Well, I would start out noting that the Aristotelian notion of necessary versus possible existence is incredibly problematic. It is best to leave Aristotle alone if you want to do philosophy.
But then, I would say the same about Thomas. His arguments are well-known to be weak and do not prove what he sets out to prove.
Do you have specific arguments that you would like critiqued? First cause? Design? Ontological?
And, if you ever actually read Aquinas, I suspect you will quickly fall out of love with him. Once again, his whole world view was based in Aristotle. but we *know* Aristotle's mechanics to be wrong (and horribly so).
But then, I would say the same about Thomas. His arguments are well-known to be weak and do not prove what he sets out to prove.
Do you have specific arguments that you would like critiqued? First cause? Design? Ontological?
And, if you ever actually read Aquinas, I suspect you will quickly fall out of love with him. Once again, his whole world view was based in Aristotle. but we *know* Aristotle's mechanics to be wrong (and horribly so).
