Final answer:
The student's argument regarding Harper not being a god is valid based on classical logical form, as it correctly derives a conclusion from the provided premises. However, the argument does not address broader theological concepts such as the nature of God's powers, or the existence of a deity.
Step-by-step explanation:
The student's argument is:
- Harper is not a god.
- Harper is human.
- No human is a god.
This argument is valid in form as it uses logical reasoning to come to a conclusion based on the premises provided. In classical logic, an argument is considered valid if the conclusion follows necessarily from the premises. Here, the conclusion that 'Harper is not a god' logically follows from the premises that 'Harper is human' and 'No human is a god.' However, this argument does not touch upon the broader philosophical discussions on the nature of a deity, such as whether a god is all-powerful, all-knowing, or all-good.
The premises provided for this specific argument do not engage with complex theological questions like the existence of only one god, the nature of a deity as infinite, or the moral constraints that may or may not apply to a deity's actions. Additionally, these premises do not prove or disprove the actual existence of a supernatural deity; they only conclude the status of the entity 'Harper' within the context given.