I'm not Catholic, but I think I found my patron saint
Spencer Wood
My new friend Aquinas has given me quite a chuckle while I read his works. He reminds me of me whenever someone in honors is wrong, and I have to tell them why.
On a serious note, I really enjoy how 'matter-of-fact' Aquinas' arguments are formed. The way he rights is as if he is directly responding to the person who spoke the object of his rebuttal. And that's not even getting into his arguments for the existence of God. his first argument about motion is probably his weakest in my opinion because there is more knowledge about motion, wind, gravity, etc. next, with efficient causes, he has a decent argument, but I don't really understand it because he basically goes around his butt to touch his elbow. He's saying that 'something wasn't created from nothing; therefore, something that wasn't created must have created what is' his third point is probably my favorite because he calls out how his opposing argument is just absurd, and I appreciate that. however, it really doesn't say anything different from his second point. The fourth point is, in my opinion, is so beautifully pragmatic in its simplicity 'there is an unconscious-understood standard which everything is held to; that is what we call God' and his final point I would like to rename to the 'i trying my best to create a relevant analogy for my youth group and ancient war strategies is the best I can think of - proof of God's existence' now don't hear me undermining this argument. I'm not. He's right. But I'm pretty sure I've heard a few youth sermons with this very analogy.
gary and hannah
My new friend Aquinas has given me quite a chuckle while I read his works. He reminds me of me whenever someone in honors is wrong, and I have to tell them why.
On a serious note, I really enjoy how 'matter-of-fact' Aquinas' arguments are formed. The way he rights is as if he is directly responding to the person who spoke the object of his rebuttal. And that's not even getting into his arguments for the existence of God. his first argument about motion is probably his weakest in my opinion because there is more knowledge about motion, wind, gravity, etc. next, with efficient causes, he has a decent argument, but I don't really understand it because he basically goes around his butt to touch his elbow. He's saying that 'something wasn't created from nothing; therefore, something that wasn't created must have created what is' his third point is probably my favorite because he calls out how his opposing argument is just absurd, and I appreciate that. however, it really doesn't say anything different from his second point. The fourth point is, in my opinion, is so beautifully pragmatic in its simplicity 'there is an unconscious-understood standard which everything is held to; that is what we call God' and his final point I would like to rename to the 'i trying my best to create a relevant analogy for my youth group and ancient war strategies is the best I can think of - proof of God's existence' now don't hear me undermining this argument. I'm not. He's right. But I'm pretty sure I've heard a few youth sermons with this very analogy.
gary and hannah
I found it really interesting how confident he is in his opinions and arguments, too. I also totally get the confusion part because yeah I understand maybe 67% of what I read on a daily basis lol. Overall, I get what you're saying and find you courageous for arguing with his argument.
ReplyDelete