Ya might want to crack open a copy of Plato some time. You know, the guy whence came the concept of platonic solids. He knew a bit about mathematics and the perceived divine perfection of creation.

Aquinas would also be a good read if you want questions about absolute and logical proof of the divine.

In fact, if you're going to wax philosophical, you would do well to read what other people have had to say over the last 7000 years or so. If nothing else, it would help you sleep and provide plenty of topics for cocktail-party conversations. Maybe even open your mind to completely new ideas.

Just saying.

Thomas Aquinas isn't interesting. He is boring. He didn't ever prove anything. Assuming we accept the need for a first mover, which is an assumption and not a fact in evidence, it has nothing to do with the Abrahamic god, another assumption of facts not in evidence by Aquinas.

Any undergrad psych major can make arguments better than Aquinas did.

Any undergrad psych major can make arguments better than Aquinas did.

Isn't it crazy that he's one of the most influential writers in history?

Any undergrad psych major can make arguments better than Aquinas did.

Isn't it crazy that he's one of the most influential writers in history?

Maybe to Christians in the west, mostly Catholics. Billions in China and India are thinking: "Who the fuck is Thomas Aquinas?" Besides, influential is a function of time more than correctness. Jesus is more important that Mill not because of inherent value but because he is like more than 1000 years older.

Ya might want to crack open a copy of Plato some time. You know, the guy whence came the concept of platonic solids. He knew a bit about mathematics and the perceived divine perfection of creation.

Plato actually didn't have much of anything to do with the concept of platonic solids, being neither the first person to conjecture that they were the only regular convex polyhedra nor the first person to prove this.

Also, a lot of Plato's most significant beliefs relating to the "divine" are either empirically false or "not even wrong." He certainly got a lot of things right, but he's probably not a good source if you're looking for either true facts or arguments without strange leaps and assumptions.

>Aquinas would also be a good read if you want questions about absolute and logical proof of the divine.

Questions, perhaps, but certainly not answers. Aquinas had a fairly poor understanding of proof, even compared to his ancient predecessors, to say nothing of the 19th century founders of formal logic.

(...) psych major can make arguments better than Aquinas did.

This may, strictly speaking, be true. It is nonetheless probably not what you wanted to say.

Woops. Well it was obvious what I meant anywho.