All Blog Entries

Originally posted by Griggsy

This presumption means commmon ground for both supernaturalists and naturalists. We both discern external reality and other minds and such as basic whilst the supernatural impinges only should supernaturalists can give evidence for it.
Definition,faith, postulation, presuppositionalism and warrant cannot instantiate God!

So, body didn't work and mind just went splat - so what's a fallen angel to do? There's one more wall to try to breech - the spirit.

Satan figures Jesus for a 'big picture' sort of guy. This messy incarnation thing is a means to an end - not an end in itself. Satan knows that. So, what if there's another, less painful, way to get to the whole 'ruling the world thing'? Wouldn't that be a fine little carrot...

So, up to the mountain top and a grand view of all the nations ...

So, Satan's appeal to Christ's fleshly nature fell kinda flat. Well, Jesus is really God so that's to be expected, right? Eh, to a degree but that doesn't negate that the first temptation was a very real one.

But Satan ain't through yet - he's nothing if not persistent. So, body didn't work out so well - what about mind? One whirlwind trip to the top of the Temple later and we have Satan daring Jesus to jump.

Somehow, hopping off high buildings, even if you know God ...

Originally posted by Griggsy

Aquinas' fourth way is his ontological argument,which reifies the continuum betwixt qualities.
He maintains that God is that ultimate perfection of all good qualities. But reifiying the continuum thus fails as do all his five ways yet Feser refuses to rise above him, thereby exposing himself as lacking in philosophical judgment!
Aquinas' fifth way fails, as it is like a bowman who puts the bull's-eye around the arrow after it has landed. Carneades' atelic

...

Tags: evidentialism, naturalism, rationalism, skepticism, ways

Categories

Uncategorized

Originally posted by technomage

Originally posted by GioD

Yes, that was rushed and stupid of me.

Heck, I can understand that--though I think I'm in a superior position to you in that I don't have to be rushed to get stupid.

How does the heart's origin being accidental imply it doesn't have a natural end?

There is part of the problem--how do you define "end." We need to take a close look at that concept.

In Aristotle's conception, of course, the "end" was the telos--a

...