Thanks,everybody! And it does theists no good to state that God is love or the depth or ground of being. Just more nonsense. Science in the matter of natural selection shows no god-input as teleonomic selection does the job. Theists would have to imagine that their God makes selection do its work.No, and teleological God contradicts teleonomicl selection. Not only is Ockham at work but the contradiction shows no divine input! So, science indeed throws light on the divine! And the two category classiiication thread shows that.
As Graham Oppy notes in ‘Arguing about Gods,” theists might have other notions! We are fallibilists,knowing provisional truth, not divine or other Truth.
Hughes.net willing!
Folks, centuries ago, Percy Bysshe Shelley, gave this cogent response:“To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [laws of nature,sg.] is to invent a second and superfluous hyposthesis to account for what has already been accounted for by the laws of nature and the properties of matter. [ the sufficient reason = the presumption of naturalism,sg.]. The hypothesis of a Deity adds a gratuitous difficluty , which so far from allleviating to explain requires new hypotheses [ the Ockham] for the elucidation of its own inherent [incompatible,sg.] contradictions [properteis - ignostic,sg.].
This poet knew what theists gloss over!
Alexander Smoltczyk, German journalist, maintains that God is neither a principle, nor a person nor an entity but the ultimate explanation but if He be neither a person nor an entiy, He cannit instantiate Himself as that explanation. This is just more theological obfuscation, a manifestation of faith [See the new thread the presumption of rationalism.] .
Parsons and Shelley- yea!
Alexander Smoltczyk, German journalist, maintains that God is neither a principle, nor a person nor an entity but the ultimate explanation but if He be neither a person nor an entiy, He cannit instantiate Himself as that explanation. This is just more theological obfuscation, a manifestation of faith [See the new thread the presumption of rationalism.] .
Parsons and Shelley- yea!
People express a belief in something but they don’t know what it is. And that something is the ultimate reason why or explanation. They’ll say something like “I can’t believe it’s just happening”
So I don’t think it’s theological obfuscation, I think the definition accurately reflects what millions of people mean by God, me being one of them.
That is the argument from incredulity that one use as a rationalization rather than trying to fathom the real explanation.Then people use the argument from pariedolia to see divinity behind Existence as one sees Yeshua on an iron. Then they use that as the basis of their begged teleological arguments.
People obfuscate by adding the supernatural to the natural as explanations when as the presumption of naturalism reveals that that is no more sensical than adding gremlins to mechanics or demons to psychology.
Smoltczyk affirms the ignostic-Ockham as he cannot make a case for God as the ultimate explanation, the sufficient reason when natural causes and explanations are indeed that sufficient reason.
Without providing evidence for God’s substance- His attributes-, one has a fatuous notion. It is a series o guesses and it must be’s about Him. His attributes are incoherent and contradict each other such that He cannot be!
That is why Clinton Richard Dawkins uses Lord Russell’ teapot analogy. One can claim anything, but one should have evidence rather than an empty notion. As teleological God contradicts non-planning selection, He has no meaning as tweaking evolution. Theistic evolution,as Jerry Coyne reveals in The New Republic [ Google his name to find that essay and others of his, please.] assumes that very end-point that we or a comparable species had to arrive when not even with convergence. contrary to Kenneth Miller, that was not inexorable. Had the flowering plants not evolved , and the cooling off had not happened, neither we nor another such species could have evolved. And so science notes no divine input, affirming the Razor, and science indeed declares no Virgin Birth, no Resurrection and no miracles. One would have to overcome with evidence the presumption of naturalism, with Hume’s corollary on miracles.
It is such a it must be that evolution is His method of creation- no evidence , and as noted mountains of evidence against that ” Ghost in the Machine.”
Thanks to all participants!
Good will and blessings to all!
Richard Swinburne errs in assuming that the Razor talks about the number of components when it talks against the number of ad hoc assumptions entailed. And whilst theists declare that this unmarried bachelor is indivisible, Dawkins argues well otherwise. The Metaverse has many components, and to grant for the sake of argument, that that square circle, has none, is an ignoratio elenchi-folks- beside the point. That bane!
The arguments for Him themselves further affirm ignosticism [ igtheism, theologicall non-cognitivism] ]. As the First Cause and the Designer have no referent, they ,too, affirm ignoticism, folks. So, I gainsay A.J. Ayers not only in finding that ignosticism not only does not also negate atheism but is a part of it, and the arguments for Him further affirm it, such that I am an igtheist to use Paul Kurtz’s term [ Bless him!].
The term has no more relevance than to see Santa as the force behind parents giving gifts to their children or Lord Russell’s tea pot. There is no use for the term as the Ultimate Explanation [ First Cause] than to argue for angels directing the planets, as Newton himself did, in accordance with his laws!
Parsons is ever so right! This term God is the non-explanation for non-questions. It won’t to prattle that He, as the cook, sees matters from a macro view whilst the mix is the micro view to try , in effect, to overcome the Ockham as yes, he begs that question.This silly notion appears in Philo, to which @ the arguments about Him-that square circle, I’ll demolish the rest of the silly points of Jerome Gellman. In my opinion.
So much wasted paper about a married bachelor!
Another bit of prattle is the Christian I don’t have a religion; I’ve a relationship with my Lord and Savior , and the Muslim I don’t have a religion but a way of living. Poetic.
Farvel.
Zarcus, yes, and thanks. And we can overcome the silly no one can disprove negative arguments as your anlysis illustrates and looking under the bed also ilustrates! Remember Lord Bertrand William Arthur Russell’s celestial tea pot!
Narhwol, faith doth that to people!
We igtheists find that as He has no referents as Primary Cause and so forth and He has incoherent,contradictory attributes, therefore He cannot exist! This is not dogmatic but the result of analysis which does not depend on omniscience or traversing the galaxies.
We naturalists must make supernaturalists squirm with the ignostic-Ockham combined challenge! And they must adduce evidence for Heaven and free will rather than presuppose them as Roy Jackson insists in ” The God of Philosophy.” And they cannot define,postulate or use faith to instantiate Him!
Yes, we new atheists demand evidence! Proof resides only in logic and mathematics.
Yes, Stephen and thank you!
Ignostic Morgan-Carneades- Word.Press.COM
IgnosticMorgan’s blog.wordpress.com
Strato of Ga. Word Press.com
Thales. Word Press.com
Thales@ Blogger.com
Thales Ignostic momorgan.blogspot.com
Carneades @ blogger.com
Carneades. Aimoo.com.
Anaximander of the South.Aimoo.com
Carneades Thales Strato of Ga. Atheist Blogs
Sweet retirement!
[color=blue][/c Some naturalists insist that as God cannot make a stone too heavy for Himself to lift then He has that incompatiblity ,but no, that is their incoherence and illogicality, as they’re requiring Him to do the logically impossible.
Were He transcendent, then He could not be omnipresent, because transcendence pertains only to what isn’t in space, and therefore that is an incompatiblity.
The problem of evil illustrates the incompatibility of His omnibenevolence, omniscience and omnipotence.
As Carneades notes, He cannot be omnivirtuous as being omnipotent, He has nothing to overcome or fear, and therefore,this is incoherent, and therefore He cannot exist. Then should we leave omnivirtuousnes out, then per David Ramsay Steele, He is no kind of person we could recognize! And therefore, per the problem of Heaven, saved persons there would be no kind of persons we’d recognize!. See the problem of Heaven.
The argument from worship and moral agency [ Jean-Paul Sartre and Ayn Rand] is that God were He to exist, would be worthy of worship, but no being can be such, because that would require us to abandon our role as autonomous beings, and therefore, He cannot exist.
[The argument from autonomy is that due to our level of consciousness, we are independent of any other being, and therefore, He is not the potter nor we His clay nor could He condemn us! He faces that one-way street noted @ the definitive disproof of free will ... thread that is now the problem of Heaven. And against the previous argument, no God merits worship- therefore, that argument is for the sake of argument.]
And then there exists the problem of perfection: how could the perfect ever make the imperfect as noted in an episode of Star Trek
Other incompatibility arguments exist. Perhaps, viewers here might just state them! !olor]
