(December 1, 2022 at 2:58 am)Helios Wrote:(December 1, 2022 at 1:03 am)Angrboda Wrote: And Thomists cling to semantic arguments such as yours as if they actually met the objection they supposedly respond to when in fact they do not. Aquinas' argument wasn't about formal causes, and even with the Thomism fully taken on board, temporality isn't forgotten or mooted. A reply, if it is to be anything other than a non sequitur, has to function as a defeater for the argument. Neither you nor Neo's replies do that. The problem is not that Thomism eludes us; it's that Thomism fails as a cogent response.Remember it's never the failure of their argument it's simply that you aren't smart enough to understand it.....
Gaslighting 101
No. I your case, you have proven repeatedly that it is you who is either not very smart or just unable to see beyond your own prejudice.
<insert profound quote here>
