it beyond what Craig originally said. Is that not a straw man according to you?leroy said:THE KCA:
Everything that begins to exist has a cause (ether exmateria or exnihilo)
Beyond that, since we do not have any examples of causes coming from out of nothing, this makes your first premise just a blind assertion.
Granted.leroy said:The universe begun to exist
Again, blind assertion on your part. We have no examples of things coming out of nothing, thus we cannot conclude this at all.leroy said:Therefore the universe had a cause (ether exmateria or exnihilo)
At this point, the conclusion is not justified by the premises.leroy said:At this point the conclusion doesn’t suggest one type of cause over the other.
The fact that it was created out of nothing is what undermines your first premise. Again, you fighting so hard to make the Universe come about out of nothing is exactly what undermines the Kalam.leroy said:Then you add an additional argument, and point to the fact that the universe necessarily could not have not been created “exmateria.” And conclude that the universe had a creation exnihilo.
You obviously do not know what an analogy is if you think male or female is equivalent to something from something and something form nothing. I will just give you a hit, we have multiple examples of males and females.leroy said:This is analogous to:
All doctors are human (ether male or female)
John is a doctor
Therefore John is a human (ether male or female)
:lol:leroy said:At this point, form the argument you can’t know if john is male or female, but you can in theory provide an additional argument and show that John is male.
Again, you do not know what an analogy is if you think this is a good one.
Says you. Yet it did undermine it completely.leroy said:Honestly your “favorite objection” to the KCA is very stupid,