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!


One response to “The ignostic challenge

  1. Not only has God no mind and thus can neither think nor act, but were He in a timeless dimension, there He’d not be able to think or act had He a mind! William Lane Craig, seeing that, affirms that He lives in an undifferentiated time. If anything occurred in all that undifferentiated then, it is the same as our time with infinite units of time, which infinity WLC denies. Or if not, then it is the same as timelessness! WLC cannot obviate infinity as possible!
    WLC alleges that God sees all knowledge as one unit, but that subterfuge is just that: the knowledge would still be infinite, contradicting his sophistry of no infinity for actual items!
    WLC begs the question of a starting point with all his ignoratio elenchis- red herrings- of infinite hotels, libraries, and so forth! And most physicists note that there was indeed time before the Big Bang and with time Existence itself, which the infinite regress argument notes must be as cause, event and time presuppose previous ones. Poor WLC!
    Poor God, no mind and He cannot exist within time or without! He just cannot exist!
    Plantinga and WLC therefore play the role of obscurantists ever raising new obfuscations with their solecistic, sophisticated sophistry of baseless, braying bull!
    Viewers, and how else do they obfuscate?
    Any dissent?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s