I am not sorry, they were smart guys, although AFAIK misusing it (justifying what they believed anyway), nevertheless if I would see the Summa Theologiae as a fantasy novel and ignore for a second that it is meant to be true, then it would be the most largest, most consistent, most logical fantasy universe ever created, really Tolkien having nothing it. Strictly as tour de force, as a showing off of sheer brilliance, it is respectable. Aquinas was a rare genius.
Unfortunately he was sitting deep in a world, culture, and organization and role, where the only possible outcome was justifying the Bible.
That is way of looking at the Summa made me chuckle. Aquinas was a theologian and did his duty toward the Church, I suppose. I tend to be very sympathetic towards certain medieval philosophers whom I believe didn't use their intelligence disingenuously. Peter Abelard wrote his entire ethics and metaphysics without any reference to religion as did certain other Jewish and Muslim philosophers who were in the business of showing how flimsy the arguments of others philosophers were, even if those arguments came to similar conclusions about the existence of God...
Does anyone know of an apparently defensible response to the following question?
How does a theist distinguish by any imaginable experience between an omnipotent and loving Being, and an omnipotent Being that just wants you to believe it is loving?
Or, if you prefer:
Out of all potential omnipotent beings that want you to believe that they are loving, what observation can distinguish those which actually are loving?
Also, are any of you aware of another who has posed this question?
EDIT: I'm confused at the apparent disapproval of many. Is it because the question refers to religion?