Monday, December 31, 2012
Sunday, December 23, 2012
Friday, December 21, 2012
Saturday, December 8, 2012
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Thursday, November 15, 2012
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Friday, November 2, 2012
Sunday, October 14, 2012
The teleonomic argument on HIs vacuity
The Coyne-Mayr-Lamberth teleonomic argument alone affirms God as vacuous! I t contend that as science finds no divine intent, then He'd lack all referents as the Grand Miracle Monger and so forth and thus cannot be Himself and thus cannot exist, affirming ignosticism.
No theist can overcome the teleonomic and its application for ignosticism. Science finds no intent so that with John Hick to argue for his epistemic argument that He deceives us with ambiguous evidence for His existence, so as not to overwhelm our free wills, cannot gainsay that exposing Him thus as nebulous.
To content nevertheless that He does have intent is no more than Lamberth's new Omphalos argument that He deceives us with apparent mechanism.
Theists,no matter in what direction they turn, face the reality that they lose all arguments as in the end, He is indeed vacuous!
No theist can overcome the teleonomic and its application for ignosticism. Science finds no intent so that with John Hick to argue for his epistemic argument that He deceives us with ambiguous evidence for His existence, so as not to overwhelm our free wills, cannot gainsay that exposing Him thus as nebulous.
To content nevertheless that He does have intent is no more than Lamberth's new Omphalos argument that He deceives us with apparent mechanism.
Theists,no matter in what direction they turn, face the reality that they lose all arguments as in the end, He is indeed vacuous!
Thursday, October 11, 2012
Wednesday, October 10, 2012
Monday, October 8, 2012
Carneades on probability
Carneades propose three levels of probability [1] dwlief that has no support from other matters,[2]one supported by other matters and [3] one supported not only by other matters,whick in turn are distinct and lively.
This accords with modern skepticism. W.K.Clifford admonishes us to rely on facts in our beliefs, which facts are proportionate to the level of need for evidence. Despite that non-pragmatist William James and Ward Keith, that does not keep us in bed;no, we act on that level of need. Some claims require no evidence. Some require extraordinary evidence as does creationism or theism in general.
Alvin Plantinga's God as a basic idea is lower than the first one,for it rests not only on no support but in contradiction to our conservation -background- of knowledge as God denotes intent whilst, as the teleonomic argument notes, science finds no divine intent so that Plantinga would ignorce science for his argument from ignorance!
This accords with modern skepticism. W.K.Clifford admonishes us to rely on facts in our beliefs, which facts are proportionate to the level of need for evidence. Despite that non-pragmatist William James and Ward Keith, that does not keep us in bed;no, we act on that level of need. Some claims require no evidence. Some require extraordinary evidence as does creationism or theism in general.
Alvin Plantinga's God as a basic idea is lower than the first one,for it rests not only on no support but in contradiction to our conservation -background- of knowledge as God denotes intent whilst, as the teleonomic argument notes, science finds no divine intent so that Plantinga would ignorce science for his argument from ignorance!
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Carneades
Carneades' atelic argument is that theists beg the question of directed outcomes in their teleological arguments. He asks does the pig revel in its being eaten as part of the greater good defense argument for God?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)