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!