Sunday, October 14, 2012

IgnosticMorgan-Carneades: The teleonomic argument on HIs vacuity

IgnosticMorgan-Carneades: The teleonomic argument on HIs vacuity

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!

God -that square circle! | Ignostic Morgan's Blog

God -that square circle! | Ignostic Morgan's Blog

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!
   

Hoyle's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hoyle's fallacy - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia