Arguments Against Thomistic philosophy

[FireFromHeaven]

So you would argue philosophical arguments are useless in this regard because they aren't science?

I would argue that philosophy is a good way to argue morality, ethics, law, etc. It is useless as a way to determine the nature of reality. The limitation of the human mind was demonstrated by Galileo when he looked up with a telescope. Since then, science has relied on instrumentation to see beyond what our mammal/ primate senses can perceive.

Ok. I don't think this is a strong argument since we can only understand the results of our experiments and observations with our minds, but it is an argument. Do you know of anyone who develops these ideas at greater length and replies to opposing views?

---

I don't think it can specifically establish Christianity over any of the other monotheistic religions. Just that it can establish theism and thus refute atheism.

Neither did Thomas...but..and this is important, a prime mover doesn't "refute" atheism -or- establish theism. An atheist is free to posit a prime mover all day ery day, and only a factual and existent theistic god can establish theism.
(as opposed to...say..deism, or animism)

Prime movers emphatically and by definition -do not- rely on theism..which is an exceedingly specific god claim, and the only thing that atheism refers to in the first place.

That "something" started the chain..is not a god claim, or a claim which even has the -ability- to address the point of contention between theism and atheism. Or, put another way, that "something" started the chain does not make that something a god, let alone the christian god..which, again, are elements of fiction.

But I have to ask....if you are a christian, but you don't think that the argument to which you are referring establishes your god claim...why are you a christian, again..and why are you..as a christian, pointing to it as support for your god claim or a "refutation" of atheism?

The brief argument I posted shows why a Prime Mover would be a God. It is very bare bones but what parts do you have a problem with?

I am Christian because I think it is superior to the other Abrahamic religions. However that is besides the point. So long as it can be shown that a monotheistic God exists, the debate is just between different religions and atheism is already excluded from consideration.