- Are you sure you want to sign out?
Delete Message
- Are you sure you want to delete?
Sign In
Make a donation
Similar Forums
Latest Members
Top Posters
Custom HTML
Title:Arguments about Him-that square circle
Views: 802
Views: 802
Search Tags
- [none]
To know god is to know there is no God.
The teleonomic argument is that as the weight of scientific evidence is that teleonomy - no planned outcomes-operates in the Cosmos, there can be no divine intent- cosmic teleology- and thus no God. Thus creation evolution is nnsensecsical, and thus there is from the side of science no compatibility betwixt it and religion.
From te side of religion, it can be compatible with it as people have cognitive dissonance!This not only destroys all teleological arguments but others as well as there can be no intent to cause the Cosmos, none for miracles and so forth.
All teleological arguments- probability, fine-tuning, from reason and design- argue in a circle , assuming God has in mind or a comparable species when evolution does not act that way.
And David Hume keel hauls teleologicall arguments with his dysteleological one- from imperfections. Three supernaturalists insist that omni-God would make flourishes so there perforce would be those imperfections whilst limited God would have t o be more circumspect, making for perfection. Such sounds hollow, eh?
See the blog here skeptic griggsy for more arguments, and one might discuss the also here.
What do you maintain about Him?
Carneades, the first ignostic, keel hauled supernaturalism eons ago: we are a mere foot note to him!
The teleonomic argument is that as the weight of scientific evidence is that teleonomy - no planned outcomes-operates in the Cosmos, there can be no divine intent- cosmic teleology- and thus no God. Thus creation evolution is nnsensecsical, and thus there is from the side of science no compatibility betwixt it and religion.
From te side of religion, it can be compatible with it as people have cognitive dissonance!This not only destroys all teleological arguments but others as well as there can be no intent to cause the Cosmos, none for miracles and so forth.
All teleological arguments- probability, fine-tuning, from reason and design- argue in a circle , assuming God has in mind or a comparable species when evolution does not act that way.
And David Hume keel hauls teleologicall arguments with his dysteleological one- from imperfections. Three supernaturalists insist that omni-God would make flourishes so there perforce would be those imperfections whilst limited God would have t o be more circumspect, making for perfection. Such sounds hollow, eh?
See the blog here skeptic griggsy for more arguments, and one might discuss the also here.
What do you maintain about Him?
Carneades, the first ignostic, keel hauled supernaturalism eons ago: we are a mere foot note to him!
Morgan- L.G. lamberth Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Logic is the bane of theists.
" God is in a worse position than the scarecrow who had a body to which a mind could enter whisles He has neither. As that married bachelor, He cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!" Ignostic Morgan
" life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaninging." Inquiring Lynn
"Religion is mythinformation." Englishman
" God is in a worse position than the scarecrow who had a body to which a mind could enter whisles He has neither. As that married bachelor, He cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable!" Ignostic Morgan
" life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaninging." Inquiring Lynn
"Religion is mythinformation." Englishman
Date Posted: 03/30/2010 3:25 AM
With no body and thus no brain and thus no mind, how could God think or act. We ignostics find that it is so fatuous to declare that He has a disembodied mind, contrary to that sophist Alvin Plantinga, who finds this question not worth the effort to combat.
No, he is quite wrong! No evidence exists for a disembodied being. T'is a matter here of theologians guessing with their it may be or it must be's that since He cannot have a body, He is thus disembodied [ Albeit, some think He has one.].
We ignostics shall not allow supernaturalists to get away with that bald assertion! Definitions, postulations and appeals to faith mock reason!
Supernaturalists must use evidence to define in order to make sense thus.
No, he is quite wrong! No evidence exists for a disembodied being. T'is a matter here of theologians guessing with their it may be or it must be's that since He cannot have a body, He is thus disembodied [ Albeit, some think He has one.].
We ignostics shall not allow supernaturalists to get away with that bald assertion! Definitions, postulations and appeals to faith mock reason!
Supernaturalists must use evidence to define in order to make sense thus.
"Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Inquiring Lynn
Date Posted:06/01/2010 6:27 AM
- support us
Create free forum and click the links below and your donations will make a difference here.
www.dinodirect.com
A Huge Online Store for Various Cool Gadgets, Accessories: Laser Pointer, Bluetooth Headset, Cell Phone Jammer, MP3 Players, Spy Cameras, Soccer Jersey, Window Curtains, MP4 Player, E Cigarette, Wedding Dresses, Hearing Aids, eBook Reader, Tattoo Machines, LED Light Bulbs, Bluetooth Stereo Headset, Holiday Gifts, Security Camera and Games Accessories and Hobby Gadgets..
A Huge Online Store for Various Cool Gadgets, Accessories: Laser Pointer, Bluetooth Headset, Cell Phone Jammer, MP3 Players, Spy Cameras, Soccer Jersey, Window Curtains, MP4 Player, E Cigarette, Wedding Dresses, Hearing Aids, eBook Reader, Tattoo Machines, LED Light Bulbs, Bluetooth Stereo Headset, Holiday Gifts, Security Camera and Games Accessories and Hobby Gadgets..
|
#2
|
Per the argument from existence, Existence, being all , therefore there can be no external cause or material whence it came.
And per the infinite regress argument, cause, event and time presuppose previous causes, events and time.
What are good arguments for or against His existence?
Rikki. and Azn4L, what do you maintain?
I plead for fallibilism- gee, the evidence might go against what I maintain, but like Socrates, I ever do fight for my notions!
Skeptic Griggsy says:" Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism."
And per the infinite regress argument, cause, event and time presuppose previous causes, events and time.
What are good arguments for or against His existence?
Rikki. and Azn4L, what do you maintain?
I plead for fallibilism- gee, the evidence might go against what I maintain, but like Socrates, I ever do fight for my notions!
Skeptic Griggsy says:" Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism."
Date Posted:06/10/2010 7:05 PM
|
#3
|
Carneades notes that were God omnimax, He should be maximally virtuous as He cannot fear anthing, He cannot be virtuous and thus less than perfect and thus not God as in the argument from embodied minnd. Or if as David Ramsay Steelte notes, don't consider Him as being virtuous or -vicious, then He is hardly the type of being we'd consider a person.
These are two of the naturalist impossibility arguments against His very existence, and thus one can categoricaly state tharei is no God rather than probably no God!
Date Posted:07/31/2010 1:43 PM
|
#4
|
Chrysippus argues that as a building requires a building , the world requires a builder superior to humankind, but Carneades eviscerate that argument, noting that the former used the question-begging term builder rather than what forms matters. Indeed, the argument itself begs the question of intent that Thales and Strato try to dispel from empirical matters.
Carneades thus eviscerates teleological eons before David Hume does. Carneades is then the first atheologian as well as the first ignostic.
Azn4. andRikki.. and others, please add content to this blog! It is for us all to better our argumentation pro or con!
Date Posted:08/03/2010 4:41 PM
"Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Inquiring Lynn
Date Posted:10/09/2010 4:09 PM
Some people parade around advertising their contributions to charity, others donate without public notice and still others, like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet, urge others to donate [Thankfully, other millionaires and billionaires are donating a lot due to them]. The two are not overriding others' free will but actually getting them to wisely use theirs!
Parents have to influence their children, even with punishment, but that, too, does not unduly override the children's free will. Society ever is trying to influence lawbreakers to act responsibly. Public announcement for health and safety do try to get people to use their free will responsibly.
Therefore, God Himself has no need to hide Himself from us! My parents didn't override my free will by showing me love! Advanced theologian John Hick desperately tries to defend Him with his epistemic distance argument; He hides Himself ambiguously in order not to override our free will. That is then so absurd! And their exists no ambiguity. Hick finds that arguments for Him just lay why people with faith in Him can see why, but those arguments aren't compelling to non-believers. The arguments lack any credibility for anyone as already noted.
In "Nonbelief and Evil" Two Arguments against the Non-Existence of God, Theodore M.Drange eviscerates those two problems. Had God wanted us to be a relationship with Him, He'd have had coherent scriptures cohering with reality.Again, no ambiguity exists!
John L. Schellenberg finds with his hiddenness argument that He hides Himself so thoroughly, He lacks, in effect, existence!
Then again, He has no right to demand worship or punish us but faces that one-way street of the problem of Heaven!
Viewers, please parade your argumentation on these problems here!
Parents have to influence their children, even with punishment, but that, too, does not unduly override the children's free will. Society ever is trying to influence lawbreakers to act responsibly. Public announcement for health and safety do try to get people to use their free will responsibly.
Therefore, God Himself has no need to hide Himself from us! My parents didn't override my free will by showing me love! Advanced theologian John Hick desperately tries to defend Him with his epistemic distance argument; He hides Himself ambiguously in order not to override our free will. That is then so absurd! And their exists no ambiguity. Hick finds that arguments for Him just lay why people with faith in Him can see why, but those arguments aren't compelling to non-believers. The arguments lack any credibility for anyone as already noted.
In "Nonbelief and Evil" Two Arguments against the Non-Existence of God, Theodore M.Drange eviscerates those two problems. Had God wanted us to be a relationship with Him, He'd have had coherent scriptures cohering with reality.Again, no ambiguity exists!
John L. Schellenberg finds with his hiddenness argument that He hides Himself so thoroughly, He lacks, in effect, existence!
Then again, He has no right to demand worship or punish us but faces that one-way street of the problem of Heaven!
Viewers, please parade your argumentation on these problems here!
"Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning." Inquiring Lynn
Date Posted:10/09/2010 4:36 PM
|
#7
|
Enter the arguments from incredulity and from ignorance of the supernaturalists. They find it rather incredible to find order and regularity and natural laws inhering in Nature, so the respond with that argument from ignorance that why, of course, God!
The-pre Socratics are way ahead of them!
Supernaturalists pose Leibniz's colossal blunder why is there something with nothing as their argument from incredulity and respond with that argument from ignorance- why, God made it!
How could there ever be nothing as the law of conservation of matter-energy holds that neither can they be created nor can they be destroyed, stemming from the quantum field of energy as David Mills recounts in " Atheist Universe" and Leonard Mlodinow and Stephen Hawking tell us how gravity plays a role in what Quentin Smith tells us is Existence's self-causing from phase to phase.
Why find it incredible and then needing the argument from ignorance that order and regularity and natural laws inhere in Existence? The law of motion denies Aquinas's argument from motion.
Why find the pareidolias of intent and design when only teleonomy-no planned outcomes and patterns rule with those two fallacies?
Theologians just have to make those two implicit fallacies in their arguments for His existenc, adding other fallacies explicitly. Faith doth that to people!
"Logic is the bane of theists." Fr. Griggs
http://carneades.blogger.com
The-pre Socratics are way ahead of them!
Supernaturalists pose Leibniz's colossal blunder why is there something with nothing as their argument from incredulity and respond with that argument from ignorance- why, God made it!
How could there ever be nothing as the law of conservation of matter-energy holds that neither can they be created nor can they be destroyed, stemming from the quantum field of energy as David Mills recounts in " Atheist Universe" and Leonard Mlodinow and Stephen Hawking tell us how gravity plays a role in what Quentin Smith tells us is Existence's self-causing from phase to phase.
Why find it incredible and then needing the argument from ignorance that order and regularity and natural laws inhere in Existence? The law of motion denies Aquinas's argument from motion.
Why find the pareidolias of intent and design when only teleonomy-no planned outcomes and patterns rule with those two fallacies?
Theologians just have to make those two implicit fallacies in their arguments for His existenc, adding other fallacies explicitly. Faith doth that to people!
"Logic is the bane of theists." Fr. Griggs
http://carneades.blogger.com
Date Posted:01/16/2011 7:55 PM
|
#8
|
It's much easier to udrnesatnd when you put it that way!
Date Posted:07/02/2011 2:25 AM
|
#9
|
8X1ivW , [url=http://nydhorbqitqc.com/]nydhorbqitqc[/url], [link=http://qebffzhklzwq.com/]qebffzhklzwq[/link], http://jipmztogjtch.com/
Date Posted:07/03/2011 7:47 AM
|
#10
|
SPFpTT , [url=http://wniznrfwkeuk.com/]wniznrfwkeuk[/url], [link=http://capglehysfpg.com/]capglehysfpg[/link], http://gsvyhutqhdwy.com/
Date Posted:07/05/2011 7:09 AM
|
#11
|
The superstitious claim that should we want to avoid angst and have happiness and purpose we should look to the Lord. No evidence exists for any of that! Both the arguments from angst and from happiness-purpose ignore reality.
Therapy can help us deal with angst and find happiness; we're responsible for our own purposes.
Albert Ellis in " The Myth of Self-Esteem" and Robert Price in " The Reason-Driven Life" reveal how to have that more abundant life without the crutch of the religious superstition!
Therapy can help us deal with angst and find happiness; we're responsible for our own purposes.
Albert Ellis in " The Myth of Self-Esteem" and Robert Price in " The Reason-Driven Life" reveal how to have that more abundant life without the crutch of the religious superstition!
Date Posted:07/16/2011 10:05 PM
|
#12
|
For God to transcend the Cosmos, He cannot then be omnipresent, and were He omnipresent, He'd be no such personal being we'd fathom but an impersonal one with whim we could not have a personal relationship! And as noted, He cannot transcend the Cosmos in the first place!
Were He timeless and transcendent, His intent would not run in the Cosmos,because intent must be immanent. And as noted, His intent could not run here anyway!
And without a brain, having no body, He couldn't have intent anyway, because intent depends on mind!
This purported divine intent would, granting it, would make for backwards causation, the event before the cause, the future before the past, negating time!
Such intent would prevent scientists from altering matters to get different results. Natural selection and randomness would be so irrelevant. We or a comparable species would have had to evolve rather than what science pelludicly proclaims!
That affrims what the atheologian-physicist, Victor Stenger notes that the running of the Cosmos would be quite different than it actually is!
No ,no intent from a disembodied mind exerts itself in the Cosmos.
Carneades would find all this God-talk specious! He'd find Prof. Irwin Corey a much better expert in theology than any theologian!
To find otherwise blasphemes reason and-humanity!
We should rise above the supernatural and the paranormal superstitons, what the eminent Paul Kurtz calls " The Transcendental Temptation," a delicious book.
Were He timeless and transcendent, His intent would not run in the Cosmos,because intent must be immanent. And as noted, His intent could not run here anyway!
And without a brain, having no body, He couldn't have intent anyway, because intent depends on mind!
This purported divine intent would, granting it, would make for backwards causation, the event before the cause, the future before the past, negating time!
Such intent would prevent scientists from altering matters to get different results. Natural selection and randomness would be so irrelevant. We or a comparable species would have had to evolve rather than what science pelludicly proclaims!
That affrims what the atheologian-physicist, Victor Stenger notes that the running of the Cosmos would be quite different than it actually is!
No ,no intent from a disembodied mind exerts itself in the Cosmos.
Carneades would find all this God-talk specious! He'd find Prof. Irwin Corey a much better expert in theology than any theologian!
To find otherwise blasphemes reason and-humanity!
We should rise above the supernatural and the paranormal superstitons, what the eminent Paul Kurtz calls " The Transcendental Temptation," a delicious book.
Date Posted:08/10/2011 7:53 PM
|
#13
|
Lamberth's genetic argument argues that supernaturalists themselves with their arguments from angst and from happiness-purpose give the evidence that their arguments rebound to their wish for Him!
Carneades's argument notes that supernaturalists beg the question of directed outcomes in their teleological one.No intent but rather teleonomy-causalism- mechanism- rules!
Carneades of Ga. is the guest so far.
Any dissent?
http://buy-bull.posterous.com
http://lordgriggs1947.wordpress.com
http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com
lordgriggs1947 on Twitter
Carneades's argument notes that supernaturalists beg the question of directed outcomes in their teleological one.No intent but rather teleonomy-causalism- mechanism- rules!
Carneades of Ga. is the guest so far.
Any dissent?
http://buy-bull.posterous.com
http://lordgriggs1947.wordpress.com
http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com
lordgriggs1947 on Twitter
Date Posted:09/23/2011 6:01 PM
<a href="http://www.louisvuitton30.com/ "> cheap louis vuitton </a>It ages your skin, it smells bad, it’s bad for you, and it doesn’t
reflect self-love. Dropping this bad habit will instantly make you feel
more beautiful. <a href="http://www.louisvuitton30.com/ "> discount louis vuitton </a>Since you are now smiling often, you want your teeth to look their
pearly best.
| <a
href="http://www.louisvuitton30.com/louis-vuitton-alma-monogram-canvas-m53151-p-252.html"><strong>lv Alma</strong></a> |
it’s hard to smile if you are embarrassed about your teeth. jess@accvv.com
Date Posted:11/26/2011 1:01 AM
God then has no more significance than a square circle or unicorn and would mean no ore tan demons and gremlins as primary causes. He'd depend on natural causes so as to be only a secondary cause in effect!
Divine intent reflects superstition, only one spirit behind Nature as reduced animism whilst full animism means the many behind the forces of Nature. Theists use the one spirit but it fulfills no real function. Without intent, the supernatural cannot be a force in Nature. Or does one use the new Omphalos argument that nevertheless, He influences matters, albeit He deceives us ambiguously as John Hick in effect claims with his epistemic distance argument so as not to overwhelm our free wills to enter into a relationship with Him. No, Nature reveals no divine intent and thus no such ambiguity. Hick is that ever-ready rationalizer!
Divine intent reflects superstition, only one spirit behind Nature as reduced animism whilst full animism means the many behind the forces of Nature. Theists use the one spirit but it fulfills no real function. Without intent, the supernatural cannot be a force in Nature. Or does one use the new Omphalos argument that nevertheless, He influences matters, albeit He deceives us ambiguously as John Hick in effect claims with his epistemic distance argument so as not to overwhelm our free wills to enter into a relationship with Him. No, Nature reveals no divine intent and thus no such ambiguity. Hick is that ever-ready rationalizer!
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to wich neither God nor the future state can futher validate." Inquiring Lynn
" Elvis lives. Rudolph Valentino told me so.
So much for the paranormal and the Resurrection." Fr. Griggs
" Elvis lives. Rudolph Valentino told me so.
So much for the paranormal and the Resurrection." Fr. Griggs
Date Posted:02/07/2012 8:59 PM
- Comment：
Post Reply