So user, what do you think of Aquinas' teleological argument for the existence of God in the Summa Theologica?

>2 watches

wew lass

Who is the semon demon?
Anyway, I think that almost everyone who doesn't deeply get into Aquinas via commentary by contemporary authors will misunderstand it.
I believe it is correct, as in general he is the only philosopher I know who imo can form a cohesive philosophy which is equally valid in law as it is in logic and epistomology or ethics. Teleology is in general a vital concept and it has been a mistake to dismiss it. Thankfully there has been a significant revival of thomistic thought in the past 100 years and we may see him come back big time.

>Veeky Forums is a bunch of aspiring Catholic theologians
Nah. Lately I've seen little Christian threads. Dictator threads are still remarkably popular tho.

Some topics are tho not discussable thanks to frequent leaks from /pol/.

I like it here more, we don't even have many hardcore fedoras, and if they are they at least read something. I mean the discourse here isn't exactly amazing, but the difference in how things work and the simple vocabulary of posters is huge.

I started of with Veeky Forums, but after some time it gets boring (frequently similar subjects) so I moved to here.
Today Veeky Forums had quite a diverse range of subjects. Only communism was this week discussed very often.

I went there from time to time, it was always pretty awful because it's mostly pol/int and redditors. Some Catholics and some Catholic LARPERS and a lot of Orthodox LARPers.

It's idiotic wish fulfillment, equating the infinitely variable notion of some force that could have caused our universe to come about with a specific humanistic idea of a conscious deity. Like all those arguments. His Argument from Contingency is bullshit: just because all things end is no proof that we're not in a state before that (obviously, this isn't the fruition of infinite time), and his Teleological Argument basically only works slightly if you equate "God" with Darwinian necessity. But I'm really not interested in debating 13th-century Catholic apologia.

it really isn't, you dumb uneducated faggot

The argument is exceptional in philosophy, in that it seems to irrefutably demonstrate what it intends. Not that other arguments aren't good, but this one is in a class of its own.

Not sure about his other arguments, but I attribute that more to my lack of understanding.

To understand, best to start with Aristotle in all honesty.

We're not here to do your homework for you

I'm about to go all Poseidon on yo ass, what would the Greeks say about that?