Arguments Against Thomistic philosophy

[Mystic]

Mohammad was part of a family that had mixed members, his uncle nicknamed Abu Lahab, was part of the Illuminati. He was accused of working with a people who know ever so much and know the art of manipulation and hence was working with a group of former illuminati that now were turning against the order of Jinn and humans. They saw perhaps even Gabriel was a possibility but was unreliable source, a false teacher, one who gave him false visions and that either Mohammad was a liar working with people but their biggest assumption was he was possessed by Gabriel who was unreliable.

The Quran doesn't mock this serious contention, what if a demon consumed Mohammad and was using him and that is why he could split the moon and so on and so forth.

What if he was working with a brigade of former people of the gathering of Jinn and Humans, and now is seeking to undermine them, but has no proof.

Why doesn't he bring Angels up to face and why he doesn't the book just come from the sky where everyone sees.

Everyone can say "why is the proof of God not like this..." It's like saying why didn't the staff of Moses turn into a tiger instead of snake.

IT doesn't matter. Proofs prove, and if you deny any proof, you will deny them all naturally because you aren't look for the truth.

Proofs and signs only avail a people who believe. And the Quran eloquently responded to all the contentions and thereby explained the truth of the station of the witness and guide, and the path humanity is called to.

[LastPoet]

I can honestly hope you are drunk.

[The Grand Nudger]

From demons and dark magic to genies, the illuminati, and moon splitting.

[Mystic]

From demons and dark magic to genies, the illuminati, and moon splitting.

In accusing him to be consumed by false teachers and having no proof, he showed the reality, it's the illuminati who the Arabs followed, who had no proofs either for their Jinn representatives or the Jinn who claimed to be guides in the unseen or sons of God or means to God.

It was them who could not bring proofs for their irrational laws and dark ways.

It eloquently reaches out to humans and says...

"And your Lord creates and chooses, they have no choice, glory be to God of what do they associate?"

Meaning we have no choice in choosing the path let alone the leaders who guide let a lone what God is.

The name of God is by which the ship of salvation is sailed.

And they (illuminati) cannot be compared to the Leader and Guide who is the clear proof on a clear proof.

[The Grand Nudger]

See, the demons gotcha.  You're doing it again.  Dance puppet!

[Jehanne]

Mohammad was an epileptic pedophile with delusions of grandeur who waged offensive and unnecessary warfare against his neighbors.

[Succubus]

Mohammad was part of a family that had mixed members, his uncle nicknamed Abu Lahab, was part of the Illuminati. He was accused of working with a people who know ever so much and know the art of manipulation and hence was working with a group of former illuminati that now were turning against the order of Jinn and humans. They saw perhaps even Gabriel was a possibility but was unreliable source, a false teacher, one who gave him false visions and that either Mohammad was a liar working with people but their biggest assumption was he was possessed by Gabriel who was unreliable.

The Quran doesn't mock this serious contention, what if a demon consumed Mohammad and was using him and that is why he could split the moon and so on and so forth.

What if he was working with a brigade of former people of the gathering of Jinn and Humans, and now is seeking to undermine them, but has no proof.

Why doesn't he bring Angels up to face and why he doesn't the book just come from the sky where everyone sees.

Everyone can say "why is the proof of God not like this..." It's like saying why didn't the staff of Moses turn into a tiger instead of snake.

IT doesn't matter. Proofs prove, and if you deny any proof, you will deny them all naturally because you aren't look for the truth.

Proofs and signs only avail a people who believe. And the Quran eloquently responded to all the contentions and thereby explained the truth of the station of the witness and guide, and the path humanity is called to.

I'm sorry MK but I disagree. My view is :
The name "the living" is also connected to God in the sense all life is derived from him. Through his name, the truly blessed one in all blessings is God the light of all light. Through his name, all praise is to God. 

In reality the light of his face is what guides everything towards God. The name/face is so passed into the named, that Koran express that God himself is the light of the heavens and the earth. Consequently, his name/light of face is not a dead reality, but a living connection. Through the power of his name, the darkness is subdued and the devils defeated.

This is also known the spirit of his command, be and it is, and the holy spirit is in the position of God's Name and face in it's perfection.

It's through this connection, that people are set aright and become righteous. It's through his name, all beautiful titles belong to God. It's through his name, through which things are given light and given enlightenment.
Through his name everything glorifies God to their capacity, but we don't perceive their glorification. 

.....

Mk I would much appreciate your analysis of my admittedly rather amateurish interpretation. It is only very recently I have taken an interest in the history of the Islamic faith.

[Mystic]

Mk I would much appreciate your analysis of my admittedly rather amateurish interpretation. It is only very recently I have taken an interest in the history of the Islamic faith.

It's perfect interpretation, what you said is all true. All of is true. So describe it further and you will realize it is your leader by which the signs of God in the book is read through the signs in your Soul.

Remember Prophets in the past were called with names like "God hears" or "God laughs" so "living" is a just a title but in reality when we say "the living" we are calling God through his name, and it's his name we reference to indirectly which is the guide and he calls to God and is the witness that makes you know yourself and God.

---

Succubus, I am really impressed! Keep studying!

[pocaracas]

Hello,

I am a devout Catholic with an interest in philosophy. I am posting here in an attempt to find good articles/books/blogs that challenge my personal views. I personally see Thomism, especially as put forward by philosophers like Edward Feser, as the best method of rationally establishing Theism. However, I would like to challenge my personal views and see what others think. Do any of you know of any good replies to the traditional arguments for the existence of God? Especially as argued by Edward Feser in his books and posts such as this (http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/05/...gency.html) ?

Thank you for your time.

Philosophy, philosophy, philosophy!!!!

Lots of arguments from metaphysics, lots of "logic" based on macroscopic understanding of the Universe. Causes and effects...
Someone on this thread mentioned the randomness in Quantum mechanics.... one can go so far as to grant that there indeed was a prime mover to our Universe, but, given the total unknown of the mechanics of a Big Bang, hence the generic name of singularity, one can't really say much in the way of commonplace logic.
On the one hand, we have the school of thought that posits that the Big Bang produced space-time itself.
On the other hand, we have the school of thought that posits that the big bang happens in/at/to a piece of space-time.
On the other hand, we have those who think of the big bang/big crunch cycle.

Any of these is enough to break our logic.
The first because one is forced to consider a cause in the absence of space-time, something that, somehow, exists outside of what we consider to be the framework of existence. Was it Aristotle that spoke of forms? A realm of concepts and ideas that, according to some, must exist independently of human minds. I read something by Feser where he shoots down the potential notion that these concepts actually require human minds by noting that, if one human mind disappears, the concepts still exist in other humans... I wonder what happens if one takes this to the extreme of no minds existing at all. Do conceptual things, like perfect circles, friendship, maths, goodness, exist independently of the minds that think about them? Or do they only exist in the minds that think about them and share them? Do people discover these things or do they invent them?
I admit I haven't yet read enough about Thomistic philosophy, but I guess there's some case in the way of considering that forms exist even in the absence of any conscious thought, even in the absence of space-time.
Personally, I'd argue that they only exist in the minds of thinkers - thinkers that exist in space-time, minds generated in brains made of regular biological material, so ultimately, these concepts exist only in space-time. This way I reason that any reasoning based on concepts devoid of actual spatio-temporal existence is nonsense.

In the second case, space-time itself can be said to be the prime-mover, as Krauss reasons in his "Universe from nothing".
Sure, you can say nonsense like "you can't have a series of infinite events to the past", but you forget I said "space-time", not just time. Space-time is weird and counter-intuitive. If I move at the speed of light through space, time does not move to me. Photons do not age. It is possible for no time to pass... contrary to whatever any philosopher may have thought prior to 1905. Heck.... our commonplace logic is breaking at the relativity level!! Still, relativity does not break causality, it merely imposes somewhat different rules. The quantum world, however, is another matter. Space-time itself can be thought of as teeming with fields that randomly pop up particles into existence - now the counter-intuitive part: I said space-time pops up particles into existence. I didn't say "space" pops up particles into existence. Thinking about a 4-dimensional space is a headache, but good luck with that, Thom. One cool bit about Krauss' notion is that the original "nothing" which is just space-time would have zero energy - Our universe, after taking into account dark matter and dark energy, has, apparently, a grand total of zero energy.
Another cool corollary of this is the concept of multiple Universes - if one can exist and it's brought about through some random thing within space-time, then why can't the same phenomenon happen in some other part of space-time? Given an infinite space-time, one can have infinite Universes!

The third case has pretty much been rendered very unlikely by the observation that our current universe is expanding and the expansion rate seems to be accelerating, as if there's not enough stuff in the Universe to pull everything back together.


Well.... that was a bit too long, but such is the nature of these things.
Feel free to poke holes on all of this... I'm sure it's possible!

[GUBU]

From demons and dark magic to genies, the illuminati, and moon splitting.

And next we know it'll be a conspiracy of JewishInternational Bankers! conspiring to make Nicolae ... Pennines ruler of first Romania and then God-Emperor of the UN.