Message from @☭ ⊕ Korovsky ⊕ ☭
Discord ID: 651877812969406534
darwin was Christian
like what
enough with this hebrew nonsense and off yourself, tranny
Literally every Christian pulls the Aquinas card out of their ass when confronted
and its getting old
<:garfilf:606968189640769668>
Because Aquinas had studied like centuries of literature and dogma??
I don't care
"bro stop CITING SOURCES"
"read aquinas" is not citing a source
<:garfilf:606968189640769668>
its a command
<:garfilf:606968189640769668>
low IQ Christoid
he's a theologian so it counts as a source
read augustine
and ive read his five ways and stuff
and they arent convincing
read Summa Theologica
okay then we're arguing from a subjective standpoint; even if somebody *can* prove that god exists, you can just go "well it doesn't look like proof to me"
no, i look at their argument and determine whether or not i believe it
which is what i did with Aquinas
your critiques show everyone that u have not actually understood what u have read
okay well run through with me, what were your critiques?
ok ill go over this for the thousandth time
lets start with the firsts one
now i like to have a dialogue, not a monologue
im gonna need a drink for this thirst cause
so please recite the first way
bruh
okay so number one of the first way, our senses prove that some things are in motion
number two, things move when potential motion becomes actual motion,
any objections so far?
nope
addie has essentially conceded before that the argument is logical but he thinks that it doesnt prove god somehow
which show a lack of understanding
number three, only an actual motion can convert a potential motion into an actual motion.
number four, nothing can be at once in both actuality and potentiality in the same respect.
i.e: if both actual and potential, it is actual in one respect and potential in another.
good? any problems?
nope
number five, nothing can move itself
number six, each thing in motion is moved by something else