No, It Was Just Plain Old Equivocal by David Werling

A Response to Fr. Cavalcoli’s letter in the on-going debate over the Second Vatican Council and the traditionalist critique

I was reading the comments for Edward Feser's latest. Who has the time and money to be a FT apologist? Because that is what is needed for a proper response to be given to those who are objecting to the proofs for the existence of God, claiming that they understand Aquinas's metaphysics.

But have they been convinced by the argument from motion? Is there a problem with jumping to the metaphysical proofs when the physical proof has been neglected or is not understood? After all, Aquinas believes that it is not possible to prove Creation ex nihilo, and that one cannot argue against an eternal Creation. And yet, the proof from motion would nonetheless be sound. Is this true of the third way (possibility/necessity) as well? I would think so... An eternal Creation does not exist necessarily? But can we know this from reason alone? If we can't, we must show that even if it exists necessarily, it is nonetheless caused by another. Or, one has to show that the ultimate necessary being is not material.

So does this show, once again, that there is a need to study physics before metaphysics?