It was good talking to you

https://mobile.twitter.com/Skytallets/status/1225099665697361920

kings

@Draško It's good that false idols were persecuted

Bunch of savages

@Sentient23

i ahvenit

hi

what

lmao

yeah im definitely going to be able to read that

So if this is God and he has always been here

Y/N

Mate, hitler took speed so he could run the reich

Have a coffee and read it all

just let me tell you even if aquinas is wrong God is still real

When you are ready i think i can begin

but ill read it

The rustling of jimmies

I await your readiness, @Sentient23

read it

yeah

What issue do u take

bro

Okay so stop me where my interpretation of this doesnt match yours

i thought this was a rebuttal, this is just the first way explained

whoa, what?

But i usually try go the Yes, No, Y/N route

Dont be like my friend here

k go on

easy

*inb4 he presents the oppy rebuttal*

Right, so Aquinas is saying
"god exists and all things exist, change is the norm and the idea of a start isnt correct because we have no idea that things didnt ever not exist",
Y/N?

(I always say im not going to go into it then i go into it hehe)

no lol that's in no way what hes saying

Okay, whats he saying then

Hes saying that based on the fact that change occurs, and based on the nature of change, there must be something unchanging ontologically prior to EVERYTHING

He never appealed to ignorance

I dont see how what i said contradicts what you say there

"the idea of a start isnt correct because we have no idea that things didnt ever not exist", "