Naturalist arguments against God

[Lord Griggs]

Lamberth's the Malebranche Reductio argument is that Nicholas Malebranche unwittingly, with his occcasionalism, that when we strike the bell, ti's God who effectuates that!No,we do that ourselves without any divine intent at work.
Aquinas' own superfluity argument boomerangs on his five ways as Percy Bysshe Shelley implicitly puts it :" To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [ the descriptions -laws - Nature,L.D.] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for." Begging the question would ensue should theists claim that that is a category mistake.
​

 

[Elioenai26]

Lamberth's the Malebranche Reductio argument is that Nicholas Malebranche unwittingly, with his occcasionalism, that when we strike the bell, ti's God who effectuates that!No,we do that ourselves without any divine intent at work.
Aquinas' own superfluity argument boomerangs on his five ways as Percy Bysshe Shelley implicitly puts it :" To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [ the descriptions -laws - Nature,L.D.] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for." Begging the question would ensue should theists claim that that is a category mistake.
​

Not very convincing at all.

 

[Lord Griggs]

The powerful point is that the Deity has no work to do! He would be a useless redundancy,despite Alister Earl McGrath.
When I hit a ball, how would He act? Is it that He sustains the Multiverse when science finds no need for that? Is it that He as Malebranche suggests that He is the actual hitter? How would He be the ultimate explanation and primary cause in my hitting the ball?
God did it means nothing, but people's supposed need to have divine intent so as to illuminate matters, but as Shelley notes, that is superfluous. Science finds no such intent. People want that intent to assuage themselves,because of the horrors that befall us all.
Just how does He act? By the magic of let it be? Until theists can answer that, they make no case for needing Him as any sort of explanation. Furthermore, as science indeed finds no supernatural intent, to suppose that intent just contradicts instead of complementing science, and ends up as reduced animism, just as superstitious as full animism and polytheism. And so, theistic evolution is just an oxymoronic obfuscation.
Naturalism notes that we ground our humanist morality in our very nature. Please no inane remarks about that! We need no divine intent to know that rape is wrong. Again, He'd be that redundant hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for.
This thread takes over from my arguments about Him.
That one is under review. Perhaps, later they could merge.

 

[Eudaimonist]

To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [ the descriptions -laws - Nature,L.D.] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for."

This point really needs to be made within the context of a larger argument, but one should as a general rule avoid superfluous explanations, so that is a good criterion to keep in mind.


eudaimonia,

Mark