The Birthday Fallacy can be described as the mistaken idea that the second proposition of the [What argument? Any argument? Hardly. You need to be more specific and detailed.] argument follows from the first proposition. It [what means this?] means that the way the argument is composed is not logically correct [How? What is the fallacy/}. The reason why the Birthday Fallacy is actually a fallacy is because it’s a mistaken belief based on the unsound argument. [NO! A fallacy is not a mistaken belief; it’s a type of bad argument.] And you still haven’t said what fallacy the Birthday Fallacy is!] Speaking of Aquinas’s argument, he [Who?] states [No, he argues for it.] that for every chain of motion [sp?] there is supposed to be [Supposed to be?] exactly one unmoved mover. Aquinas sates [sp?] that there is something outside of the natural world that produces the first motion, according to his belief it is God. The Birthday Fallacy is committed in Aquinas’s argument because the first proposition of the argument is not supported by the second proposition [You have it backwards]. Aquinas [sp?] argument is that “Every chain of motion caused by the event that is outside of the natural world [not a sentence].” “There is a single event outside of the natural world that causes every chain motion [not a sentence].” The first proposition does not state that there is exactly one event; it shows [No, it say that.] that there is at least one event, but the second proposition states that there is exactly one event. The Argument that Aquinas proposed is not logically correct because the second proposition is not supported by the first proposition, which makes Aquinas’s argument just like the Birthday Fallacy [which, by the way, you still haven’t explained.]. The fact that Aquinas committed the Birthday Fallacy in the argument about motion, simply fails to prove the existence of God [That fact fails to prove the existence of God?]. The argument is...
Please join StudyMode to read the full document