Chad, as far as I'm concerned, I agree -- the OP is a bust but not for the reason you think it is. Let's say that someone took up your challenge and Aquinas's arguments withstood the test. At best, you've come up with tentative reasons to be a deist. But you're not a deist. My interest is in how you bridge the chasm between a deist god and your Christian god. And the only way you can do it, it seems to me, is to come down from your lofty logical necessity perch to argue the nitty-gritty of historical evidence or the lack thereof. That, or pull the "I have personal evidence that I can't share or explain to any of you" gambit.
Now that would be a challenge worth exploring, in my opinion. But you'd rather keep it at a level where you can argue the abstract positions of the Schoolmen without sullying yourself with anything that has to do directly with what your faith actually entails. My two cents.
Now that would be a challenge worth exploring, in my opinion. But you'd rather keep it at a level where you can argue the abstract positions of the Schoolmen without sullying yourself with anything that has to do directly with what your faith actually entails. My two cents.
