[nanetteclaret]

Your conclusion was based on reason? That is a “pile of poo.” You made a judgement based on your your pre-conclusions. You thought it was “religious” therefore you rejected it out-of-hand.

***”The fact that I was able to determine the uselessness of the work from excerpts is a testament to my reasoning skills.”*** What a laugh! Better minds than yours, including St. Thomas Aquinas, have sought the answers to these questions. The fact that you need not read the whole argument to determine your final thoughts on the subject is evidence that you are as narrow-minded as those you ridicule.

[Filo]

Your conclusion was based on reason? That is a “pile of poo.” You made a judgement based on your your pre-conclusions. You thought it was “religious” therefore you rejected it out-of-hand.

Incorrect. I reject it because it's clearly self-serving religious nonsense.

There is a difference.

Better minds than yours, including St. Thomas Aquinas, have sought the answers to these questions.

That is one of the many places you are mistaken.

These people you so admire did nothing to seek answers. They had the answers they desired in hand and they went about seeking ways to manipulate reality to fit within their limited framework.

That is, ultimately, what religion is all about.

That is certainly what Thomas Aquinas' efforts were all about. The fact that you need not read the whole argument to determine your final thoughts on the subject is evidence that you are as narrow-minded as those you ridicule.

Incorrect again.

As I said, I can draw conclusions from more limited information. The "arguments" Aquinas presents discredit themselves fairly quickly.

Pursuing them at length is pointless.

You can't polish a turd.