Thomas Aquinas

I Don’t Care – Part 6

Aquinas is often thought of as a rigourously logical and systematic thinker.  This is only half-true.  There is a good deal of vaguness, ambiguity, and illogical thinking in his book Summa Theologica, as far as I can see. Here is a cautionary note from a philosopher who is an expert on Aquinas: From the concept of I Don’t Care – Part 6

I Don’t Care – Part 5

The famous Five Ways passage by Aquinas in Summa Theologica does not contain five arguments for the existence of God. Rather, it contains ZERO arguments for the existence of God.  There is actually only one argument for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica, and the reasoning in the Five Ways passage only represents a I Don’t Care – Part 5

I Don’t Care – Part 4

I have previously argued that, contrary to popular opinion, there are ZERO arguments for the existence of God in the famous Five Ways passage by Aquinas in Summa Theologica (Part I, Question 2, Article 3: Whether God Exists?). Now I’m getting into what I do care about, namely the ACTUAL argument(s) that Aquinas gives to prove the I Don’t Care – Part 4

I Don’t Care

Thomas Aquinas pulled a classic BAIT-AND-SWITCH move in Summa Theologica:  “Therefore it is necessary to arrive at a first mover, moved by no other; and this everyone understands to be God.” “Therefore it is necessary to admit a first efficient cause, to which everyone gives the name of God.”  “Therefore we cannot but admit the existence I Don’t Care

William Lane Craig: 36 Years of Equivocation – Part 2

One reason why it should be OBVIOUS that Craig’s Kalam Cosmological Argument (hereafter: KCA) involves the fallacy of equivocation, is that Aquinas commits a very similar fallacy of equivocation in his cosmological arguments for God. Every (or almost every) introduction to philosophy of religion course includes at least a brief examination of Aquinas’s Five Ways William Lane Craig: 36 Years of Equivocation – Part 2

What is Faith? – Part 7

I’m going to take a detour and temporarily set Mr. Swinburne’s characterization of the Thomist view of faith aside.  But I will continue to examine the Thomist view of faith, specifically as presented by Dr. Norman Geisler. As Jeff Lowder has recently shown, Dr. Geisler’s case for Christianity is a failure.  IMHO Jeff won that What is Faith? – Part 7