Wednesday, January 16, 2013

That superfluity!That relationship!


      How could that superfluity be any kind of coherent explanation ? Its  convoluted, ad hoc assumptions not only violate the Ockham but  also  are meanisngless as we ignostics/itheists/ theological non-cognitivists find. My previous essay describes how Hi carries no sort of explanation and is just a meaningless superfluity. 
        How might persons have a relationship with  a factually meaningless entity, albeit  semantically meaningful? How then could theists verify Him when then in principle no one can, with His incoherent attributes and lack of   referents to be factually meaningful?
        How then can persons have a relationship with a non-verified and factually meaningless entity?

          What  good does  superstition do anyways? Having a rabbit's foot and praying to  Him are the same- meaningless? Telepathic and clairvoyant God violates physics as Philip Rothman explains matters

            How then might persons have a relationship with what physics finds impossible? No, ti's not that eons from now, evidence for the supernatural will arrive, as science already finds that impossible anyway, and to aver that argument from ignorance, violates our conservation  -background - of  knowledge. No evidence suggests that such evidence  is possible, and again His incoherency and factually meaninglessness precludes such anyway!

                What is your take, readers?

Igtheist Morgan

Igtheist Morgan