“Which is just a backwards way of saying that prevalence could be significant.”
Sure, it could be, but that should never be assumed without demonstration. You’ve provided no such demonstration, but simply asserted that the prevalence of the argument itself is a testament to its merits. I’m sorry, but that is nonsense.
An argument stands or falls on its merits, and not on its popularity. If a valid argument is unpopular, it’s still a valid argument, and if an invalid argument is popular, it’s still an invalid argument. If you can establish the validity, then appealing to the popularity is unnecessary, and if you can’t establish the validity, then appealing to the popularity is meaningless. Either way, it doesn’t serve a real purpose, except perhaps one of distraction.
Oh puh...leese. I am writing on a discussion forum on a discussion website. What I'm referring to is common knowledge, and it is silly to have someone demanding I pen a peer-reviewable paper.
Not only was it common knowledge, but you obviously knew exactly what I was talking about from the outset.
If you want more than that, go to a seminary website and enter into their discussions. (However, I'll bet they assume common knowledge, too, and refer to it in passing.)