Since Heaven and Hell are not temporal ..

[Esquilax]

All you've said here is that you have an argument and it works, you didn't present it. …the same Aquinas…you've given in the past, and had debunked over and over?

Debunked? In your dreams, Esq. Your response, a kind of brute facts occationalism, provides no rational basis of effectiveness of the scientific method and violates the principle of sufficient reason.

My response was simply that Aquinas' arguments were nothing but assertions that A: violated their own premises to reach their conclusions, B: offered no evidence or justification in support of them, and C: defines problems into existence by fiat in order to demand they be solved, despite having no reason for thinking they even existed in the first place. Simply dismissing these, as you did back then too, is not a response, and does not diminish the truth of them.

Additionally, "no rational basis of effectiveness" for the scientific method? Does not the continued, demonstrable efficacy of those branches of science that do work count as a good enough basis? What more do you want, if centuries of consistent positive results aren't enough? And why aren't you asking the same of your god? Oh, and if you're tempted to again tell me what the scientific method just takes as givens, I'll just remind you that arguments from ignorance are not evidence against scientific efficacy, nor are they support for the unjustified ramblings of Aquinas.

Only within the scope of inquiries related to natural science. Science presupposes certain philosophical assumptions. That foundational need is why there is a specific area of rational inquiry called ‘Philosophy of Science.’

Yes, axioms exist. But they don't require god magic to support them; the whole point of axioms is to allow us to operate in accordance with the things we observe but don't necessarily have fully comprehensive answers for yet. You can't just point at them as evidence for god, because that would be, again, an argument from ignorance.