Once again, it’s the pot calling the kettle black. You say I’m arguing by assertion when that’s exactly what you’re doing. I wrote a long article about Feser’s arguments, and I laid out those arguments before criticizing them. That’s the intellectually responsible thing to do, and that’s not at all what you’re doing in these comments. You’re just trolling. You’re projecting your cognitive weaknesses onto me, you’re venting your conservative resentments, and you’re wasting my time.
You say all my statements are “logically incoherent” and you can easily demonstrate as much but you just don’t want to take the time. Fine, but you could pick just one of my statements and attempt to do so. You could quote a paragraph of mine and show what’s wrong with it. Again, that would be the intellectually respectable thing to do, to prove that you know what you’re talking about and aren’t just a deranged troll.
The closest you come to doing that in these comments is when you quote the only statement of mine that’s in agreement with what you said, where I say, “I agree that metaphysical narratives should be added to scientific models to enable us to fully understand the world.”
Then, bizarrely, you boast about how you’re going to “defeat that argument” (the one that agrees with you), and you attempt to do so by saying, ‘I want you to provide the emperical scientific model that demonstrates the proposition "Mathematics is univesally true, even in other universes".’
That statement about math is yours, not mine. It’s your crude representation of what scientists presuppose, so why would I have to support it? That’s your job.
What you’re trying to say is that science presupposes metaphysics, the queen of the sciences, since science employs math in all its reasoning. And since no scientific experiment demonstrates the universal validity of math, therefore science depends on metaphysics.
Alas, science need support itself with pragmatism and thus with mere methodological rather than metaphysical naturalism. Science need assume the universal validity of math on pragmatic rather than metaphysical grounds in the same way you could keep using the same tool over and over until it breaks. So that’s your “argument” for Thomism busted up and deflated.
You say, “There is NOTHING you can do to demonstrate that Aquinas's arguments are incoherent.”
Really? Didn’t Aquinas himself dispense with his entire systematic theology as being mere irrelevant “straw” compared to the simplicity of his religious experience? Isn’t the metaphysical abstraction of a necessary being the opposite of the Christian folk religious notion of Jesus, the personal deity and savior? Seems incoherent to me.
Yeah, Darwin replaced Aristotle—in biology. Read a history or science textbook to find out why.
