(May 26, 2016 at 5:19 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: ...Aquinas has been well dismissed at this stage.

ROFL...by who? Hume? Kant? Do you even know what the objections are, much less their flaws? I highly doubt it. I bet you don't even truly understand the 5 ways. Try reading my formal debate with Metis: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34889.html

(May 26, 2016 at 8:59 am)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 26, 2016 at 5:19 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: ...Aquinas has been well dismissed at this stage.

ROFL...by who? Hume? Kant? Do you even know what the objections are, much less their flaws? I highly doubt it. I bet you don't even truly understand the 5 ways. Try reading my formal debate with Metis: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34889.html

Chad, please stop with the bullshit. You know very well that there is a one line refutation of Aquinas that no theist can overcome. It goes "and what created god?"

(May 26, 2016 at 11:37 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(May 26, 2016 at 8:59 am)ChadWooters Wrote: ROFL...by who? Hume? Kant? Do you even know what the objections are, much less their flaws? I highly doubt it. I bet you don't even truly understand the 5 ways. Try reading my formal debate with Metis: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34889.html

Chad, please stop with the bullshit. You know very well that there is a one line refutation of Aquinas that no theist can overcome. It goes "and what created god?"

A better question is what keeps generating God. I think God keeps generating himself because he is absolute life, absolutely powerful.

Do quarks keep generating themselves? Or whatever the smallest unit of existence is per the naturalism perspective?

Does time create itself and generate itself?

There is somethings so clear once we just stop the noise of the dark enemy of humanity and listen to the infinite bytes of information of God we been given in a circle of being in our existence, that all point to God as the source and origin.

In propositional logic, it's taught every proposition is either true or false. But we see Atheists here can't even acknowledge that with praise statements or moral statements, which just shows how far they went off the track of reason. Everything, If something is x, there is an opposite y. If is something is a, there is an opposite b. Everything is paired up.  The universe then functions on these true or false, this or that, reality. Nothing is neither true or false. 

We are true, it's just our perception ourselves is false, because it's only partially true. If you get to know your true self, things open up, and become clear.

Anyways, as much as a person like me can talk about these things, the best one able to clarity the truth, explain his design and advice us is God.  He can remind in the proper way, in the proper way to awaken and reflect. Not too over assertive, neither the opposite, but balanced in approach, where he states things clearly but allows room for us to reflect and come to realizations on our own.

God is independent, because he is One. He is ultimate. He is the basis of everything that comes to existence.  All on and off switches, true or false, in our minds, are generate from his truth, his light.

(May 26, 2016 at 11:37 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(May 26, 2016 at 8:59 am)ChadWooters Wrote: ROFL...by who? Hume? Kant? Do you even know what the objections are, much less their flaws? I highly doubt it. I bet you don't even truly understand the 5 ways. Try reading my formal debate with Metis: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34889.html

Chad, please stop with the bullshit. You know very well that there is a one line refutation of Aquinas that no theist can overcome. It goes "and what created god?"

Please. That isn't even a serious objection. It was the very first notion Aquinas dispatched in Question 2 of the Summa Theologica by demonstrating that something must exist that is fully actualized and is responsible for all changing things, like the physical universe, that exist both actually and in potential.

(May 26, 2016 at 11:37 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(May 26, 2016 at 8:59 am)ChadWooters Wrote: ROFL...by who? Hume? Kant? Do you even know what the objections are, much less their flaws? I highly doubt it. I bet you don't even truly understand the 5 ways. Try reading my formal debate with Metis: http://atheistforums.org/thread-34889.html

Chad, please stop with the bullshit. You know very well that there is a one line refutation of Aquinas that no theist can overcome. It goes "and what created god?"

The one question atheists can never answer is "Why would God, as a Necessary Being, require a creator?"

(May 27, 2016 at 12:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 26, 2016 at 11:37 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: Chad, please stop with the bullshit. You know very well that there is a one line refutation of Aquinas that no theist can overcome. It goes "and what created god?"

The one question atheists can never answer is "Why would God, as a Necessary Being, require a creator?"

The question a theist cannot answer is "Why is a god a necessary being?".

(May 27, 2016 at 12:06 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(May 27, 2016 at 12:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The one question atheists can never answer is "Why would God, as a Necessary Being, require a creator?"

The question a theist cannot answer is "Why is a god a necessary being?".

"Because I wanna" ?

(May 27, 2016 at 12:06 pm)IATIA Wrote:

(May 27, 2016 at 12:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote: The one question atheists can never answer is "Why would God, as a Necessary Being, require a creator?"

The question a theist cannot answer is "Why is a god a necessary being?".

Wrong wiseguy. Aquinas demonstrated the existence of a Necessary Being in Way 3.

(May 26, 2016 at 11:37 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote:

(May 26, 2016 at 8:59 am)ChadWooters Wrote: ROFL...by who? Hume? Kant? Do you even know what the objections are, much less their flaws? I highly doubt it....

Chad, please stop with the bullshit....

To hot in the kitchen for you? Guys like you are just so quick to pronounce with great certainty that the proofs of God have been thoroughly refuted but when push comes to shove you cannot explain how they were refuted. Then you stomp away like a petulant children saying it's all bullshit anyway because you clowns cannot be bothered to actually support your cereal box philosophy. Anyway, it's a holiday weekend here in the USA and I probably won't be able to continue following all the threads for a few days. I'll have to let you have the last word.

(May 27, 2016 at 12:02 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:

(May 26, 2016 at 11:37 am)Constable Dorfl Wrote: Chad, please stop with the bullshit. You know very well that there is a one line refutation of Aquinas that no theist can overcome. It goes "and what created god?"

The one question atheists can never answer is "Why would God, as a Necessary Being, require a creator?"

Because according to Aristotle/Kalam/Aquinas, the one requirement that every existing being or object must have is that it must have a creator. D'uh.

In the constraints the theists adopted, they've necessitated that god must have a creator, god's creator must also have one, and so on ad infinitum, until we get to "turtles all the way down".

So again, what created god?