” 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!

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”