Theists afraid of change

[Esquilax]

I wouldn't be so condescending if it weren't for the constant hand-wave dismissals of a long, internally consistent, and compelling philosophical tradition.

... Based on a series of unjustified assertions backed with no evidence at all. You always forget to end the sentence correctly.

Given that, it's not a dismissal so much as an observation that your entire position is built on little more than unjustified confidence in a series of arguments that, though internally consistent, are also baseless.

Modern arguments against Neo-Scholasticism are mostly based on either 1) misunderstandings about the premises or 2) an unwillingness to accept the truths uncovered because doing so would require repentance or 3) objections that cannot be reconciled with necessary truths.

... And you segue right back into the condescension: 1) "You just don't understand the bold truths of what I'm saying!" 2) "You just don't want to accept what I'm saying!" 3) "But what I'm asserting without evidence is necessary, so it has to be true!"

Fucking yawn.   If you want to come sit at the adult table, then you'll need to bring evidence and not unjustified fantasies that appeal to you. You can dress up that lack of evidence in as much passive aggressive ad hoc rationalization and attacks on our character as you like, but that's not going to make it any more substantial. It's just going to confirm your own mean spirited ego.