Could the Bible be cancel culture's next victim?

Why?

 

Why not?

 

You said Aquinas didn't know anything about God, but you have no logical argument to back up your point. Thanks.

 

Here you go, we can take the debate from here, https://jakubferencik.medium.com/arguments-for-gods-existence-debunked-cb656189653e

 

Try it in your own words. If you understand Aquinas' arguments, you don't need someone else to do your work for you.

 

Suits me, since you brought Aquinas up how about we start with first cause and the case of special pleading for god?

 

There is no special pleading. You seem to be a "I'll google something quick and call BS champ". Your rebuttal proves you don't even understand the argument.

We can start with simple observation, things change. Things don't change without something actual acting upon the thing changed. Yet this series of causes and events cannot go backwards in time forever. Ergo, something has to be purely actual, with no potential. That's what we call God.

Let me know how your rebuttal disproves this.

 

No you have to show there is no infinite regress, we do not know, and if there is not a infinite regress how do you know that the universe is not just a brute fact, you have to explain why god is the answer and is not caused, otherwise it is special pleading. Now can you explain why god is not caused?

 

Don't YOU justify war?

 

Can you give me an example of me doing so?

 

You are the one claiming Aquinas knew something about the nature of God - a claim that is preposterous nonsense - as no one knows for sure what God is - or is not .. no one can prove anything either way ..

I make no claims about God - other than I have no clue - and nor do you .. sans one claiming "Divine Revelation" Is this what you are claiming .. God sat down for Tea with Aquinas ..

Sad that you needed this explained to you more than once.

 

We can all know something about the nature of God without a holy book at all. First of all, that God exists. That's the point of Aquinas' arguments, which were actually an enhancement on Aristotle's arguments before.

It's sad that you have such a completely wrong misunderstanding of what Aquinas wrote and was about.

Furthermore, your post is blatantly dishonest. Nobody said that God sat down for Tea with Aquinas.

Why make crap up that other people never said?

 

You have not made any of Aquinas arguments .. so why are you making up this false nonsense about me understanding anything .. It is you who did not understand Aquinas .. so either make some of his arguments .. or shut up about him .. I could run around and cry "Plato Plato" and it would be equally useless - if not accompanied by what the actual argument made was.

The claim that you know - or I know defacto what God is made of - is preposterous nonsense on steroids - and frankly I don't think Aquinas was dumb enough to make that claim either. So back up your claim. What does Aquinas have to say.

 

I did a brief cameo in post #117. Thanks.

Because you demonstrated an unfamiliarity with Aquinas, as proved by your comment that any knowledge of God is "preposterous nonsense" (which, ironically, you did not back up with any facts or logic).

God is not "made" of anything - not material in the sense that we think something tangible is made of parts. If you were familiar with Aquinas, you'd know that this was a foundational claim.

 

No one is going to take away your precious fictional book.

Disbelief or lack of belief in the existence of God or gods

 

Agnosticism is the lack of belief. Atheism is a firm denial.

 

Incorrect. Atheism is exactly what I posted.
Agnosticism is a person who believes that nothing is known or can be known of the existence of God. In other words no one knows if there is a god. Technically everyone is agnostic.

 

As I said earlier...

Then isn’t a paradigm in which God is not allowed to be a part of and is not allowed to even be proffered as an explanation for (the classroom)... inherently atheist?

And if so, why should you be allowed to push that atheism on my child any more than I’m allowed to push my Christianity on yours?

 

I've heard this canard from atheists for the last decade. Atheism has traditionally meant one who affirmatively disavows the existence of a god or gods.

Agnostic would be one who lacks a belief one way or the other.

 

Which of the current subjects taught in school do you want god discussed?

 

I provided you definitions of both. It’s your choice to ignore facts.

 

I've studied this for quite sometime. Your definitions are new.

Atheism: "the doctrine that there is no God;" "disbelief in any regularity in the universe to which man must conform himself under penalties" [J.R. Seeley, "Natural Religion," 1882], 1580s, from French athéisme (16c.), with -ism + Greek atheos "without a god, denying the gods," from a- "without" (see a- (3)) + theos "a god" (from PIE root *dhes-, forming words for religious concepts). A slightly earlier form is represented by atheonism (1530s) which is perhaps from Italian atheo "atheist." The ancient Greek noun was atheotes "ungodliness."

Agnostic - Greek agnostos "unknown, unknowable," from a- "not" (see a- (3)) + gnōstos "(to be) known," from PIE root *gno- "to know." Sometimes said to be a reference to Paul's mention of the altar to "the Unknown God" in Acts, but according to Huxley it was coined with reference to the early Church movement known as Gnosticism (see Gnostic). The adjective also is first recorded 1870.

Lacking a belief is not disbelief.

 

Like I said….feel free to ignore facts.

 

Which facts are those?

"I lack a belief in a god or gods" is most accurately agnosticism. Further, people that claim this frequently argue that there is no god. So it all sounds like a bit of a word salad shell game to me.

It's one thing to admit that you just don't know because there isn't enough facts or logical persuasion to convince you.

But if you claim to be atheist, you really need to have a logical argument for your position.

 

Just because others misconstrue what they mean doesn’t change the definitions of atheism and agnosticism.
As I pointed out to you in another thread, people, myself included, have provided you with a logical argument but you choose to ignore it. It’s you M.O. it’s why no one takes you seriously.