Why I Don't Debate Atheists (Dr. Ed Feser)

[@newglof9558]

People drastically overstate debate's capacity to intellectually edify. They're spectacles and entertainment products. You show up to a debate to be a cheerleader. If you want edification, you study. Not watch debates.

[@BigStack-vg6ku]

You must have accidentally skipped lines in your comment???

[@newglof9558]

​@@BigStack-vg6kuno?

[@wisemansocrates]

@@newglof9558 guess you've never heard of Socrates

[@lisleigfried4660]

I disagree. Most of Plato is series of debates.

[@VACatholic]

This is more a comment on the audience/yourself than in general. Debates can be used as a starting point to get the most basic arguments/responses of either side, which is often useful when coming to something you haven't read about, as it, done well, gives you a reasonable view of both sides, whereas a paper is often going to be one view and require going to another source to find another view. This can obviously and should obviously be done, but if you know nothing of the topic, the shorthand is sometimes helpful in finding the relevant parties in the dispute..

[@vtaylor21]

The title should be Why doesn't Ed Feser doesn't debate NEW Atheist. I like his discussion with Graham Oppy. Two huge brains going at it.

[@Autobotmatt428]

Again it was more of a discussion then a debate which I prefer

[@tomgreene1843]

He has debated Graham Oppy....but Oppy is a league beyond the horsemen!

[@elmortbo]

He mentions that...

[@bradleymarshall5489]

wasn't just about Aristotle's argument from motion though? It would be a different story if they debated the PSR. When Oppy was confronted about that all he seemed to offer was some word salad

[@tacticaltemplar875]

​@@bradleymarshall5489What's the PSR?

[@bradleymarshall5489]

@@tacticaltemplar875 principle of sufficient reason; Leibniz' proof for God Feser implicitly refers to throughout this clip

[@tacticaltemplar875]

@@bradleymarshall5489 Thanks!

[@TheTradDadShow]

Right now, the debate isn't between Religion and Atheists. I think the debate is what vision of life will fulfill me because most young people are lost. They don't have fathers. They don't have history. They don't have virtue. They don't have religion. Young people are looking for something to ground them more then ever. I think most will try to adopt some religion just to ground themselves.

[@AS-np3yq]

It is about christian religion and atheists. They are lost, because they lost everything meaningfull. They have no fathers, god is a father. divorce is not allowed to catholic christians - which implies that the male and the female think about their journey in live. And it is very important that the young people ground themself in our holy catholic christianity because it is the only thing that really deeply ground yourself in life and frees you from materialism. And yes, you have to eat god.

[@Wmeester1971]

You seem to live in another world... Nobody up here is remotely attrackted to religious beliefs... most churches are closed here.

[@justinhartnell6779]

​@@Wmeester1971whatchoo talkin' about Willis?

[@justinhartnell6779]

What's your point?

[@Wmeester1971]

@@justinhartnell6779 Grow up.

[@mikemattingly9181]

Matt, you need to have Ed back to discuss his new one, Immortal Souls. I'm almost through the metaphysics of mind section and it's phenomenal. Also, appreciate your conversation here.

[@josephsarto689]

Cosmic skeptic isn’t actually a skeptic. He’s not skeptical of any of his presuppositions. Like how he thinks it’s wrong to eat meat

[@llamahguy7229]

I agree with your overaching point, but I'm just letting you know that he's not a vegan anymore.

[@jayv3264]

@@josephsarto689 💯

[@Iamchanceriley]

@@josephsarto689 he is skeptical of his own beliefs, hence his tendency to change them over time. If you watched him 5 years ago compared to now you’d know that. Nice try though

[@TriuneGodBeliever]

@@josephsarto689 I would love to see him debate someone like Dr. Gaven Kerr.

[@jonnystanley8720]

@@Iamchanceriley that’s kind of a jerk reply. You could have just disagreed and left off the “nice try though”

[@philochristos]

No wonder I had such a hard time understanding Feser's Five Ways. If Graham Oppy even had trouble understanding it, what hope was there for me?

[@evrebop]

I went to see Dawkins recently and it was interesting 🤷🏻‍♀️ I brought my dad because my dad really likes him. My dad is an atheist. I am Roman Catholic. We are clashing a teeny bit over what will happen when he passes. He wants no church, no mass, no burial. He wants a humanist ceremony and cremation. Of course I will respect his wishes. But I worry that when I die, we won’t end up in the same place. Has anyone any advice? It’s a worry. I’m 40s, my dad is 70s. I’ve offered to arrange everything and have blessings that he might like but I can’t disrespect him. My mum is asking for the same type of funeral. So is my husband. What do I do

[@njhoepner]

If your religion is true, then none of that will matter. Where one ends up, according to all christian traditions, is supposed to be determined solely by the grace of god expressed through christ, and whether or not the person accepted that grace. The ceremonies can't help a person who did not make that acceptance. I'm in the opposite position...I'm an atheist (former christian), my wife is still a believer who insists on the "once saved always saved" idea. Either way, it's out of her hands. Honestly, it's out of yours too...if your god exists, then it's up to him, not you, and if your god does not exist, that it doesn't matter. In your position, and if I were still a believer, I'd honor their wishes and pray.

[@elperinasoswa6772]

Pray for them. Ask for the Blessed Mother's intercession. You need divine intervention.

[@VeljaPopov]

See that's just one of the problems of religion. It got you believing in a story, without any proof, and now it creates fear in this particular situation that you won't end up in the same place as your father. How does anyone know for certain that there is any place that we go to. So it makes you think you will go to heaven and if someone doesn't believe the same will go to hell or whatever. Just because someone told you so and you took it for granted. And this is just one of the many problems that religion has created. That's why I think it's important that we stop with all this dark age superstitions.

[@kevinkelly2162]

@@VeljaPopov What I noticed is the lady is worried because her relatives do not share her fears, not that they are going to hell or something like that. Religion makes people so self obsessed.

[@mathewsbiju3251]

@@evrebop take him to a catholic conference

[@TriuneGodBeliever]

We need a Dr. Gaven Kerr vs. Alex O’Connor debate. Make it happen!

[@metatron4890]

Feser had a debate with arif ahmed.

[@jayv3264]

Alex O’Connor is only interested in the Aristotelian material *in as far as* it props up atheism. He already knows the material, he’s gone back & forth with others on it already. How can someone who has read the literature and then talked about it with others (including academics) still be interested in it? It’s like a college scholar being interested in plumbing the depths of Dr. Seuss, lol. I’m surprised the guest here goes hard on Dawkins et al. and then pulls back with O’Connor. Everyone pulls back with O’Connor-why? He’s as obstinate as the rest on this subject matter. Is it his youth? Is it his mild-mannered delivery? At the end of the day, he’s an atheist stubbornly refusing to acknowledge theism whose entire career is continuing to undermine the Faith and pull people away from God.

[@orca_noob896]

This is exactly the thought I was having today. O'Connor operates under the guise of someone who is open-minded and fair, but is really just in stubborn rebellion like the rest of them. And ultimately, what does it matter if any atheist seems open-minded, if the essence of their career is essentially a hatred of God which could very possibly be leading thousands to hell? Why should we hold them in any sort of esteem?

[@MidnightIsolde]

Personally, I find Alex one of the more ponderous and hard to listen to. He is, for me, the definition of the stereotype of someone able be make nothing sound complex and intellectual. Like an undergrad student in love with his own intellectual, and therefore prone to being too verbose and pompous. That's not to say he is not intelligent. But, like many young clever people, imo he wants to impress upon you his intellect and wide reading too much. But real maturity and substance? It is not really there. Imo he is well read but not wise.

[@anthonyzav3769]

Very ironic post - you’re stubbornly refusing to acknowledge atheism. Why are you so obstinate?

[@AmosChoo]

spot on, people are getting fooled because he's not that kind of raging internet atheist

[@kevinkelly2162]

Asking for proof of something is not denying it. If your god was so obvious you would have no problem providing evidence. Ball is in your court.

[@LuisSantosTorres]

Matt, God bless you. How can I get hold a prayer rope similar to the one you've showcased in your podcasts? I don't like the kinds that are sold in Amazon.

[@cairoayrescosta6798]

The title is misleading, please change that.

[@BigStack-vg6ku]

Sadly, from what I’ve seen about debates with atheists many times on SFT and no one’s ever changed their mind…

[@skierbinky]

Belief is neither logical nor rational. This goes for any belief system mind you. The most die hard Liberals or Communists are equally devoutly religious, they just believe in a nontheistic religion. Atheists do not reject God because there “isn’t enough evidence.” They reject Him because either A) they are angry at Him for some trauma in their lives or B) they are wholly convinced that they could govern the universe better than He

[@rolandwatts3218]

I much prefer discussions to debates. In discussions parties can get into debate but both parties will (or should) try to limit the debate and get back to discussion. In discussions, neither side is challenged to win. I think you title is click bait. The associated picture shows Dawkins, O'Connor, and Oppy. I cannot imagine Feser not debating those two, particularly given that he acknowledges their genuineness in the interview.

[@joemccoy2287]

Oh, I heard that debate with the Dawkins guy on Catholic answers. I didn't recall it was Dr. Feser. I was embarrassed for the Dawkins guy. By the end, he was just sputtering ... "I don't know. Prof. Dawkins would know though." Rough.

[@matthewfleck747]

Matt, you look better wearing the beard than that ‘stache… Just my $0.02 Love ya brother! Prayers for you. 🙏🏼🎚🔥💪🏼

[@kyleenzler94]

Id love to see Dr. Feser defend Aquinas against. . .oh say OrthodoxKyle. But it might not be a civil debate

[@newglof9558]

OrthodoxKyle is a lightweight.

[@AnimaJano]

@@kyleenzler94 Orthobros are the new "New Atheist" types. Just as annoying, cringe and uncivilized. It's easier to engage an evangelical whose claiming we worship Mary tbh.

[@Tomonaroma1221]

One of Alex’ biggest hangups on Christianity is his “moral outrage” regarding the death of animals in the OT, which he frequently says is a hangup for him. He is a former Vegan who now eats fish, so his moral outrage on the killing of animals is hypocritical. Also, his moral outrage is merely a subjective opinion if there is no God. Therefore his moral outrage actually proves there is a God who has created an objective moral standard. Lastly, animals do not have souls because they were not made in the image of God as humans were, and God commanded humans to subdue the earth and have dominion over all other creatures. So, killing animals is not anti-Biblical whatsoever, in fact we are commanded to have dominion over them, and they were created for man. Alex’ former vegan sensibilities and his emotional feelings get in the way of thinking rationally about an all powerful GOD. Alex has a narrow-minded idea of reality and the Bible which is based on his own subjective moral standard and emotional feelings which come from the flesh, not from God. All while claiming he sees no evidence of God yet he claims to know the difference between objective right and wrong or objective good and evil which, without a God, would only be his relative and subjective opinion.

[@kevinkelly2162]

Sacrifice is a human invention found all over the world as a way to placate the gods. Yahweh is just another invention of men no different than all those other blood thirsty gods of old.

[@slynt_]

"his moral outrage is merely a subjective opinion if there is no God" You aren't going to convince many atheists who are well-read in philosophy if you throw around the old cliche that no God = nor morality without realising that a huge number of atheists don't agree with that.

[@thoughtfulpilgrim1521]

​@slynt_ Atheists might want to appeal to some intersubjective mumbo jumbo, but at the end of the day it's ephemeral and impotent nonsense. As CS Lewis noted, a man does not call a line crooked without some idea of a straight line by which to compare. If there is no way things ought to be, then all is permissible, as people like Machiavelli, Nietzsche, and even Dawkins have noted. There's no getting around the grounding issue. This isn't saying that atheists can't arrive at similar values as to what is good. The issue is more about justification. Especially if they want to judge anything as "bad" or "evil" and be taken seriously. "Me no likey" just isn't that compelling.

[@slynt_]

@@thoughtfulpilgrim1521 There have been plenty of non-Christians (such as PLATO, you know, the guy who Christians "borrowed" all their philosophy from) and even atheists (Spinoza) who have sophisticated theories of objective morality. You are simply ignorant and obtuse, nothing more to it.

[@kevinkelly2162]

@@thoughtfulpilgrim1521 Most of us can come to conclusions about what is right or wrong without consulting some imaginary psychotic being. That believers can't worries me. I mean, is the only thing stopping you from going psychotic is your belief?

[@alexandercharette5282]

Didn't know this side of Nick Offerman.

[@-Viva-Cristo-Rey]

Atheism is not the knowledge that God does not exist, but only the wish that He did not, in order that one could sin without reproach or exalt one's ego without challenge. The pillars upon which atheism mounts are sensuality and pride. Bl. Fulton Sheen.

[@njhoepner]

Thus revealing that you have not one clue what atheism is about. Which makes you a normal christian.

[@kevinkelly2162]

A catholic bishop would know about sensuality and pride. Not so much about self awareness.

[@joshuaparsons887]

@@njhoepner if atheism is true, atheism doesn't actually mean anything so why does it matter?

[@S.D.323]

Or maybe people just don't believe in God

[@eltonron1558]

Or maybe they were thiefs,and consequently liars, without guilt from the age of 3, and never bothered to even think about God, but could see the costumes with funny hats, and trinkets, and graven imagery, and surmised they think when you die, you don't, and something living peels off, and goes somewhere nonsense. Now that I'm converted, I'm shocked, and completely disappointed at what Christianity has embraced that is not of the Bible only surmised from the Bible, just as I did as a godless kid. Christianity,in it's current state, can't even get the gospel right, maybe it's meant. I converted at age 28, three years later, got called in 1983.

[@RedeemedMusicanOfGod]

I love how everybody just invariably has good things to say about Alex. Hopefully he comes to no Christ, but until then he is my favourite atheist.

I think Mel Gibson said something along the lines like... If God doesn't exist then I am late to the game of world domination. I always remembered that because if the world is all there is and there is only subjective moral relativism then why not conquer everyone and everything lol.

[@Maksie0]

Because that's a harmful thing to do.

[@S.D.323]

Because it would be evil mel is unintentionally revealing his own immorality if he really means that

[@ComicRaptor8850]

@@S.D.323yeah but his point is that if God doesn’t exist then neither can true good or true evil

[@tensorfeld295]

Faith and Reason! :D

[@davex444]

Like anyone wants to debate Fallica.

[@DeshCanter]

Ed is the real deal, and it’s a shame that the performance atheists (Dawkins, Harris, et al.) can’t handle a debate with him on philosophical terms. Unfortunately they’re typical of their time rather than transcendent in seeking truth.

[@ImagoDigest]

I love Alex O’Connor! Christ have mercy on him!

[@micheldevries7975]

02:27 cat videos! 😊

[@jonah9861]

We, Christians, were defeated not properly by atheism, but by the Frankfurt School.

[@newglof9558]

How dare you bring up the conspiracy theory of Cultural Marxism* *only declared a conspiracy theory in 2018. Prior to that, it wasn't one apparently

[@jrk1666]

For real, you will even see this modern notion that miracles are anti natural events, as if the Creator would violate his own creation, taken as a given by most Christians

[@mb123tdt]

Yes, and big capital as well as pseudoscience. Nothing scientific in the sexual ethics of Foucault, Freud, Hirschfeld and Kinsey etc

[@justinhartnell6779]

You go girl!

[@grantbartley483]

Not a defeat, a temporary setback. Ultimately, relativism's time is limited to the longevity of the stupidity of those who believe that it is true that there is no truth.

[@MeditationsofanOldSoul]

Its pretty hard to convince someone that God exists when they don't go in with an open mind. This isn't really a topic that is appropriate for debates in most circumstances. In my opinion, people should do their own research and develop their own understanding of metaphysics before making a decision; even after doing so, we should keep an open mind in both directions. After all, this is potentially the most important topic possible

[@johnhammond6423]

I am an atheist with an open mind. Try to convince me that a God exists.

[@Wmeester1971]

Its pretty hard to convince someone that there is no evidence for the existence of a God when they don't go in with an open mind. The problem is that the open mind is not open anymore when an indoctrinated child grows up.

[@-Viva-Cristo-Rey]

Atheism is not the knowledge that God does not exist, but only the wish that He did not, in order that one could sin without reproach or exalt one's ego without challenge. The pillars upon which atheism mounts are sensuality and pride. Bl. Fulton Sheen.

[@nathaniel5261]

Pretty easy for an omniscient and infinitely powerful god to do though… if he were real at least…

[@newglof9558]

​@@johnhammond6423proof of your claim that you have an open mind?

[@sacerdotusTV]

We at Sacedotus debate them.

[@newglof9558]

And rap

[@nathaniel5261]

I mean to be fair he shouldnt have to. If god is all loving and wants everyone to follow him, it logically follows that he should just show himself to the 8 billion people in the world and explain things himself in a way thats clear to them. Theres no valid excuse not to, especially when its claimed that eternity is at stake over it

[@zacharynelson5731]

He did and does; atheists refuse to accept it and actively suppress the fact of his existence. The same way that people refuse to accept the fact that human life begins at conception and support abortion.

[@daviddabrowski01]

If God showed up tomorrow and said, “I’m God, here’s all the information you need (which we can assume is basically all of scripture) and says, who’s coming with me?” Would we say yes? And also what form would God take? Because He came as a man and some believed some didn’t. Would it just be a booming voice? Would He ride in on a cloud? Also, what would He have to say and do for us to believe that He is who He says He is and that it’s not some mass hallucination, or a government experiment, or ufos (basically anything to debunk His arrival) Would He have to start moving mountains to show His omnipotence? And if that’s the case, are we now still free to believe or are we just scared out of our wits?

[@johnhammond6423]

@@daviddabrowski01 If there is a God then he would know what would convince any atheist including me. So far he has not done so. Therefore God is indistinguishable from something that does not exist. [And yes, I am open minded and I have heard all the Christon apologists arguments so far]

[@daviddabrowski01]

@ do you believe in free will?

[@joel2628]

Richard Dawkins has flat out said that he would think he's hallucinating if that were to happen. Aside from that, why should God reveal himself the way *you* stipulate? I am not so arrogant that I think I could be entitled enough to make such demands.

[@dynamic9016]

Thanks much for this video.

[@peskyfervid6515]

There really isn't anything to debate. Theism is the belief in a god. Atheism is the belief no god exists. God is, by definition, supernatural, and the supernatural is not open to proof or disproof. However, it is useful to remember that most theists only believe in their favourite god. Hindus don't believe in Jesus, Christians don't bellieve in Odin, The Greeks believed in a number of gods, none of which show up in either Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism, or Islam. So there is a substantial difference between most theists and atheists. Atheists say, "I don't believe in any god", while most theists say, "I believe in some gods, but not all."

[@Danielbannie]

That's irrelevant, you can come to the truth through argumentation and reasoning. Not sure who's definition you are using when you say "by definition"

[@peskyfervid6515]

@@Danielbannie Supernatural means outside of nature. Nature is that part of the universe that, while we may not know or understand it, is knowable, and understandable. God is not knowable or understandable. That is often said by apologists. If God is neither knowable nor understandable, it is by definition, outside of nature. As such God is neither provable, nor disprovable. To give an example, if I told you the universe was created 5 minutes ago, how would you disprove it (or prove it, for that matter)?

[@danielweaver3361]

@@TheBusttheboss curious what you would consider "proof of the supernatural"?

[@myzamau428]

Incorrect. Atheism is the lack of belief in a god, not the belief that no god exists.

[@t_ogaming4881]

@@peskyfervid6515 Sheesh, you need a lesson or two in epistemology. Because that's not how proof works. Science presupposes to only examine physical reality. It also axiomatically teaches this, wonder if you can prove those axioms using science? However, science says NOTHING about things that are outside of physical reality because it (rightly so) constrains itself to physical reality. Trying to prove whether or not something supernatural or better said aside from physical reality exists, is like trying to paint a painting with a stethoscope. A stethoscope being science here and painting being philosophical concepts. See the analogy? You are trying to use a tool of one system to do something in a different system. But you cannot do that, the same way you can't paint a painting using just a stethoscope, you need brushes, paint, a canvas etc. to do that. You need the right tools. Can you prove to me, using science, the existence of philosophical concepts like: Justice, humor, beauty, dignity, prudence, fortitude, nobility, courage, mercy, or even God? Well, I'll be quick with you. You can't because you're using the wrong tools. So therefore all those things I mentioned don't exist right? At least according to science, the tools you used, you could come to that conclusion. But we have other tools, other systems that are meant for this. USE THEM. We can observe people being just, humorous, prudent, noble, courageous, merciful and we can observe and rationally (that is by way of reason) come to the conclusion that the others exist too and many more. We can prove their existence when we use the right tools, the tools that were meant for these like logic, philosophy, reason etc. We can't however scientifically prove them: we can't quantify them, we can't test them using science like biology or maths, we can't measure them, we can't interact with them with our senses, can't smell them, can't taste them, can't hear them, can't see them in and of themselves (we can notice someone or something being f.e. just or noble but that's not the same as seeing nobility or justice in and of itself as they are philosophical or supernatural, as in outside of physical reality, concepts), can't feel them (we can feel their effect on us but not them in and of themselves), we can't scientifically prove nor disprove them. And yet, we do know that they exist, we can rationally, by way of reason, logic and philosophy, prove their existence. So please, what I want you to take from this is, use a system according to what it was made for. And learn a bit about epistemology.

[@jockyoung4491]

Insulting atheists is a form of debating.

[@eltonron1558]

I'm completely amazed Alex is supposed to know the Bible, yet never, as Hitchens, addressed the 2 documented times large crowds heard God speak. Once, in each of the old and new testaments. What God said those times should convert him, and any self called Christian. I love that archeology uncovers corroborated evidence of Bible text, on a daily basis, it confirms that God being heard by crowds, is legit.

[@chris13xyz]

He doesn’t debate them because he’ll lose

[@skierbinky]

Its not difficult to overcome a view from nowhere. Its easier to attack something than to defend, what is ultimately, nothing. Atheism is just nihilism with a prescription for copium to remediate the despair

[@jacktracy8356]

Isaiah 29:13 KJV "Wherefore the LORD said, Forasmuch as this people draw near ME with their mouth, and with their lips do honor ME, but have removed their heart far from ME, and their fear toward ME is taught by the precept of men" Note: Precept of men are traditions and pope declarations.

[@Move_I_Got_This-b3v]

I

[@tomgrissom5677]

Atheism is a quenching of the Holy Spirit…so, depending on whether they are just a skeptic or cynic…the former you have a chance of debating…

[@KRGruner]

... Because I'd rather feel comfortable in my echo chamber... LOL...

[@elmortbo]

Why would you rather feel comfortable in your echo chamber?

[@connorb6703]

And if you look to your right you will see someone who completely missed the point.

[@justinhartnell6779]

Yeah baby!

[@KRGruner]

@@elmortbo Good question. Ask him! Methinks it's because he is an intellectual coward, though.

[@elmortbo]

@@KRGruner It's like you didn't watch the video....

[@generichuman_]

Philosophy does not have the ability to find out what's true, beyond the entities created within that framework, it's the same with math. There are philosophical and mathematical proofs, but there are no proofs in the real world. Unfortunately for Ed, if he wants to find out what's true in relation to God, and God isn't simply some entity he is defining, he must contend with the real world which we can only discover through empiricism. If you haven't kept up with the past hundred years of scientific progress (which Feser hasn't) applying archaic philosophical principles will get you into a heap of trouble. A very simple example, which shows how even a law of logic can fail when misapplied to a real phenomenon, would be to imagine an electron. If you didn't understand quantum mechanics you might apply the law of excluded middle to it and say "an electron can be in point A or not at point A". The actual answer is that it's neither. The electron is represented by a wave function, and squaring this gives you a probability that the electron will be at point A. So it's not the case that electron is at point A and it's also not the case that it's not at point A, as counter intuitive as that is. This isn't to say that the laws of logic are invalid, it's just that our lack of knowledge about a phenomenon causes up to misapply it. Ed Feser is great at philosophy, but unfortunately that's all he's good at. His errors are 100% due to his misapplication of philosophical principles to real world phenomenon he doesn't understand. This seems to be a blind spot that he either doesn't see, or doesn't care to correct. If God were just a concept like the square root of negative one, he could happily play in his world of pure philosophy, but if he thinks that God actually exists, and created the world around us, this just doesn't fly...

[@toeknee5565]

God's existence is entirely a philosophical question....

[@rootberg]

You literally made a bunch of philosophical statements that can’t be verified by empirical observation yourself… And mixed it with a wikipedia interpretation of quantum mechanics. Not impressed.

[@VeljaPopov]

​​@@rootberg science is the only thing that's actually useful for us, on the other hand believing in god doesn't really do anything for us. Philosophy is of course also important but blind belief means nothing. I always like to ask believers this, why do you have to believe in god? What is the purpose of that belief? Would you like to answer that and have a civilised discussion?

[@LogosDIA]

Your comment presupposed empiricism and rationalism which is epistemology which is....philosophy. You are aware that the scientific method is itself a philosophical system for finding truths about the natural world right? Like don't get me wrong, i think most of Fesers moral and ontological arguments are laughable due to so many ontological objections being possible (in the case of morality there is like 20 fundamental axioms which can easily be objected to) and in the case of ontology only necessitates a type of deistic God, but you need to actually understand what you're talking about first dude no offense.

[@ФилософияотБэнни]

"Philosophy does not have the ability to find out what's true, beyond the entities created within that framework, it's the same with math." That's a philosophical statement

[@JohnSmith-bq6nf]

Ed feser is mid. If you want hold onto Thomism better off with Gavin.