[jon462]

[ QUOTE ]
David Hume, among other western philosophers, was the first to outline the serious flaws in Aquinas' agruments. Since these discoveries, Aquanis' arguements have proven to hold little to no weight amongst modern non-theistic philosophers. I wrote a paper critiquing Aquinas in university, but can't seem to find where it is right now. When i have some time i'll make specifc comments.

[/ QUOTE ]
I would appreciate that. I am not familiar with this critique in particular, however I am familiar with Hume. As I mentioned above, I can see how a skeptic would dismiss it - quite easily since Hume dismisses outright cause and effect, and the crux of Aquinas argument is based on cause and effect. However, I am I not correct that skeptics in modern science are even rarer than Christians? I think if you use Hume's argument to dispute Aquinas, then you have to be willing to say that science itself is a religion - since it too is based on causality (which a few philosophers of science have claimed but most practicing scienctists arent ready to admit). This is why I am interested in seeing how a non-skeptic atheist would handle Aquinas. In my opinion, you can really use David Hume to dispute any argument arguing any point about anything, so its not exactly fair.