Arguments for God's Existence from Contingency

[Edwardo Piet]

Thomism is making a comeback due to the perception that modernity has failed theology.  Rather than look for new ways..they're reverting to the old ones, and the cycle continues.

Theology is the study of nothing non-imaginary at best.

[Amarok]

Thomism is making a comeback due to the perception that modernity has failed theology.  Rather than look for new ways..they're reverting to the old ones, and the cycle continues.

Theism if at first they don't succeed. Flee back to their comfort zone .

---

Thomism is making a comeback due to the perception that modernity has failed theology.  Rather than look for new ways..they're reverting to the old ones, and the cycle continues.

Theology is the study of nothing non-imaginary at best.

Theology might as well be a study of made up super powers

[Edwardo Piet]

If you’re trying to “debunk” Aquinas, you’re doing a piss-poor job of it.

For me to debunk it it would have at least some sort of non-fallacious logical coherence in the first place. The onus is still on Thomism to present a case that actually makes sense. What is there to debunk? I agree with the parts that make sense and discard the nonsense which you do not recognize to be nonsense, but that's not my problem because I'm not the one making an argument. All I can do is try to point to the non-sequiturs and hope you recognize them. I may try to explain what those non-sequiturs are, but eventually what I point to will be some non-sequitur or failing of logic, and if you can't recognize any of those mistakes then there's nothing more I can do to help you.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Hammy
That's the amusing bit for me, I wonder if anyone will ever really be satisfied with their current explanation of the non-existent?  It seems as if there's an  in-built and inseparable pathway for dissatisfaction there.

[Edwardo Piet]

@Hammy
That's the amusing bit for me, I wonder if anyone will ever really be satisfied with their current explanation of the non-existent?  It seems as if there's an  in-built and inseparable pathway for dissatisfaction there.

What do you think is the current explanation for the so-called "the non-existent"? Because that's completely incoherent to me.

Why would and how could nothing need an explanation?

---

Theology might as well be a study of made up super powers

It's like the study of Clark Kent.

[The Grand Nudger]

@Hammy
That's the amusing bit for me, I wonder if anyone will ever really be satisfied with their current explanation of the non-existent?  It seems as if there's an  in-built and inseparable pathway for dissatisfaction there.

What do you think is the current explanation for the so-called "the non-existent"? Because that's completely incoherent to me.

Why would and how could nothing need an explanation?

Not really my bag, as I'm not inventing theologies or schisming into new ones.  The religious, otoh, seem to think they know a hell of alot about the nothing they all understand to be god, and a crucial part of what they know is that their shit is stuff and the other guys stuff is shit. -ad infinitum

[Edwardo Piet]

What do you think is the current explanation for the so-called "the non-existent"? Because that's completely incoherent to me.

Why would and how could nothing need an explanation?

Not really my bag, as I'm not inventing theologies or schisming into new ones.  The religious, otoh, seem to think they know a hell of alot about the nothing they all understand to be god, and a crucial part of what they know is that their shit is stuff and the other guys stuff is shit.

Yes, I'm just trying to understand what you mean. What do you mean by "their explanation for the non-existent"?

---

@Hammy
That's the amusing bit for me, I wonder if anyone will ever really be satisfied with their current explanation of the non-existent?  It seems as if there's an  in-built and inseparable pathway for dissatisfaction there.

Oh wait, I get what you're saying now. You mean "I wonder if anyone will ever really be satisfied with their current explanation of the non-existent which they like to call "God" but is only real in their heads?"

Bold added.

Well, in that case I think they were self-satisfied a long while ago and they only bother with Theology because they think understanding it further is interesting or helpful but of course it isn't because they don't understand it in the first place. They think it's a genuine field of study because they think it refers to something real, but, unfortunately for them, it doesn't.

[Abaddon_ire]

Aquinas was a crank. A crackpot. Mostly now derogated. Why are you banging on about the dude?

Aquinas was flat out bonkers. All atheists agree and most christians agree that aquinas was aberrant. You are appealing to the loon fringe of christianity. Are you sure that is where you want to place yourself?

Aquinas is not the "loon fringe of Christianity". Not even close.

Have you ever watched TV evangelists? Do you even know any Christians in real life? Shit, I could randomly throw a rock in the Mall of Louisiana and have a 90% chance of hitting someone who is (1) a Christian and (2) vastly loonier than Aquinas.

Yeah. Raised RCC. Had you a point to make?

As to aquinas, he was bat poop nutty. Feel free to assert his crap. It will not magically become less nutty by dint of your assertions.

[The Grand Nudger]

Just another way to describe a study of the nature of god. If the Infamous They™ were satisfied then god wouldn't be in continuous flux. Christer god is still in it's infancy relative to other gods..and likely to be strangled in it's crib. Who knows what they'll come up with next.

[Amarok]

@Hammy
That's the amusing bit for me, I wonder if anyone will ever really be satisfied with their current explanation of the non-existent?  It seems as if there's an  in-built and inseparable pathway for dissatisfaction there.

What do you think is the current explanation for the so-called "the non-existent"? Because that's completely incoherent to me.

Why would and how could nothing need an explanation?

---

Theology might as well be a study of made up super powers

It's like the study of Clark Kent.

Only far less interesting