Originally posted by Adrift
View Post
It was an analogy, but if you prefer, we can use the word "example". If we limit Feser's example to just red Lego blocks, will you agree with his point?
1. Some things share some properties with their constituent parts.
2. The cosmos is a thing.
3. Therefore, the cosmos shares the property of contingency with its constituent parts.
This is very clearly a bad syllogism. It's not even valid, let alone sound.
Comment