Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Normal
I pointed out that Thomas Aquinas's opinions would be suspect because of the time he lived(Heretics burned, he would not likely philosophize that God did not exist.) and his likely prejudicial background(a catholic priest committed to an existence of God before he developed his philosophy of the "proof" of God's existence. Wow, a priest convinced that God exists...what a revelation!). Also, being catholic makes him suspect inasmuch as catholic practices seem much like a magic show...as in monks observing him levitate, magic "holy water", incense, magic Latin words, ringing of magic little bells, lighting magic candles, magic gestures of the trinity, etc.It is not possible to prove a negative, so of course there are many of what you call "proofs". I refer to "proof" only in the common usage of the today; can sustain scientific examination. Such things as philosophers refer to as "proof" is not in the same context. Yes, it is well known that there are many philosophical arguments that have been made for the existence of God. If you would read and understand the posts, you would not try to bend the argument into something it is not. I certainly did not say that there is no philosophical background for the existence of a deity.
I pointed out that Thomas Aquinas's opinions would be suspect because of the time he lived(Heretics burned, he would not likely philosophize that God did not exist.) and his likely prejudicial background(a catholic priest committed to an existence of God before he developed his philosophy of the "proof" of God's existence. Wow, a priest convinced that God exists...what a revelation!). Also, being catholic makes him suspect inasmuch as catholic practices seem much like a magic show...as in monks observing him levitate, magic "holy water", incense, magic Latin words, ringing of magic little bells, lighting magic candles, magic gestures of the trinity, etc.
It is not possible to prove a negative, so of course there are many of what you call "proofs". I refer to "proof" only in the common usage of the today; can sustain scientific examination. Such things as philosophers refer to as "proof" is not in the same context.
Yes, it is well known that there are many philosophical arguments that have been made for the existence of God. If you would read and understand the posts, you would not try to bend the argument into something it is not. I certainly did not say that there is no philosophical background for the existence of a deity.
