o

Aquinas is an Aristotelian

Kalam is Arab

well I suppose the next step is to prove that the prime mover is God

Well the next 36 steps are a brief proof to prove it's immutable, eternal, incorporeal, immaterial, perfect, fully good, omnipotent, omniscient, and intelligent

Brief in that each step could be expanded to a whole other 50 steps

If we really wanted

Let's take immutability, as we already touched on that, pure act cannot change

As it has no potentiality to actualize

God *cannot* do something?

Wrong

Doing is act

o ok continue

Being changed is potency

ah better question

could I not pull something out of my ass

that has all those properties

No?

and how are these properties only limited to the Christian God

sure i could

Well it excludes Hinduism, and all polytheistic religions

Any religion like pagans who think the Gods are corporeal or material

But at this point you cannot be an atheist

So far all you established is that there is a pure act

And it's necessary ramifications

Immutability, unity, etc

Perhaps im not understanding, I do science, not philosophy

Maybe you are not, it took me 4 books before I accepted the argument

I didn't have anyone to explain why "x criticism" isn't right

wat

I'm saying it's a much more philosophically heavy argument than Dawkins or Hitchens thought

So it's understandable you wouldn't get it

I barely understand what Matt Dillahunty is saying half the time lole

If you watch Ed Feser debate this, he sounds like he lives in a library

New atheists like even Matt typically are not acquainted with the scholastics or other academic theologians

They'll debate at max William Lane Craig, who has weak arguments often

his arguments are a joke

lol

You would think that a God would make evidence of his existance obvious

Christians would not have to resort to nonsense like presuppositionalism

Read a theologian or something, all of these points were debated centuries ago really