RE: Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency
November 30, 2017 at 3:56 pm
(This post was last modified: November 30, 2017 at 3:57 pm by Mystic.)
I think there are implicit premises that Aquinas just assumed no one would be so obtuse to deny.
But then again.... he should have known that nature of those who deny God is just that, being obtuse, not that there aren't proofs.
He proved God to me because I don't demand what is obvious to always be explained in detail, and than those details explained detail, and then those details explained in detail. That is unnecessary and an insult to intelligence.
I already showed many ways of why the first cause must have will as far as the cosmological argument, even as a Deist, I did so.
You guys are so obtuse, can't blame Aquinas for that.
But then again.... he should have known that nature of those who deny God is just that, being obtuse, not that there aren't proofs.
He proved God to me because I don't demand what is obvious to always be explained in detail, and than those details explained detail, and then those details explained in detail. That is unnecessary and an insult to intelligence.
I already showed many ways of why the first cause must have will as far as the cosmological argument, even as a Deist, I did so.
You guys are so obtuse, can't blame Aquinas for that.