Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[Neo-Scholastic]

You just couldn’t resist could you?

Resist providing a source for where Aquinas is thoroughly debunked? Yeah, so what?

Because I specifically and clearly stated that I wasn’t interesting debating external sources. I’m debating you.

So apparently *I* don't read things and you didn't even bother to read the fact that I stated on more than one occasion that Aquinas fails to even succesfully argue for a deist … all he successfuly argues for is 1W and 2W (and 3W if all that means is "uncaused cause" (again, misleading language loading with theological bullshit is used for no good reason)). 4W and 5W are not remotely successfuly argued for.

He fails to argue for even a deist god. Maybe because he wasn’t arguing for a deist god.

…again, misleading language loading with theological bullshit is used for no good reason How so?

4W and 5W are not remotely successfuly argued for Just another unsupported assertion. Saying they are not successful is not the same as actually showing that they aren’t.

…rattling on about an uncaused cause doesn't get you to intelligence, perfection, a mind or any kind of god.

Aquinas gives one paragraph to the uncaused cause (2W). That’s hardly rattling on. The other paragraphs deal with the prime mover (1W), necessary being (3W), gradients of perfection (4W), and intelligence (5). Why do you keep ignoring them? But if you were wondering what unites all 5 ways you can find the answer in Question 4, Article 1 of the Summa “The Perfection of God”. That is why I continually refer to additional demonstrations. Aquinas isn’t just listing off isolated demonstrations. He is building a collective case.

So what I am saying is this. You have not debunked 1W or 2W (which you seem to waffle back and forth about as if they were the same). In fact, you affirm them. You haven’t tried to debunk 3W. And you’ve just asserted the 4W and 5W are unsuccessful. If you’re trying to “debunk” Aquinas, you’re doing a piss-poor job of it.