Originally posted by lucifershammer
[b/]

no1: There is simply no point in arguing logically with someone who, no matter what, will accept his ultimate premise whether it is logical or not.

Ironic you should say that...

(For the nth time) The validity of Aquinas' philosophical arguments do NOT depend on his own views or how he PERSONALLY came to hold those vi ...[text shortened]... .

When you've calmed down, go back and read over my posts - perhaps you'll see what I mean.

I know what you mean, jerk. You are incorrect; the entire Summa takes the revealed Word as truth a priori as you well know. Stop with the pretend air of intellectual superiority because you have read a philosopher no one but the RCC takes seriously anymore. Are you always such a pretentious a**h***?

Originally posted by no1marauder
I know what you mean, jerk. You are incorrect; the entire Summa takes the revealed Word as truth a priori as you well know. Stop with the pretend air of intellectual superiority because you have read a philosopher no one but the RCC takes seriously anymore. Are you always such a pretentious a**h***?

Ah marauder, making friends in your usual crisp way ?

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Who needs friends like you guys? Everybody's bad to you except you. You keep saying that "We don't judge, God judges", but that's such a load of crap. You're the most judgmental pricks on the planet. We're all going to hell because we believe in science and think Leviticus is a load of shit. Well screw you all. You contemptible curs.

I love you too, Sas .....

Originally posted by ivanhoe
Ah marauder, making friends in your usual crisp way ?

If LH wants to debate in a civil tone, I will. If he wants to keep repeating how ignorant I am because I don't "understand" his and Acquinas' BS arguments, he can kiss my a**. I fully understand what he is claiming and answered his points directly when the debate started. Instead of addressing my responses in a meaningful manner, he started in with his air of superiority, apparently believing that anyone who hasn't in-depth studied the discredited philosophy of a guy dead for about 750 years is a total ignoramus. His whole premise is "Well, the Deists haven't refuted Thomas Acquinas' arguments, so their belief system must be invalid." Even if they haven't bothered to, SO WHAT?? Who the freak cares what a guy who took as the foundamation of his argument a priori assumptions that he claimed couldn't be refuted NO MATTER WHAT. That is not a logical argument no matter what our smug, pseudo intellectual friend "thinks".

Originally posted by no1marauder
If LH wants to debate in a civil tone, I will. If he wants to keep repeating how ignorant I am because I don't "understand" his and Acquinas' BS arguments, he can kiss my a**. I fully understand what he is claiming and answered his points directly when the debate started. Instead of addressing my responses in a meaningful manner, he started in with h ...[text shortened]... . That is not a logical argument no matter what our smug, pseudo intellectual friend "thinks".

I see, but why can't you explain this to him without seeking refuge in namecalling and logical fallacies ?

Originally posted by ivanhoe
I see, but why can't you explain this to him without seeking refuge in namecalling and logical fallacies ?

Deist God knows I've tried.

Look, the bottom line is Acquinas and LH want God to have certain properties which are central to the RCC faith. He MUST be omnipotent and omniscient. Therefore, he cannot be bound by the physical laws of the universe. Yet, Deists believe that the Creator God IS bound by the Natural Laws of the universe He created. Thus, he is not omnipotent (at least any more) and he never was omniscient.

Is there belief paradoxical? Perhaps, perhaps not. It's certainly no more paradoxical then the Holy Trinity, "Three-in-One" approach which, of course, HAS to be accepted, no matter how paradoxical it seems according to Acquinas. We could mention other aspects of the RCC religion that appear paradoxical as well. Besides, a major tenet of deism is that the exact nature of God is incomprehensible; that his existence can be known by Reason, but not necessarily his attributes. So of what relevance is Acquinas to them?

Originally posted by no1marauder
Deist God knows I've tried.

Look, the bottom line is Acquinas and LH want God to have certain properties which are central to the RCC faith. He MUST be omnipotent and omniscient. Therefore, he cannot be bound by the physical laws of the universe. Yet, Deists believe that the Creator God IS bound by the Natural Laws of the universe He created. ...[text shortened]... e known by Reason, but not necessarily his attributes. So of what relevance is Acquinas to them?

Good luck. You can do it.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I know what you mean, jerk. You are incorrect; the entire Summa takes the revealed Word as truth a priori as you well know. Stop with the pretend air of intellectual superiority because you have read a philosopher no one but the RCC takes seriously anymore. Are you always such a pretentious a**h***?

(Oh boy - this is usually a sign that no1 is about to hit the books. That's usually a good thing - both for him and me.)

There are parts of the Summa that take the revealed Word as truth a priori (such as those dealing with Christ, the Sacraments etc.) - that I've freely admitted. The part we are talking about, however, is not one of them - nor are any of the arguments preceeding it.

In other words, his arguments for the omnipotence, omniscience and moral perfection of God are entirely philosophical.

Originally posted by sasquatch672
Who needs friends like you guys? Everybody's bad to you except you. You keep saying that "We don't judge, God judges", but that's such a load of crap. You're the most judgmental pricks on the planet. We're all going to hell because we believe in science and think Leviticus is a load of shit. Well screw you all. You contemptible curs.

What have I (Lucifer's Hammer) ever done to you do deserve your contempt?

Originally posted by no1marauder
If LH wants to debate in a civil tone, I will. If he wants to keep repeating how ignorant I am because I don't "understand" his and Acquinas' BS arguments, he can kiss my a**. I fully understand what he is claiming and answered his points directly when the debate started. Instead of addressing my responses in a meaningful manner, he started in with h ...[text shortened]... . That is not a logical argument no matter what our smug, pseudo intellectual friend "thinks".

no1: His whole premise is "Well, the Deists haven't refuted Thomas Acquinas' arguments, so their belief system must be invalid." Even if they haven't bothered to, SO WHAT??

Well, either the Deists have refuted his arguments or they have not. If they have, I'd like to see it.

If they haven't, then it's either because they tried and failed, or because they never tried. If they tried and failed, then their lack of belief in the OOMP nature of God (given their belief in the existence of God) is unjustified - because they have no cause to reject the rationale of Aquinas.

If they never tried, then their current views are based on ignorance. They must try (if the rational base of their beliefs is to be preserved). If they succeed, then they've justified their views. If they fail, then they must change those views. If they refuse to, then they must conceed that their beliefs are not based on "reason and nature".

no1: Who the freak cares what a guy who took as the foundamation of his argument a priori assumptions that he claimed couldn't be refuted NO MATTER WHAT.

Either back this statement with evidence that any of the arguments for the OOMP nature of God (or the premises those arguments are based on) uses such a priori arguments (the "Word of God"; i.e. the Bible - as you referred to it in another post); or retract it.

Originally posted by lucifershammer

no1: His whole premise is "Well, the Deists haven't refuted Thomas Acquinas' arguments, so their belief system must be invalid." Even if they haven't bothered to, SO WHAT??

Well, either the Deists have refuted his arguments or they have not. If they have, I'd like to see it.

If they haven't, then it's either because they t ...[text shortened]... ts (the "Word of God"; i.e. the Bible - as you referred to it in another post); or retract it.

Let me ask you a question: has Christianity refuted every natural philosopher on every point they ever raised which might be in conflict with some part of their doctrine? I don't think so. Just because your impressed with Acquinas' crap doesn't mean that the entire rest of the human race is rushing out to buy the Summa and agree or refute all his points in that tedious snoozefest. I'm not going to read Acquinas but if you want to present his arguments as to why a Creator God must be omnipotent and omniscient, I'll attempt to refute them. But don't talk rubbish about God being "out of time" as that is a mere platitude, not a concept. And please answer my point: Deists do believe that God is bound by the Natural Laws of the universe. Why are they wrong?

Originally posted by lucifershammer
I will get to Paine in due course...

here's a site :

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm

Originally posted by frogstomp
here's a site :

http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/index.htm

No, we are supposed to read every turgid word of Acquinas to try and understand what the hell he is talking about with his "omnipotent" and "omniscient" nonsense. Plus we are supposed to find a Deist critique SPECIFICALLY of Acquinas' ideas not merely what their beliefs are. By contrast, LH doesn't have to read any of Paine's work. This is how LH "debates".

Originally posted by no1marauder
No, we are supposed to read every turgid word of Acquinas to try and understand what the hell he is talking about with his "omnipotent" and "omniscient" nonsense. Plus we are supposed to find a Deist critique SPECIFICALLY of Acquinas' ideas not merely what their beliefs are. By contrast, LH doesn't have to read any of Paine's work. This is how LH "debates".

if I had too choose, I'd choose Paine, if for no other reason than Valley Forge.