This site has abandoned its founding principles a site for theists and atheists to discuss the existence of God—civilly and has been turned almost exclusively into a site where Thomists professional and amateur look down their noses not only at nonbelievers but also Protestants. And while condescension can sometimes be done with a certain degree of civility, such is not always the case here. People believed and disbelieved in the existence of God long before Aquinas lived and died AT philosophy isn't necessary for either belief or unbelief.
I acknowledge the major contributions of Aquinas to Catholic theology, but I do not believe they make him a great philosopher. They make him a great Catholic theologian. I understood Brian's answer as, to paraphrase: does God exist? I think no.
Those that that think God does exist, like Aquinas, are wrong. Did I misunderstand him? Hence my question: " That is not an agnostic position by Brian, is it? This is new. My comment was just, yes it seems Russell was wrong but I'd rather talk about whether gods exist.
So your response was off topic of this OP, but it be happy to discuss philosophy if religion with you. Aquinas being wrong about God is quite pertinent to the OP, especially if Aquinas then ignores evidence that he is wrong to reach his conclusions. I'd be more than happy to discuss the philosophy of religion. Would you like to start first, or shall I? I'll try to keep it on topic with the OP. Do you have any questions for me? When you assert a god exists to others you need to prove it. What you believe doesn't matter. Beliefs are a dime a dozen.
We can now study why humans believe what they do. Sad thing is that humans are biased and while they know "voodoo" isn't real and that "crystal balls" are a scam they will not look at their own superstitious beliefs the same way. To simplify things an atheist only needs to say "I don't believe you" to a theist.
Five Ways (Aquinas)
But that doesn't make for much of a conversation so atheists expand their responses. Theists do their best to overwhelm the conversation with lies, fallacious reasoning, apologetics, emotion, and propaganda. Aquinas was trying to justify the existence of a god. For his job or life or maybe to satisfy himself. His logic is faulty and any good philosopher without a Christian bias would agree the arguments don't hold up logically. He fooled many and maybe fooled himself. What's funny is he wasn't trying to prove the Catholic "God".
No intellectual would try to do that.
Thank you for sharing your opinions with me. You're new here, right? I disagree. But you're entitled to this belief. Do you have a source or reference? What studies are you referring to? What are your criteria for labeling something "superstitious"? It applies to things other than religions. One can be agnostic on the question of Existence but atheist towards the gods invented by men. If by "Existence" you mean existence of God, agreed.
Atheists seek charitable conversations with Theists. That's great.
Should we all follow your example of conversation instead? So does that make you wiser than Aquinas? If by "Catholic 'God'", you mean the Trinity, I somewhat agree. Well if you don't insist that it is true to me then of course you don't have to defend it. I like soccer. Others like baseball. It's subjective to which sport is better. I should explain better. It matters to you. Why it matters to you matters to me. Why it matters to humans concerns the human race and our cultures. But what you actually believe is really no different at it's core from any other unfounded belief.
Yes, google the Cognitive Science of Religion. It helps to explain why humans believe where most want to argue about what humans believe. You can read books. Take an online course. Study it at a university. You are free to agree or not. If religious it will challenge your worldview.
It's why many Christians homeschool. A fear of learning things beyond what their faith teaches and not wanting to overburden their mind with dissonance. My criteria? Can a belief be supported with facts, falsifiable evidence, and lastly proof. Is it rational or irrational?
Are there reasons why a person holds such a belief that can be explained in other ways. See above. By Existence I mean not just our universe but whatever came before if anything and whatever will come after. It would include other universes if they exist. It isn't about a god. A god is not necessary. Looking at the question of how this all came to be humans simply at present don't have the ability to answer such a question. We attempt to but we are limited in brain power, limited simply by the short life spans we have, limited by physical constraints.
Our biggest limitation is we exist in this universe at this time. We currently can't go back in time and we can't at present access other universes from this one. Inserting that "God did it" is an argument from ignorance. We don't know how some things happened. Maybe never will. We should not just make up something but we do in order to explain the world to ourselves.
Humans want an answer even if it is wrong.
- Thomas Aquinas!
- Una Pequeñez (Spanish Edition)!
- Taking Aquinas Seriously.
- Was Bertrand Russell Right About Thomas Aquinas?.
I don't know doesn't work for many. Those that pretend to have an answer take advantage of this flaw in our ability to reason. If a god can exist without someone creating it then Existence or if you will the Universe needs no Creator. It really is special pleading even though others will use apologetics to argue it isn't. Such a simple thing to understand.iye.savviihq.com/bose-ola-cd-manual.php
Arguments of the Philosophers - Routledge
No need to create something that doesn't exist to explain something that does exist. We do so because we are conscious and fear our deaths. It is very stressful for humans to know they will die. In the past with short lifespans, smallpox, black death and constant warring humans needed a god belief to make life bearable.