tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post4184768591143737254..comments2023-04-05T09:07:08.419-07:00Comments on Fides et Ratio: Kant, Thomas Aquinas, and the Cosmological ArgumentAnonymoushttp://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comBlogger2125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-26689692669861941752013-04-18T09:36:19.393-07:002013-04-18T09:36:19.393-07:00No donuts here, just shameless self-promotion. :)No donuts here, just shameless self-promotion. :)Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07034462951274070391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5743370102334877264.post-63150991595054416602013-04-18T07:22:43.384-07:002013-04-18T07:22:43.384-07:00I'm here on account of someone's shameless...I'm here on account of someone's shameless self-promotion. I was also told that there'd be doughnuts, and also something about Hume and Kant being here.<br /><br />Firstly, thanks for taking the time to respond to me. Your post didn't capture what it is that I don't like about the CA, but I found it enjoyable to read nonetheless. Secondly, you've almost--<i>almost</i>--made me want to start my own blog so that I can, in kind, give you a fuller reply. Good on you for that. Thirdly, and just briefly, what I don't like about the CA is that in first premise, you've taken a "dependent thing" from the world and relationships upon which it depends into the void of philosophy, as though that's the only place where God can rationally sustain the existence of a dependent thing. Otherwise, when a dependent thing is situated in its environment, it depends on everything else <i>but</i> God to sustain its existence. In short, that's what I don't like about it, with the caveat that my liking or disliking of an argument has no bearing on the truth of it.Anonymoushttps://www.blogger.com/profile/12030785676230758243noreply@blogger.com