” Logic is the bane of theists.” Fr. Griggs

Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz’s big blunder is his : why is there something rather than nothing? He is using the argument from incredulity and answers with the argument from ignorance that therefore God caused Existence! This is a pseudo- answer for a pseudo- question! How could there be nothing? which is not an argument from incredulity but rests on observance and the presumption of naturalism aforementioned.
Per the naturalist atelic [ without telos, teleology, planned outcomes] , supernaturalists beg the question of those planned outcomes and that we or a similar species would evolve, which Jerry Coyne in “Seeing and Believing” and Amiel Rossow in his essay on the yin and yang of Kenneth Miller @ Talk Reason underscore in effect. See also the article @ FRDB [ Internet Skeptics] that also debunks theistic evolution.
Thus, the religious superstition ranks with its twin, the paranormal what my Facebook friend, Dr.Paul Kurtz calls ” The Transcendental Temptation,” a most worthy book.
Keith Parsons and Theodore Drange, atheologians have given up trying to persuade the cdredulous to adopt rationalism, and Parsons encourage others nevertheless to contine the fight for reason!
Viewers, what do y’all opine about this superstition? Herman, please thereto! And don’t overlook my previous efforts here!

 I had a Merry Winter Solstice and Mithra Day! So, did Herman!

That negative nonsense!

 People say that we cannot prove a negative, but we  do it all the time . Is there a bear under the bed that is scaring a child; no, because looking under the bed discloses no bear.  Are there square circles or married bachelors? No,  because such cannot exist.

  Scientists look at the evidence for intent behind natural causes, find none, and an analysis of the God- term exhumes an absurdity. This is why my form of ignosticism rings so powerfully!

  Scientists find only teleonomy- no planned outcomes, so to posit God would not only violate the principle of parsimony but also would contradict that scientific finding to make the new Omphlos argument, instead of making things way older than they are as in the old one, God deceives by letting the evidence suggest teleonomy rather than letting us know that He makes things happen.This is what one supernaturalist avers in wanting to have that divine intent- divine teleology. What desperation!

 This is just Joh Hick’s epistemic distance argument that He makes for ambiguity as to His existence so as not to overcome our free wills John LSchellenberg answers with his hiddenness argument that He so hides Himself that He doesn’t exist!

   Such is theology’s desperation with all its it must be’s and it might be’s of guesswork!

  My parents showed me love, and I ‘m glad for that overriding my free will? I wouldn’t have appreciated any distant approach to me in order not to override it. Public warnings serve as to override our free wills for the sake of safety and health.

  Actually, both examples show a better use of free will! I used mind to love them in return, and public warnings serve the public’s ‘ need. Thus, this epistemic distance joins all the other theological prattle of the eons.

    Theodore S. Drange makes the non-belief argument that had He really wanted us to have a relationship with Him, He’d have had all scripture to be the same with no ambiguities and no internal and external contradictions .He would have thought the distance argument absurd Himself!

 Thus, this Omphalos argument complements Hhick’s [But he’d not find the Omphalos compelling.]! Both  then are absurd.

  Again, this illustrates how theologians and others go from one theological hole to another, never succeeding.

  Thus Lamberth’s  atelic or teleonomic argument alone reveals the negation of God, affirming ignosticism that He cannot exist!

  

Outils ‹ Ignostic Morgan’s Blog — WordPress

Outils ‹ Ignostic Morgan’s Blog — WordPress.

            Faith begs the question of its subject, and thus can never instantiate Him. Faith is the we just say so of credulity. Science is acquired knowledge whilst, as Sydney Hook notes, faith begs the question of being knowledge.

           Reason moves mountains of ignorance whilst faith relies on the argument from ignorance!

          Faith is more than just trust and embracing wholeheartedly ones God; it is the underpinning of supernaturalism with obstinancy. Alister Earl McGrath would have us think that to have faith is  just to have trust, and thus trust in Him is the same as trust in science. Nay, science embraces facts whilst no facts support supernaturalism. When people doubt that He exists, others blabber, just have faith, which means that obstinancy rather than trust as one must overcome doubts with evidence as in any rational endeavor. We naturalists don’t dwell in scientifsm that view that only science can deliver. We note other rational sources of knowledge: all which depend on evidence.

       Haughty John Haught excoriates us naturalists for not permitting other venues of knowledge, but that begs the question of  those venues of knowledge.  Fr. Lemaitre was right to tell the then pope not to seize upon the Big Bang as evidence for God. My fellow skeptic John L. Schellenberg errs in claiming that we naturalists also should not rely on contemporary science as it will ever change, but that is the glory of science! That is why we depend on it!

      We rely on whatever knowledge that can change, because we value the truth rather than the Truth for all time!

      Alexander Smoltczyk, German journalist, prattles that God is neither a principle nor an entity nor a person but the Ultimate Explanation of everything. That supports ignosticism, because if He is neither an entity nor a person, then He cannot instantiate Himself as that explanation!

     Karen Armstrong, with her apothaticism, maintains that He is neither this nor that as one cannnot explicate what He is, but thereby affriming ignosticism, because if one cannot explicate what He is, one has no case whatsoever! And I already dispose of  the case for the reverse, cataphaticism ! 

    Therefore, it seems to me, that these two and others acturally see Him as a metaphor. A metaphor for what? What we ignostics then  proclaim is that that is what Paul Edwards calls  a bombastic redefinition!

  Neither faith nor postulation nor definition can instantiate Him!

  Furthermore, it misserves people to prattle that actually they are in a relationship with  what Martin Buber calls a thou  [God]rather  than an it. Without evidence, they only are entertaining us with an imaginary friend! All relgious experience is just people’s mental states at play! To allege that we naturalists beg the question against supernaturalists as my fellow atheist Jonathon Harrison^ does is itself to beg the question, because that assumes that indeed a supernatural power can effect natural phenomena!

  We fallibilists quite openly acknowledge that we could be wrong! Nevertheless, until  supernaturalism is verified otherwise, ignosticism rules.

    ^ Harrison, ” God, Freedom and Immortality”

Outils ‹ Ignostic Morgan’s Blog — WordPress

Outils ‹ Ignostic Morgan’s Blog — WordPress.

            Faith begs the question of its subject, and thus can never instantiate Him. Faith is the we just say so of credulity. Science is acquired knowledge whilst, as Sydney Hook notes, faith begs the question of being knowledge.

           Reason moves mountains of ignorance whilst faith relies on the argument from ignorance!

          Faith is more than just trust and embracing wholeheartedly ones God; it is the underpinning of supernaturalism with obstinancy. Alister Earl McGrath would have us think that to have faith is  just to have trust, and thus trust in Him is the same as trust in science. Nay, science embraces facts whilst no facts support supernaturalism. When people doubt that He exists, others blabber, just have faith, which means that obstinancy rather than trust as one must overcome doubts with evidence as in any rational endeavor. We naturalists don’t dwell in scientifsm that view that only science can deliver. We note other rational sources of knowledge: all which depend on evidence.

       Haughty John Haught excoriates us naturalists for not permitting other venues of knowledge, but that begs the question of  those venues of knowledge.  Fr. Lemaitre was right to tell the then pope not to seize upon the Big Bang as evidence for God. My fellow skeptic John L. Schellenberg errs in claiming that we naturalists also should not rely on contemporary science as it will ever change, but that is the glory of science! That is why we depend on it!

      We rely on whatever knowledge that can change, because we value the truth rather than the Truth for all time!

      Alexander Smoltczyk, German journalist, prattles that God is neither a principle nor an entity nor a person but the Ultimate Explanation of everything. That supports ignosticism, because if He is neither an entity nor a person, then He cannot instantiate Himself as that explanation!

     Karen Armstrong, with her apothaticism, maintains that He is neither this nor that as one cannnot explicate what He is, but thereby affriming ignosticism, because if one cannot explicate what He is, one has no case whatsoever! And I already dispose of  the case for the reverse, cataphaticism ! 

    Therefore, it seems to me, that these two and others acturally see Him as a metaphor. A metaphor for what? What we ignostics then  proclaim is that that is what Paul Edwards calls  a bombastic redefinition!

  Neither faith nor postulation nor definition can instantiate Him!

  Furthermore, it misserves people to prattle that actually they are in a relationship with  what Martin Buber calls a thou  [God]rather  than an it. Without evidence, they only are entertaining us with an imaginary friend! All relgious experience is just people’s mental states at play! To allege that we naturalists beg the question against supernaturalists as my fellow atheist Jonathon Harrison^ does is itself to beg the question, because that assumes that indeed a supernatural power can effect natural phenomena!

  We fallibilists quite openly acknowledge that we could be wrong! Nevertheless, until  supernaturalism is verified otherwise, ignosticism rules.

    ^ Harrison, ” God, Freedom and Immortality”

Outils ‹ Ignostic Morgan’s Blog — WordPress

Outils ‹ Ignostic Morgan’s Blog — WordPress.

            Faith begs the question of its subject, and thus can never instantiate Him. Faith is the we just say so of credulity. Science is acquired knowledge whilst, as Sydney Hook notes, faith begs the question of being knowledge.

           Reason moves mountains of ignorance whilst faith relies on the argument from ignorance!

          Faith is more than just trust and embracing wholeheartedly ones God; it is the underpinning of supernaturalism with obstinancy. Alister Earl McGrath would have us think that to have faith is  just to have trust, and thus trust in Him is the same as trust in science. Nay, science embraces facts whilst no facts support supernaturalism. When people doubt that He exists, others blabber, just have faith, which means that obstinancy rather than trust as one must overcome doubts with evidence as in any rational endeavor. We naturalists don’t dwell in scientifsm that view that only science can deliver. We note other rational sources of knowledge: all which depend on evidence.

       Haughty John Haught excoriates us naturalists for not permitting other venues of knowledge, but that begs the question of  those venues of knowledge.  Fr. Lemaitre was right to tell the then pope not to seize upon the Big Bang as evidence for God. My fellow skeptic John L. Schellenberg errs in claiming that we naturalists also should not rely on contemporary science as it will ever change, but that is the glory of science! That is why we depend on it!

      We rely on whatever knowledge that can change, because we value the truth rather than the Truth for all time!

      Alexander Smoltczyk, German journalist, prattles that God is neither a principle nor an entity nor a person but the Ultimate Explanation of everything. That supports ignosticism, because if He is neither an entity nor a person, then He cannot instantiate Himself as that explanation!

     Karen Armstrong, with her apothaticism, maintains that He is neither this nor that as one cannnot explicate what He is, but thereby affriming ignosticism, because if one cannot explicate what He is, one has no case whatsoever! And I already dispose of  the case for the reverse, cataphaticism ! 

    Therefore, it seems to me, that these two and others acturally see Him as a metaphor. A metaphor for what? What we ignostics then  proclaim is that that is what Paul Edwards calls  a bombastic redefinition!

  Neither faith nor postulation nor definition can instantiate Him!

  Furthermore, it misserves people to prattle that actually they are in a relationship with  what Martin Buber calls a thou  [God]rather  than an it. Without evidence, they only are entertaining us with an imaginary friend! All relgious experience is just people’s mental states at play! To allege that we naturalists beg the question against supernaturalists as my fellow atheist Jonathon Harrison^ does is itself to beg the question, because that assumes that indeed a supernatural power can effect natural phenomena!

  We fallibilists quite openly acknowledge that we could be wrong! Nevertheless, until  supernaturalism is verified otherwise, ignosticism rules.

    ^ Harrison, ” God, Freedom and Immortality”

Outils ‹ Ignostic Morgan’s Blog — WordPress

Outils ‹ Ignostic Morgan’s Blog — WordPress.

            Faith begs the question of its subject, and thus can never instantiate Him. Faith is the we just say so of credulity. Science is acquired knowledge whilst, as Sydney Hook notes, faith begs the question of being knowledge.

           Reason moves mountains of ignorance whilst faith relies on the argument from ignorance!

          Faith is more than just trust and embracing wholeheartedly ones God; it is the underpinning of supernaturalism with obstinancy. Alister Earl McGrath would have us think that to have faith is  just to have trust, and thus trust in Him is the same as trust in science. Nay, science embraces facts whilst no facts support supernaturalism. When people doubt that He exists, others blabber, just have faith, which means that obstinancy rather than trust as one must overcome doubts with evidence as in any rational endeavor. We naturalists don’t dwell in scientifsm that view that only science can deliver. We note other rational sources of knowledge: all which depend on evidence.

       Haughty John Haught excoriates us naturalists for not permitting other venues of knowledge, but that begs the question of  those venues of knowledge.  Fr. Lemaitre was right to tell the then pope not to seize upon the Big Bang as evidence for God. My fellow skeptic John L. Schellenberg errs in claiming that we naturalists also should not rely on contemporary science as it will ever change, but that is the glory of science! That is why we depend on it!

      We rely on whatever knowledge that can change, because we value the truth rather than the Truth for all time!

      Alexander Smoltczyk, German journalist, prattles that God is neither a principle nor an entity nor a person but the Ultimate Explanation of everything. That supports ignosticism, because if He is neither an entity nor a person, then He cannot instantiate Himself as that explanation!

     Karen Armstrong, with her apothaticism, maintains that He is neither this nor that as one cannnot explicate what He is, but thereby affriming ignosticism, because if one cannot explicate what He is, one has no case whatsoever! And I already dispose of  the case for the reverse, cataphaticism ! 

    Therefore, it seems to me, that these two and others acturally see Him as a metaphor. A metaphor for what? What we ignostics then  proclaim is that that is what Paul Edwards calls  a bombastic redefinition!

  Neither faith nor postulation nor definition can instantiate Him!

  Furthermore, it misserves people to prattle that actually they are in a relationship with  what Martin Buber calls a thou  [God]rather  than an it. Without evidence, they only are entertaining us with an imaginary friend! All relgious experience is just people’s mental states at play! To allege that we naturalists beg the question against supernaturalists as my fellow atheist Jonathon Harrison^ does is itself to beg the question, because that assumes that indeed a supernatural power can effect natural phenomena!

  We fallibilists quite openly acknowledge that we could be wrong! Nevertheless, until  supernaturalism is verified otherwise, ignosticism rules.

    ^ Harrison, ” God, Freedom and Immortality”

The ignostic challenge

 Ah, the argument from perfection [ Star Trek] is that a perfect being wouldn’t make imperfections. Some supernaturalists allege that omni-God can ever make the flourishes of imperfections whilst limited God would have to make matter perfect. What might one say yea or nay about either contention?

 I maintain, against Alvin Plantinga, that the argument from physical mind overturns the very idea of God in that we only have evidence of embodied minds. For him to aver that this is no real argument illustrates : Faith doth that to people! No, the disembodied mind is no more than ad  hoc in order to get around Him not having a body that could be found [ a false assumption of some atheists].

 This disembodied mind is thus factually meaningless, affirming ignosticism. Karen Armstrong is trying to overwhelm us atheists with apopathism, the mainly Orthodox manner of maintaining that one cannot affirm positive matters about Him,only what He is not in contrast to cataphatic theology which affirms what He is, but what we ignostics declare factually meaningless. But her apopathism is also that in that , because if He isn’t this or that, then He doesn’t exist!

 So much for theologians getting out of one hole, only to step into another!

Furthermore, a rational being if she wanted other beings to acknowledge her would pile on the evidence as the argument from belief notes. And here, in accordance with Charles Moore auto-epistemic rule, where there should be mountains of evidence after millennia of theologians never producing credible arguments evincing evidence, and none, I daresay ever will, then here evidence of absence is indeed absence of evidence.

By finding that He has no referents as Primary Cause,etc. and that He has incoherent, contradictory attributes such that He cannot exist, no one has to traverse the Metaverse nor have omniscience!