- So your answer to people pointing out why Thomist teleology is fundamentally flawed... is basially to not only ignore the arguments presented that showcase their fallacies, but also basically excuse them in an offhand matter, not even positting as to why they're supposedly "infalliable" [sic].
I don't remember saying that any philosophical or theological argument was "infallible." However, I do recall your saying that "all issues that could pass as intellectual arguments" have already been addressed. I was simply choosing an example that contradicted this—Thomist arguments are still very much a live bone of contention; no serious philosopher or theologian pretends that they needn't be contended with, or have been addressed to everyone's satisfaction.
You believe that Thomist rhetorics are the only christian moral teachings that matter? I could bring many people that disagree with that notion.
I'm sure you could. However, Thomist arguments are simply the example that I happened to pick; that hardly implies that it's the only one that matters, and I'm really
not sure how you infer that.
edited 21st Oct '13 9:57:36 AM by Jhimmibhob