RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 28, 2017 at 4:55 pm
(This post was last modified: November 28, 2017 at 4:57 pm by Edwardo Piet.)
(November 28, 2017 at 4:27 pm)Neo-Scholastic Wrote: If you’re trying to “debunk” Aquinas, you’re doing a piss-poor job of it.
For me to debunk it it would have at least some sort of non-fallacious logical coherence in the first place. The onus is still on Thomism to present a case that actually makes sense. What is there to debunk? I agree with the parts that make sense and discard the nonsense which you do not recognize to be nonsense, but that's not my problem because I'm not the one making an argument. All I can do is try to point to the non-sequiturs and hope you recognize them. I may try to explain what those non-sequiturs are, but eventually what I point to will be some non-sequitur or failing of logic, and if you can't recognize any of those mistakes then there's nothing more I can do to help you.
