How to debunk the first cause argument without trying too hard

[Neo-Scholastic]

Good luck with that **sarcasm** I'm quite sure all your objections will be straw men based on modern misunderstandings of Classical philosophy. All of the sort Metis, the great and mighty Divinity Student, plagiarized from some dopey blog writer who clearly never actually read Aquinas.

Meh. The fives ways are just a symptom of the larger problem, this immense leap you all take to get from the vague, deistic-or-possibly-non-conscious cause you actually argue for, to the christian god you believe in. Your philosophy isn't unique enough to rate a mention, Chad: it's just yet another in a long line of intellectually barren theistic shell games that pretend to argue for a specific god, while arguing for some bland, undetermined cause in reality.

The fact that you've already decided I'm wrong before I've even finished writing the piece is just typical of your sort; for all your pretensions to intellectual rigor and deep philosophical analysis, you're really just shills for your presuppositions, mistaking bland dismissals for actual rebuttals. Because in case you didn't know- and the bulk of your postings do imply that you have not a clue about basic argumentation, when it comes to "defending" the collection of fiat assertions you have instead of justified beliefs- "you're misunderstanding that" isn't actually a rebuttal, it's a dodge.

Especially when you haven't read word fucking one of what the person you're disagreeing with has written. Trying to lump me in with Metis isn't even the slimiest shit nugget in your smug little post.

Incidentally, I did vote against Metis in the report regarding your debate; I was as disappointed in him as anyone else. It's not like the Five Ways requires much prep time to rebut; it's trivially easy. I could do it, despite your low opinion of me.

Uh huh yeah right. You must not have read the part where I talked about divine roles.

I took a look back through the entirety of your contributions to the debate, and found nothing in there that even seems to address my contention.

I tell you what. When you finish your blog post, PM me the URL. If it is anything other than what I said it would be I will publicly apologize. But if I am right I will start a thread based on that blog post and present my objections. Deal?

BTW I will not be able to reply until August 17 for personal reasons.