If the premises are supposed to be taken for granted, and they are contradictory, then anything at all can be logically shown to follow from them (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_explosion). So this would clearly make the argument suspect.
The underlying picture science currently uses, conceived of by Newton as 'fluxion' and institutionalized in the integral and differential calculus, really is not one of these three options. It discards the Aristotelian distinction between potentialities and actualities, and does not move backward into one of the two earlier positions.
Instead, it creates ...
The Simulator argument is one of the most novel new arguments for God's existence. It's based largely on the work of Oxford philosophy professor Nick Bostrom. I have a whole series on the topic at Partially Examined Life, but in brief the argument is this:
If the mind and/or soul are entirely reducible to the physical, then it should be theoretically ...
I found one paper in which the author writes some non-traditional argument for the existence of God, which can be summarized into the following categories:
I can think of a few arguments that don't fall into any of the categories your mentioned (ontological, cosmological, teleological, moral, etc.) that rational persons (philosophers) have propounded and defended:
God could be a properly basic belief (Plantinga): Many beliefs, such as there are other minds, that the world didn't come into existence five ...
The apostle Paul says in 1 Corinthians 15:19: "If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable".
In other words if Pascal were to lose his wager, Paul would regard him as a very great loser. His one life would have been wasted in pointless service and sacrifice of a God that doesn't exist. In a (hypothetical) universe where ...
Yes, there is a logical fallacy to identity politics. The fallacy has two parts.
Identity politics begins with a great big ad hominem argument. The site LogicallyFallacious describes the ad hominem technique as
Attacking the person making the argument, rather than the argument
itself, when the attack on the person is completely irrelevant to the