(October 24, 2016 at 2:26 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote:(October 24, 2016 at 10:45 am)Crossless1 Wrote: And this is where honest agnosticism concerning such questions earns its keep. Better that than taking a particular alleged god (a god of revelation and miracles, no less), written of in an old book that you happen to revere by cultural and historical accident, and shoe-horning it into a philosophical argument and then pretending that a bait and switch hasn't happened. Argue for deism all you want, Chad, if it makes you happy. But we all know that's not where you really come down. And Aquinas can't save the poor quality of the 'Biblical evidence' on which the Christian house of cards rests.
For me it is sufficient to know that the God of Classical Theism, known by general revelation, is consistent with the Christian God, known by special revelation. I see little point in drawing those connections for people who do not recognize the first, so there is little point in criticizing me for not doing so for the second.
Well played, sir. I can't say I blame you one bit.
I, too, would use others' skepticism as an excuse to avoid addressing the alleged truth of Christian "special revelation". It's so much tidier this way! I'll even pass over your slippery use of the words "know/known".
