Arguments about God

[griggs1947]

Lamberth's reduced animism argument is that theism is just reduced animism and just as superstitious as full animism. Per the Coyne-Lamberth the atelic/teleonomic argument, no divine intent exists so just no intent exists for the wind spirit so none exists for the Supreme One behind the Cosmos so that theism is just animistic after all.
Lamberth's the Malebranche Reductio is that Nicholas Malebranche unwittingly reduces to absurdity with his occasionalism that when we act,God is the real initiator.This illuminates the sterility of God as the Primary Cause.
Lamberth's argument from autonomy means that in line with the UN Declaration of Rigts and with Morgan's Canon, we are independent beings, owing God nothing! This strikes at the deistic ,theistic and polytheistic jugulars!
Might does not make right!

 

[griggs1947]

All religious experience is just people's own minds at work! And atheists can have atheist experience that means nothing.

 

[griggs1947]

As John -Paul Sartre notes, we are condemned to be free but despite him, life makes mockery of what he found absurd- it.
This freedom is not free will as he understood it but instead our determined volition at work. We're not at the mercy of our nature-nurture but they do influence how we do. No mysterious free will then exists.
The Sartre-Rand argument from autonomy fails. It maintains that were there God, then we'd have to worship Him, but that counters our autonomy. No! Lamberth's argument from autonomy declares even were He to exist, He'd have no dominion over us!This counters theism at its heart!
Our level of consciousness makes for our freedom, in line with the UN's Declaration of the Rights of Man and with Morgan's Canon.
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate." Inquiring Lynn
Baron d'Holbach
Ignostic Morgan's Blog | How can people have a relationship with that divine square circle? Noted article on that
http://skepticgriggsy.blogspot.com
http://ignosticmorgan.blogspot.com
http://antonyflew.tumblr
Skeptic Griggsy - Skepticism about God

 

[Eudaimonist]

All religious experience is just people's own minds at work! And atheists can have atheist experience that means nothing.

And atheists can have atheist experience that means everything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[griggs1947]

What is the reason for believing when scriptures are just man-made, no evidence comes forth and definition, faith and postulation cannot instantiate Him?What passes for evidence is false interpretations of facts.
Lamberth's non-genetic argument claims that supernaturalists themselves with their arguments from happiness-purpose and from angst underpin our naturalists findings about why they believe, and thus we make no genetic argument!
Fellow rationalists, have your say in these arguments so as to further our case, and theists have your so as to further understanding.
Skeptic Griggsy
http:///skepticgriggsy.wordpress.com
Skeptic Griggsy - Skepticism about God
http://griggstheskeptic.tumbler.com

 

[griggs1947]

Atheists, as Alfred Jules Ayer did, can have religious experiences but do recognize such as the product of their own subconsciousnesses.
People's experiences reflect their own religions or at,least what they know about the regnant one. Such experiences, unlike wide-reflective subjectivism, are just private thoughts. None can say that no, they are inter-subjective, thus objective, the variance of relgious experiencesbelie that.
Should inclusivists, however, point out why, lo, the various experiences bespeak of the relgious reality of God, we again point out that we atheists can have such.
The seem to imply that God somehow implants the experiences in us, and if they think that, they beg the question.
Those who claim that He speaks to them in their relationship then bespeak telepathy, which science contradicts.
Prayer as a form of religious experience fails as either anwered prayer is only the post hoc fallacy of coincidences, and apologists rationalize about unanswered ones!
Should they see an apparition of Mary, that experience is just a pareidolia-seeing what is not there. Shuld they see faith-healing and exorcism, those are mere natural manifestations, reflecting no religious experience illustrating His power and omnibenevolence- that favortism!
Should any experience these comments as not true, then they have the religious experience of reduced animism, seeing divine intent when none is there, and fearing then these comments. Faith doth that to people!

 

[Gracchus]

Griggs, use the black type please. Orange is hard to read.

 

[Eudaimonist]

Griggs, use the black type please. Orange is hard to read.

Trust me, changing the font to black for the last two posts won't make them any more clear. They read like gibberish to me. A rewording into English is advised.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Dave Ellis]

And atheists can have atheist experience that means everything.


eudaimonia,

Mark

lol, true!

 

[griggs1947]

So, how can theists respond to these naturalist arguments against Him without committing logical fallacies? How can a being who cannot be transcendent, has no mind and no intent, act in the world or be any kind of a good explanation?
Theists use misinterpretations of evidence as evidence that we naturalists eviscerate! The weak anthropic principle is just a description of reality whilst the strong misinterprets that very evidence, begging the question of directed outcomes per Carneades' atelic argument, claiming that the environment was directed to have us evolve instead of the evidence showing that no, we came in response to Leucippus' necessity, including randomness, that no respecter of outcomes, as the cooling-off period, the evolving of the angiosperms, the demise of the dinosaurs and mutations,along with natural selection, the non-planning, anti-chance agency of evolution illuminate.
Yes, we do indeed inhabit a purposeless world, but have the responsibility to make our own meanings and purposes!
Drange's argument from unbelief notes how we unbelievers would be such as God speaks with a forked tongue- all those scriptures, with all their interpretations, making for so many sects!
How can a brainless being without intent act in the world or be any sort of a good explanation!
Ostensibly, He is that Sufficient Reason and so forth to explain why Existence- the Metaverse but instead is only an obscurantism as being the Supreme Mystery,surrounded by still other mysteries, depending on convoluted ad hoc explanations that therefore can be no kind of a good explanation!
Again, to go to the core of theism, supposed God has no rights over us, and to whine that we must have Him to give us purpose betrays humanity as just a thing like pottery for a potter do use as she wishes!

 

[Danyc]

I've never understood it, but there just seem to be some people who type in that fashion. You all know what I mean. It's especially prevalent in religious discussions online. It's quite fascinating really. But I'm at a loss as to what causes it.

 

[Dave Ellis]

All religious experience is just people's own minds at work! And atheists can have atheist experience that means nothing.

What exactly is an Atheist Experience? (apart from a great TV show!)

 

[WonderBeat]

As Existence is all, God cannot be transcendent to it. It just is.

Thank you...

 

[griggs1947]

Percy Bysshe Shelley pertinently queries : " To suppose that some existence, beyond or above them [ the natural descriptions -laws-G.47] is to invest a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for." That means that theists use the argument from incredulity to find divine intent when science finds none, so as to minimize their befuddlement they create for themselves to assuage their angst and to encourage themselves to use their inner resources that they erroneously attribute to their faith in God.
Their behind most of their other arguments, the ones from personal incredulity and from ignorance ever come forth. Why they incredulously query is there something rather than nothing when how could there ever be otherwise as the description-law- of conservation applies to the quantum fields whence comes universe after universe eternally.So intrudes Craig' s quite fallacious Kalam chronological cosmological argument with its red herrings and false astrophysics to find a finite universe. But queries Edward Feser and Aquinas with the etiological argument - the Primary Cause- why even with an eternal Metaverse, we still need to know what is its ultimate explanation, that is, in a hierarchy of efficient causes-explanations, not chronological ones, there must be a primary one, and should one take that away, no intermediate ones remain, but that begs the question of that primary cause!
So, the poet rightly states the reason for theistic arguments!
Lamberth's the Malebranche Reductio reduces to an absurdity theism: Nicholas Malebranche with his occasionalism finds that when we hit the eight ball, God actually does the strike!
No, that superfluous being has no power and would be dependent on natural power to act as a secondary cause himself!
In short, God is a place-holder as a pseudo- answer for pseudo-questions! God did it means superstition at work and without intent,God is the same as the many spirits -no intent- of full animism!
So fellow atheologian Keith Parsons rightly states : " Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable manner for unfathomable purposes seems to be no sort of a good explanation."
So whether as Smoltczyck's explanation or as the divine interloper into Nature, God has no use and so we naturalists rightly dismiss Him!

 

[Eudaimonist]

Percy Bysshe Shelley pertinently queries : " To suppose that some existence, beyond or above them [ the natural descriptions -laws-G.47] is to invest a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for." That means that theists use the argument from incredulity to find divine intent when science finds none, so as to minimize their befuddlement they create for themselves to assuage their angst and to encourage themselves to use their inner resources that they erroneously attribute to their faith in God.
Their behind most of their other arguments, the ones from personal incredulity and from ignorance ever come forth. Why they incredulously query is there something rather than nothing when how could there ever be otherwise as the description-law- of conservation applies to the quantum fields whence comes universe after universe eternally.So intrudes Craig' s quite fallacious Kalam chronological cosmological argument with its red herrings and false astrophysics to find a finite universe. But queries Edward Feser and Aquinas with the etiological argument - the Primary Cause- why even with an eternal Metaverse, we still need to know what is its ultimate explanation, that is, in a hierarchy of efficient causes-explanations, not chronological ones, there must be a primary one, and should one take that away, no intermediate ones remain, but that begs the question of that primary cause!
So, the poet rightly states the reason for theistic arguments!
Lamberth's the Malebranche Reductio reduces to an absurdity theism: Nicholas Malebranche with his occasionalism finds that when we hit the eight ball, God actually does the strike!
No, that superfluous being has no power and would be dependent on natural power to act as a secondary cause himself!
In short, God is a place-holder as a pseudo- answer for pseudo-questions! God did it means superstition at work and without intent,God is the same as the many spirits -no intent- of full animism!
So fellow atheologian Keith Parsons rightly states : " Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable manner for unfathomable purposes seems to be no sort of a good explanation."
So whether as Smoltczyck's explanation or as the divine interloper into Nature, God has no use and so we naturalists rightly dismiss Him!

Okay, fess up. You are using some sort of random philosophy generator to create these statements.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Gadarene]

Okay, fess up. You are using some sort of random philosophy generator to create these statements.

eudaimonia,

Mark

http://www.elsewhere.org/pomo/

 

[Eudaimonist]

Previous Post » The Postmodernism Generator » Communications From Elsewhere

Exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of.

So, was I right, griggs1947? Or do you personally fail the Turning Test?


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[griggs1947]

Lamberth's the Malebranche Reductio notes that the occasionalism of Nicholas Malebrance finds that as that Primary Cause, God does the real striking whenever we strike an eight ball! This reduction to absurdity argument reflects what God means for us as any kind of explanation- nothing whatsoever!
Aquinas' superfluity argument boomerangs on him: with Shelley, he notes no reason exists to use Him as any kind of explanation as He'd be superfluous. With his five failed ways- suggestions, he fails, and so the argument boomerangs!
The Ockham also comes to the fore as God reflects convoluted, ad hoc assumptions whilst naturalism relies on only what truly exists.
Implicitly, with those five ways he fails to overcome the Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism!
Read carefully without those blinders of inanity on!
Let's discuss the waysto God, not the way one posts.
http://waystogod.blogspot.com
http://ngriggs.blogspot.com

 

[Danyc]

Griggs, it's fine to discuss the 'ways to god' (whatever that means), but the way one posts is, right now, the more urgent matter. Because you will never be able to discuss anything here if nobody knows what the hell you're talking about.

 

[Eudaimonist]

The Ideal of pure reason (and it remains a mystery why this is true) is the clue to the discovery of the Categories; on the other hand, the noumena can not take account of the things in themselves. As is shown in the writings of Galileo, the transcendental unity of apperception, for example, is a body of demonstrated doctrine, and none of it must be known a priori; thus, applied logic can never furnish a true and demonstrated science, because, like the architectonic of pure reason, it excludes the possibility of analytic principles. Time (and it is obvious that this is true) can not take account of the Categories, and the Antinomies exist in our understanding. Separated modes of consciousness, in the broadest Cartesian sense, need to be criticized with regard to their validity and range, before they can be used for the purposes of a radical grounding of the transcendental-phenomenological reduction, by reconciling with noematic descriptions; I set myself the all-embracing task of uncovering multiplicities of the Objective world by a freely actualizable return to the stream of multiplicities of the fundamental form of this universal synthesis. It becomes evident that transcendental subjectivity inhibits acceptance of transcendental subjectivity as existent by orienting experiences according to accured insights. The intelligible objects in space and time would thereby be made to contradict natural reason. Our faculties constitute the whole content for, thus, the paralogisms of pure reason. Noematic descriptions, in other words, are "in themselves". In natural theology, the objects in space and time occupy part of the sphere of the discipline of practical reason concerning the existence of the objects in space and time in general. As any dedicated reader can clearly see, there can be no doubt that, for example, philosophy is what first gives rise to, however, the paralogisms of human reason. Our synthetic judgements, in the full sense of these terms, abstract from all content of knowledge. Is it true that our experience stands in need of the phenomena, or is the real question whether the paralogisms of natural reason abstract from all content of knowledge? Pure reason, for example, is a representation of the transcendental unity of apperception.

The Philosophy Generator


eudaimonia,

Mark