James S Saint wrote:felix dakat wrote:James --An argument consists of one or more premises and one conclusion. A premise is a statement (a sentence that is either true or false) that is offered in support of the claim being made, which is the conclusion (which is also a sentence that is either true or false). Paul is relating his standard gospel message to the gentiles. He must show why Jesus had to die to save humanity. To do this he argues to the conclusion that "all are under sin. His first premise is that everyone knows the truth about God. His second is that the gentiles willfully reject god. From there he argues that they descend into idolatry and sexual perversion. I don't know how you can maintain that this is not an argument in the face of this evidence.
I can because what you just claimed has little to do with logical fallacy.
The axioms were taken to be truth.
The discussion was about God and people and thus it is necessary that he speak of people (your "ad hom"). But the fallacy of ad hom refers to the conclusion that "My conclusion must be correct because my opponent is an ass."
The argument of "God did this or that because the people were being bad" has nothing to do with the logical fallacy of an "ad homenid".
He made no logical fallacy.
Previously you stated that Paul was merely explaining and not arguing. That is plainly wrong as I have shown above. Now you claim that Ad hominem argument are limited to arguments against an opponent in a debate. That is not true. Wikipedia lists the following examples of ad hominem arguments none of which are directed at a debate opponent:
Jimi Hendrix died of a drug overdose, so his music was worthless.
Leni Riefenstahl was a Nazi, so her film The Triumph of the Will is devoid of merit.
Sylvia Plath was a depressive who eventually committed suicide, so her works are unreadable.
What Ted Kaczynski wrote about boundary conditions in mathematics is shown false due to his crimes.
Brutal autocrat Joseph Stalin's favorite opera was Boris Godunov, so the opera must offend decent sensibilities.
Paul needed to prove that the gentiles were subject to god's judgment to make the case that they need Christ as a savior. To do this he employed arguments to show how culpable the gentiles were. So he says basically, the Greeks are homosexual and sinners and ; therefore, their religion is invalid. He goes on to state that the Jews are sinners too later in the epistle. Of course, Christians are not free from "sin" either. So how the sinfulness of gentiles or Jews constitutes evidence for Paul's case remains to be explained.