Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!
Ignostic Morgan's Blog 
Of course, God, the Ground of Being perforce has to permit evil! He is exercising His free will. Had He not permitted evil to happen, then He’d be the Supreme Robot! No one, Aquinas couldn’t, can establish that His nature is by definition good as that argues in a circle.
This leads to the problem of Heaven that eviscerates all defenses and theodicies.
Ah, but then again, He cannot do anything as He, being disembodied, has then no brain and thus no mind so He can neither think nor act!
Some atheists thought that He had a body that in principle one could find. Two theologians claim that the Cosmos is His body, but where are the ganglia, the neurons and the axons?
So Alvin Plantinga, that sophisticated sophist of silliness, errs in finding this a trite problem as we only find minds encased in brains in bodies. He is using the it may be or it must be guess that theologians ever love to give! Again, no one can define Him nevertheless as having a mind as that argues in a circle.
We ignostics demand that supernaturalists establish His existence based on evidence rather than intuitions, revelations or other non-empirical means. Any definition for Him must rest on evidence!
We find that as arguments for Him cannot do that, and He has incoherent, contradictory attributes, He cannot exist! Thus, one can indeed declare there is no God whatsoever without being dogmatic due to analysis. One needs not to travel the Cosmos nor be omniscient to know that.
No one can postulate, define or use faith to establish His existence- evidence,please!
The combined ignostic-Ockham is that the ignostic challenge illuminates that whilst He has meaning as Santa Claus does, He has no more significance than the married bachelor whilst the Ockham establishes that He’s a useless redundancy, Alister Earl McGrath, notwithstanding, as to use Him means that one uses convoluted, ad hoc means to that natural explanations themselves don’t need.
And the presumption of naturalism establishes that natural causes and explanations not only are necessary and efficient but also primary-not He and sufficient, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz notwithstanding, they are the sufficient reason. This neither begs the question nor sandbags supernaturalist, since t’is only the demand for empirical evidence as David Hume notes in his corollary to this presumption on miracles. AS Antony Garrard Newton Flew notes, this is akin to the presumption of innocence, and to which Aquinas himself mentions and addresses in his five failed arguments.
I ns summation, to establish His existence, supernaturalists-deists and theists- must overcome the prolem of Heaven, the ignostic-Ockham and the presumption of naturalism- for starters.
How might supernaturalists answer these grave arguments? Why disbelieve in HIm or not?
I’ve pages and pages more of arguments against and for His existence.Google Amazon Religion Discussions to see skeptic griggsy’s arguments for God and arguments about Him-that square circle the presumpton threads, the problem of Heaven and the paradox…
As Patrick T. Mackenzie notes in ” The Problemsof Philosophy : An Introduction,”t’is irrelevant to promise that future state in Heaven as supernaturalists must establish that once that they’ve established His existence, and t’is also irrelevant to affirm that free will for soul making is desirable until again supernaturalists establish His existence. Otherwise, supernaturalists, as they typically, would argue in a circle.
Ah, of course, He has to permit pointless evil so as to use His own free will! Otherwise, He’d be the Supreme Robot!
Nelson Pike goes on for page after page in his essay in “God and Evil,” describing how we’d be robots had we free will and a guarantee not to do wrong: So God perforce as to do wrong Himself.
And Yahweh in the Tanakh displays His free will to do evil!
Pike thus overreaches, putting God into the same way!
Furthemore, Aquinas errs in dogmatizing that His nature perforce is good as that argues in a circle!
Hi, what do you think about the supernatural? Why or why not accept it ? This blog opens itself to all serious inquirers into the supernatural. It’s not just to blog my evangel of sweet reason but also to inquire why people think about it as they do.
Michael Shermer, my friend has out two books on how we believe.
Do you find that you have no need of Him as an explanation or a source of comfort? Or does He provide the rationale for what happens and gives you hope?
How did you come to your thinking on this matter? Are you superficial or deep into your belief or lack thereof?
Let’s rock!
Pithy or longer responses will do.
Good will and blessings to all!
Carneades advances an incompatibility argument against God by noting that were he omni-max, He’d be all virtuous,but then He could not exist, because He’d have no reason to have courage for being Omnipotent!
David Ramsay Steele dispenses^ with courage and- vice, noting that had He neither, then wouldn’t be any kind of a person, and I add even analogically.
Again, supernaturalists must adduce facts for their definition of Him. No one can define Him,postulate or use faith to instantiate Him!
^” Atheism Explained: from Folly to Philosophy.”
Carneades anwers Chrysippus’s analogy that just as builder makes buidlings, then it requires some august builder to have created the Cosmos. That is a loaded term for a begged-question that there had to be a divine purpose for the Cosmos. And the fact of teleonomy disconfirms that! A double whammy
The neutral term would be what formed the universe, which admits of the natural cause of the Big Bang[s].
Voltaire, a deist, who argues for God, dismisses this form of teleology with the analogy that glasses have to fit noses rather than the inverse!
Carneades notes that the pig finds any intent for her greater good when one starts to grill her. What is the greater good that He makes out of the Holocaust and subsequent Arab-Jewish hostilities? No, the for the greater good and the His ways are superior to ours that we cannot discern that greater good .No! The latter is just an argument from ignorance!
There can exist then no divine intent for any causes or permitting pointless evils!
And esteemed viewers, please grace these pages with your arguments whatever the length!
See Carneades Thales Strato of Ga.@ Atheist Blogs,please! I permute my points from site to site.
Why do you find no evidence for Go? Are you ignostic?
What would count as evidence?
Is He limited or omni-max?
Is He they?
Does He have a son,Himself and still another dissociative personality?
Can you vouch for the Trinity or the Incarnation?
Please, my worthy viewers,answer in a few words or several pages!
One should as William Kingdon advices to proportiion your beliefs to the evidence. Unless, evidence makes you thiink otherwise, you’d trust in your mate sp don’t demand evidence. Did it rain today/ Check the news. Does God exist ?
That would take extraordianry evidence as it is an extraoridnary query? Here, William James errs: he claims that one should provisionall choose on faith. No, do as when you come upon a fork in the road, take it! Yes, this is inded a provisiional matter but not one of faith. You either more evidence for your position or against it.
Therefore,advance theologian make a straw man out of the presumpion of evidentialism when he states that one woudn’t be able to do much of anythng using it.
No, people won’t then suffer from false claims of any sort, illiegal or otherwise!
Typos: Advanced theologian Ward Keith makes a straw man…
And please checkout the blog with the same name but using Thales of Miletus as sub- name.
Too bad there is no edi function here and no way to change titles!