For the record: Nothing of what i wrote is supposed to be taken personally. I fully understand that you are entertaining (philosophical) thoughts, not making claims or proclamation about reality. You clearly have said so.
I am engaging at all with you here because of your intellectual honesty and lack of Hybris unlike some other members on this board who would dismiss my objections as simply being below them, or suggesting i should read more Aquinas.
I am also sure that i have set up one or two traps
. Either Plantinga/Aquinas are more easy to refute than i thought or we (you in this case, me possibly as well) dont know enough tabout their positions to properly discuss them online. My experience tells me that a shockingly high portion of people (myself possibly included) are way out of their debt in terms of philosophy and science, and we possibly should refrain from discussing stuff in depth thats too complex for amateurs like ourselves. There is still cat memes, and NFL. 
My position on, particularly Aquinas´, efforts is clear: He was looking for a way to justify his belief (as were many others). That made him biased, and should caution everyone else when examining his aruments. It does not automatically disqualify his views.
I also dont blame him for having lack of insight to the nature of reality compared what we have now. I blame however everyone who, dishonestly, tries to prop up his (or anyone elses´) arguments that have shown to be faulty in their core. Like WLC does with his version of the Kalam (Everyone that begins to exist...). If you need scientific knowledge to prop up your philosophical/religious beliefs, and then claim that your position is based on some metaphysics beyond science (or what it ever can be)...then you have disproven yourself already. If you claim that your beliefs are based on and supported by scientific knowledge, why oppose the conclusion science suggests about gods or first causes: We.dont.fucking.know. We dont even have the language to discuss this (regarding everything *pre big-bang*) yet.
I am engaging at all with you here because of your intellectual honesty and lack of Hybris unlike some other members on this board who would dismiss my objections as simply being below them, or suggesting i should read more Aquinas.
I am also sure that i have set up one or two traps
. Either Plantinga/Aquinas are more easy to refute than i thought or we (you in this case, me possibly as well) dont know enough tabout their positions to properly discuss them online. My experience tells me that a shockingly high portion of people (myself possibly included) are way out of their debt in terms of philosophy and science, and we possibly should refrain from discussing stuff in depth thats too complex for amateurs like ourselves. There is still cat memes, and NFL. My position on, particularly Aquinas´, efforts is clear: He was looking for a way to justify his belief (as were many others). That made him biased, and should caution everyone else when examining his aruments. It does not automatically disqualify his views.
I also dont blame him for having lack of insight to the nature of reality compared what we have now. I blame however everyone who, dishonestly, tries to prop up his (or anyone elses´) arguments that have shown to be faulty in their core. Like WLC does with his version of the Kalam (Everyone that begins to exist...). If you need scientific knowledge to prop up your philosophical/religious beliefs, and then claim that your position is based on some metaphysics beyond science (or what it ever can be)...then you have disproven yourself already. If you claim that your beliefs are based on and supported by scientific knowledge, why oppose the conclusion science suggests about gods or first causes: We.dont.fucking.know. We dont even have the language to discuss this (regarding everything *pre big-bang*) yet.
Cetero censeo religionem delendam esse
