Wooot Publication Number 5

I have just recieved my 5th publication :D for a paper I wrote over the summer here is a my rough draft(couldnt find the final)

            This is not a desertion from God; far from this is a comparison of the Philosophies on Saint Thomas Aquinas. To me the his concepts the  three beautiful sisters, along with his two books “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles” all lack quintessential logic and factual vindication on his assertions. While Aquinas did anticipate the coming of the age of science his priorities take personal intuition over logic and science. To me this bias towards religion halts progression and invention, and stopping him from becoming a truly great philosopher.

            Thomas Aquinas spoke of the three beautiful sisters, all of which superseded the others in the case of an incongruity in the order of Religion (revelation) followed by Philosophy (logic) and Science (factual). While I do concur with Aquinas to a certain extent I would like to see an exchange with Science and Religion putting factual based evidence on the top. For me the motive behind this is progression and invention, this is the basis of mankind since the beginning of time and neither disembark from religion. They can be found in foundation in logic and facts; and if religion were to take a step above it would halt the progression and invention of our society. Not that religion does not have a place in society, but why last? Let me explain why I believe that you can not prove that God exists with factual based and logical evidence.

            “Summa Theologica” can be translated as the “Structure of Knowledge”, an unfinished book written by Thomas Aquinas. This book is a description of his epistemology which regards as follows.

Now, under Aquinas structure of knowledge there laid many problems. Why? Because it is merely and expansion of the three beautiful sisters; with a further emphasis on God and the Church with putting Theology and Dogmatic Interpretation of the Church above factual and logical studies. Hence further delaying the development of invention and progression; to me knowledge is built on gradients that intertwine one another, Common sense angles thought to progression, progression leads to logical thoughts, an thus to factual sciences. Invention comes from a chain of ideas strung together in a logical and factual ideas manner to create something new. There is no revelation in this process but only desire and free will.

            “Summa Contra Gentiles” another book written by Aquinas, contains “5 Proofs of Gods Existence” to me each proof lacks factual basis as follows.

1) Argument of Motion – The first mover is not God, but matter every element in this universe has a properties to move, bind, react, separate or bond.

2) Cosmological Argument - The first cause is the same of the first movement, the cause of our existence is bonding of elements to creation compounds, which create enzymes, proteins to cells.

3) Argument of Necessity – Every physical thing is accidental, the universe is accidental, Nonsense. Everything that happens in the world happens because of a law or rule, nothing is accidental.

4) Argument of Gradation - This argument simply only exist to a point, that point exist at God only in being the ultimate being. Gradation is a simple as evolutionary paths taking different directions based on their conditions.

5) Teleological Argument - The architect of the universe is matter and elements following rules and laws of their physical properties bonding, moving, and creating what we call the universe today.

            In closing I believe Aquinas was a mind ahead of his times foreseeing the coming age of science. Building a complex structure of knowledge with the right ideas but using the wrong execution. I do believe his thoughts were limited do to his existential belief and devotion to God. I am not saying removing God from the equation is the answer, but until God can be proven with factual and logical sciences there is no place for him in my epistemology.

I have just recieved my 5th publication :D for a paper I wrote over the summer here is a my rough draft(couldnt find the final)

            This is not a desertion from God; far from this is a comparison of the Philosophies on Saint Thomas Aquinas. To me the his concepts the  three beautiful sisters, along with his two books “Summa Theologica” and “Summa Contra Gentiles” all lack quintessential logic and factual vindication on his assertions. While Aquinas did anticipate the coming of the age of science his priorities take personal intuition over logic and science. To me this bias towards religion halts progression and invention, and stopping him from becoming a truly great philosopher.

            Thomas Aquinas spoke of the three beautiful sisters, all of which superseded the others in the case of an incongruity in the order of Religion (revelation) followed by Philosophy (logic) and Science (factual). While I do concur with Aquinas to a certain extent I would like to see an exchange with Science and Religion putting factual based evidence on the top. For me the motive behind this is progression and invention, this is the basis of mankind since the beginning of time and neither disembark from religion. They can be found in foundation in logic and facts; and if religion were to take a step above it would halt the progression and invention of our society. Not that religion does not have a place in society, but why last? Let me explain why I believe that you can not prove that God exists with factual based and logical evidence.

            “Summa Theologica” can be translated as the “Structure of Knowledge”, an unfinished book written by Thomas Aquinas. This book is a description of his epistemology which regards as follows.

Now, under Aquinas structure of knowledge there laid many problems. Why? Because it is merely and expansion of the three beautiful sisters; with a further emphasis on God and the Church with putting Theology and Dogmatic Interpretation of the Church above factual and logical studies. Hence further delaying the development of invention and progression; to me knowledge is built on gradients that intertwine one another, Common sense angles thought to progression, progression leads to logical thoughts, an thus to factual sciences. Invention comes from a chain of ideas strung together in a logical and factual ideas manner to create something new. There is no revelation in this process but only desire and free will.

            “Summa Contra Gentiles” another book written by Aquinas, contains “5 Proofs of Gods Existence” to me each proof lacks factual basis as follows.

1) Argument of Motion – The first mover is not God, but matter every element in this universe has a properties to move, bind, react, separate or bond.

2) Cosmological Argument - The first cause is the same of the first movement, the cause of our existence is bonding of elements to creation compounds, which create enzymes, proteins to cells.

3) Argument of Necessity – Every physical thing is accidental, the universe is accidental, Nonsense. Everything that happens in the world happens because of a law or rule, nothing is accidental.

4) Argument of Gradation - This argument simply only exist to a point, that point exist at God only in being the ultimate being. Gradation is a simple as evolutionary paths taking different directions based on their conditions.

5) Teleological Argument - The architect of the universe is matter and elements following rules and laws of their physical properties bonding, moving, and creating what we call the universe today.

            In closing I believe Aquinas was a mind ahead of his times foreseeing the coming age of science. Building a complex structure of knowledge with the right ideas but using the wrong execution. I do believe his thoughts were limited do to his existential belief and devotion to God. I am not saying removing God from the equation is the answer, but until God can be proven with factual and logical sciences there is no place for him in my epistemology.

um... fascinating. lol sorry i hate philosophy :P

Casey being intelligent...

My brain broke.

"Casey being intelligent...

My brain broke."

Different places call for different mindsets and etiquette

but u forgot the internet is

May I ask where you paper wsa published? Not imply anything, it is interesting, but you fall at the same point you criticize Aquines for. Here's what you stated: "While Aquinas did anticipate the coming of the age of science his priorities take personal intuition over logic and science.". But the order you presented to degree of thoughts was pretty much constructed on the same basis, with the difference being that you only have the hypothesis, and not the thesis. Which Aquines had, Descartes too, and so on.

And I thought you studied economy? Don't know why, but that's what I thought.

http://www.philosophynow.org/ in the nov/dec issue

It was a gen ed requirement I took over the summer semester I am studying accounting

I hat philosophy, my teacher made me hate it, he was always doing pot and just talking about weird random shit about "existance"