A Lesson in the Practicality of Philosophy I Learned Today

[Neo-Scholastic]

…the majority of philosophers since Kant have agreed that he once and for all obliterated theological grandstanding in the dress of the syllogism by demonstrating their highly fallacious and inadequate nature as proofs for God's existence…. Theism may have been a very grounded, even rational, philosophy when Francis Bacon wrote. Then came Hume, Kant, Darwin and other perennial figures…

The majority opinion of analytic philosophers does not count as proof; although does rightly give pause. The majority opinion of neo-Scholastic philosophers is otherwise. We could pit my experts against yours, but either way determining who is correct based on the number of adherents would be fallacious.

As I understand it, from reading Neo-Scholastic sources, Kant’s critique is self-refuting. Why does he allow the use deductive logic in his attempt to undermine the idea of deduced findings?

Of course Hume is the darling of atheists, yet some of the problems he pose are not really problems at all just errors, like his unjustified divorce of efficient from final causes, in favor of ‘constant conjunction’. What principle provides for the said constancy of observed conjunctions?

…Go read his Antithesis in the Antimony of Pure Reason section in the CPR.

Sure, I’ll re-read it . I am open to contrary ideas otherwise I would not be participating on AF.

…If you must have a permanent substance, I'll give it to you: matter.

Primal Matter to be exact, i.e. whose only attribute is the propensity to be. But whither its ability to instantiate the many substances known by experience?