No, nit picking would be me pointing out spelling errors. But pointing out that you are making tautologies tells me you really do not understand the meaning of the word if you have to say it twice.
Nonsense. You seem to have a hard time understanding coordinate adjectives, especially the use of them to express nuances. The adjectives I used were simply to express slightly different aspects of the reasoning in question for those who are not experts on the matter, and were perfectly valid to do so. At worst it shows a little wordiness (I do like my pairs or pairs of coordinating conjunctions) on my part.
So when i ask you how your argument s relevant you reply by pointing out the teapot is not relevant. How does that work?
The teapot is not relevant, as it stands to a critic of theism. This is what I posted above, and it suffices here:
Let's go back to the beginning to remember just what we are debating.
The FSM, like Russell's teapot, is supposed to show that although the FSM cannot be disproved, as there is no evidence for it, we shouldn't believe in it. It , however, ignores that God is not an entity in time and space, in the universe, as is the FSM, the teapots, quarks, or distant nebilae. The knowledge, or one important kind, that is alleged for God is very different from these sorts of entities - it is allegedly discoverable via proofs based on deductions from general observations of the world, like "there is change". Therefore you need to refute these proofs before talking about the FSM.
I already did. Aquinus started from the position that a god exists and he only needed an argument to prove it so. Yet he nor anyone else bothered to show why a god would exist in the first place, he just assumed it to be so.
This doesn't make sense. You say he just assumed God, and yet you also say he gave an argument. That means he still gave an argument, which should be evaluated on its merits, whatever Aquinas' psychology of belief.
No they are really no different at all. They all have the same basic problem in that they assume a god must exist and the work backwards from that to produce premises that will fit a conclusion. Aquinus especially can be dismissed for this.
This is just fallacious. You are assuming that Aquinas' argument can be dismissed because you don't like his means of invention, his finding of premises. That is just a material fallacy - it isn't relevant to the argument. The argument stands or falls on its merits. It doesn't even matter if it is Aquinas' - if we found it was really written by his valet it wouldn't change anything. And, anyway, even if Aquinas' arguments were fallacious wrong, it wouldn't change the soundness of my argument.
