Thursday, January 31, 2013
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Monday, January 28, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
Wednesday, January 23, 2013
Sunday, January 20, 2013
Saturday, January 19, 2013
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Tuesday, January 8, 2013
Yes, ti's your God!
Why, that's not my God cannot escape the ti' s animistic- reduced animism- anyway as long as He plays a role in the Multiverse, because no divine directed outcomes happen as with full animism. And thus, without causing outcomes, He cannot have referents as Creator and so forth, and thus cannot exist. Should one maintain, that no, He is Himself, but not a principle nor a being nor an entity, He still cannot be Himself, because He cannot implement Himself to be the Ultimate Explanation, or is just a sort of pantheistic God.
Anyway, being superfluous as an explanation, again, He cannot be that Explanation!
All teleological arguments beg the question of directed outcomes.
Dwight's serial cosmological argument argues that were He part of the series, He wouldn't be the Creator, or He could not create being outside it. His history/ contingent cosmological argument argues that not being contingent, He could not create or should a contingency lie with Him, He'd be incoherent as that Necessary Being. And his factual-logical argument argues that with no facts to instantiate Him, He doesn't probably exist.
Furthermore, timeless God cannot exist as God, because He again, could not create, because to create requires a God in time, and this also refutes in part the Kalam, which finds Him prior to creation timeless but in time thereafter.
Existence encompassing all, He cannot transcend it and again, cannot be Himself. And trancendence contradicts omnipresence, thus again, He cannot exist as Himself.
Cause, event and time presuppose previous ones, so Existence does not need Him as Creator.
Cataphatism describes Him such that He is incoherent and contradictory, and again, without having referents, He cannot exist. Apophatism says that He is neither this nor that, and again, He is incoherent and cannot exist!
Omni-God has His problems, and so does limited God.
No matter how one defines Him, He cannot possibly exist, and definition without evidence is vacuous as factual, whilst meaningful semantically. In principle, never will evidence arrive to instantiate Him whilst evidence arrives for scientific matters. The verification principle does then work.
Thus, theologians can flutter from one position to another, but never can they ever fructify theology as a subject with a subject!
Theology is the subject without a subject!
What rational being then would want a relationship with an incoherency?
Yes, that's your God!
I expand on the various arguments here with names for them in articles in this blog.
Anyway, being superfluous as an explanation, again, He cannot be that Explanation!
All teleological arguments beg the question of directed outcomes.
Dwight's serial cosmological argument argues that were He part of the series, He wouldn't be the Creator, or He could not create being outside it. His history/ contingent cosmological argument argues that not being contingent, He could not create or should a contingency lie with Him, He'd be incoherent as that Necessary Being. And his factual-logical argument argues that with no facts to instantiate Him, He doesn't probably exist.
Furthermore, timeless God cannot exist as God, because He again, could not create, because to create requires a God in time, and this also refutes in part the Kalam, which finds Him prior to creation timeless but in time thereafter.
Existence encompassing all, He cannot transcend it and again, cannot be Himself. And trancendence contradicts omnipresence, thus again, He cannot exist as Himself.
Cause, event and time presuppose previous ones, so Existence does not need Him as Creator.
Cataphatism describes Him such that He is incoherent and contradictory, and again, without having referents, He cannot exist. Apophatism says that He is neither this nor that, and again, He is incoherent and cannot exist!
Omni-God has His problems, and so does limited God.
No matter how one defines Him, He cannot possibly exist, and definition without evidence is vacuous as factual, whilst meaningful semantically. In principle, never will evidence arrive to instantiate Him whilst evidence arrives for scientific matters. The verification principle does then work.
Thus, theologians can flutter from one position to another, but never can they ever fructify theology as a subject with a subject!
Theology is the subject without a subject!
What rational being then would want a relationship with an incoherency?
Yes, that's your God!
I expand on the various arguments here with names for them in articles in this blog.
Monday, January 7, 2013
Sunday, January 6, 2013
Catholicism, Teresa and Suffering
I contemn Mother Dearest Teresa as amongst the most vile of human beings! William Lane Craig as previously is vile in this sense.
She rejoiced by others suffering. She told one of her victims when he told her it felt that something was holding too close that he really hurt, so she prattled that that was God embracing him.
No , that was her not having the caretakers give him good medicine for pain. Instead of putting to medical use the millions her order received, the money was just for that order.
Since she thrived on suffering, and she herself got the best of care, one wonders, was she a kind of sociopath?
Christopher Hitchings is thus right about her! Malcom Muggeridge, British journalist, made her famous as a great lady, but no, she is infamous as a vile person!
We naturalists/humanists prefer to overcome this Catholic bit of absurdity!
God is nowhere= He is nothing!
http://carnedes.blogspot.com
The previous writer is right that God is not beyond the Multiverse as [Hans] Reichenbach's argument from Existence claims that as Existence is all, no transcendental being or material when comes universes can exist. And the author denies Him being immanent- in the Multiverse.
This amounts to double-talk: the priest is just affirming ignosticism/igtheism/ theological non-cognitivism that He has no actual meaning, just a unsubstantiated semantic one.
Here, I disagree with David Ramsay Steele when he maintains that to use the verification standard, we ignostics fail. No, in principle, none could ever define Him with evidence, whilst in principle, scientists can find out about all types of matters. Evidence trumps empty definitions.
Steele* maintains that He is meaningful, just not coherent, where he does agree with us- indeed, he is one of us in that sense. That is why I make the distinction betwixt actual and semantic meanings. What do you think?
The priest is thus using apopathic theology, with its not this nor that about Him, which, in effect, does affirm ignosticism! Yet, the catapathic theology with its positive pictures about Him also fails due to its failure to give evidence for His referents as Creator and so forth, and thus again, affirms ignosticism!
Google ignosticism and Lamberth's the ignostic-Ockham for fuller treatments of ignosticism.
The author also agrees with the Dwight-Lamberth serial, cosmological argument that He is not part of the series the Multiverse, because were He thus, He could not be that Creator! And were He outside that series, again He could not be that Creator, because He wouldn't be able to create.
And he further agrees with the Dwight-Lamberth history/contingency argument, that, because He is supposedly that Necessary Being, again, He couldn't create. And had He some aspect of contingency, He'd be incoherent.The Steele argument from timelessness claims that timeless God could not create.
The [Peter Adam] Angeles argument is that cause ,event and time presuppose previous one as most physicists maintain. No need then for the Henry Drummond God of the gaps scientific argument that as science progress, He has less and less to do.
The Aquinas-Shelley superfluity argument argues that He is not necessary as that Ultimate Explanation: as Percy Bysshe Shelley maintains: " To suppose the some existence beyond, or above them [ the descriptions-laws- of Nature, M.L.] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for." To then maintain that no, that's a metaphysical category mistake would beg the question thereof."
The Flew-Lamberth the presumption of Naturalism claims that natural causes and explanations themselves are efficient, necessary, primary and sufficient: they are that sufficient reason!
Thus, [Morgan-LynnGriggs] Lamberth's god of the explanatory gap claims that we have no need of that explanation as LaPlace maintains as any sort of explanation.
And Keith Parsons, fellow atheologian notes that " Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable manner for unfathomable purposes does not seem to be any kind of good explanation." Yes, t'is only metaphysical double-talk.
Theologians can go from one failed argument to another forever, whilst we naturalists find their arguments old garbage in new cans that we ever dump! After millennia, without any solid foundations, we all can dismiss God and all the supernatural: here evidence of absence is actually absence of evidence, which Victor Stenger, physicist- atheologian claims that where there should be mountains of evidence , none exist, that claim rules.
What do you maintain and claim?
*Steele " Atheism Explained: from Folly to Philosophy"
The previous writer is right that God is not beyond the Multiverse as [Hans] Reichenbach's argument from Existence claims that as Existence is all, no transcendental being or material when comes universes can exist. And the author denies Him being immanent- in the Multiverse.
This amounts to double-talk: the priest is just affirming ignosticism/igtheism/ theological non-cognitivism that He has no actual meaning, just a unsubstantiated semantic one.
Here, I disagree with David Ramsay Steele when he maintains that to use the verification standard, we ignostics fail. No, in principle, none could ever define Him with evidence, whilst in principle, scientists can find out about all types of matters. Evidence trumps empty definitions.
Steele* maintains that He is meaningful, just not coherent, where he does agree with us- indeed, he is one of us in that sense. That is why I make the distinction betwixt actual and semantic meanings. What do you think?
The priest is thus using apopathic theology, with its not this nor that about Him, which, in effect, does affirm ignosticism! Yet, the catapathic theology with its positive pictures about Him also fails due to its failure to give evidence for His referents as Creator and so forth, and thus again, affirms ignosticism!
Google ignosticism and Lamberth's the ignostic-Ockham for fuller treatments of ignosticism.
The author also agrees with the Dwight-Lamberth serial, cosmological argument that He is not part of the series the Multiverse, because were He thus, He could not be that Creator! And were He outside that series, again He could not be that Creator, because He wouldn't be able to create.
And he further agrees with the Dwight-Lamberth history/contingency argument, that, because He is supposedly that Necessary Being, again, He couldn't create. And had He some aspect of contingency, He'd be incoherent.The Steele argument from timelessness claims that timeless God could not create.
The [Peter Adam] Angeles argument is that cause ,event and time presuppose previous one as most physicists maintain. No need then for the Henry Drummond God of the gaps scientific argument that as science progress, He has less and less to do.
The Aquinas-Shelley superfluity argument argues that He is not necessary as that Ultimate Explanation: as Percy Bysshe Shelley maintains: " To suppose the some existence beyond, or above them [ the descriptions-laws- of Nature, M.L.] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for." To then maintain that no, that's a metaphysical category mistake would beg the question thereof."
The Flew-Lamberth the presumption of Naturalism claims that natural causes and explanations themselves are efficient, necessary, primary and sufficient: they are that sufficient reason!
Thus, [Morgan-LynnGriggs] Lamberth's god of the explanatory gap claims that we have no need of that explanation as LaPlace maintains as any sort of explanation.
And Keith Parsons, fellow atheologian notes that " Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable manner for unfathomable purposes does not seem to be any kind of good explanation." Yes, t'is only metaphysical double-talk.
Theologians can go from one failed argument to another forever, whilst we naturalists find their arguments old garbage in new cans that we ever dump! After millennia, without any solid foundations, we all can dismiss God and all the supernatural: here evidence of absence is actually absence of evidence, which Victor Stenger, physicist- atheologian claims that where there should be mountains of evidence , none exist, that claim rules.
What do you maintain and claim?
*Steele " Atheism Explained: from Folly to Philosophy"
Saturday, January 5, 2013
Pascal- hardly.
http://carneades.blogspot.com
Pascal loses his Wager, because horse Reason wins by default of horse Faith's no show! He didn't know that the evidence is totally against His very existence, Carneades' probability applies , and as incoherent He cannot possibly exist.As he has no case for Christianity due to its false doctrines, it fails anyway. His is no better than any other religion.
His comments about atheists show his ignorance.
His argument is just blasphemy against humanity.
Jansenists and Calvinists both blaspheme humanity with their misanthropic predestination. Why, all religions blaspheme reason with their doctrines.
Pascal just wasted his time on religious matters when he could have help set mathematics even further.
Friday, January 4, 2013
Reason answers the argument from reason!
http://carnedes.blogspot.com
Plantinga errs in how he perceives natural selection's acting. It, through adaptation, makes living things acting fairly well, not perfectly acting. Thus, we could not assume that it would make our faculties find the truth as he notes, but instead helps them do so. We need instruments to help our faculties and experiments and inter-subjectivity to find truths. So, no need to postulate divine telos- intent- ,teleology- for our ultimately finding them.
Sure, we can proceed to live on falsehoods but some of them would damage us.
I take it that he'd answer that why, demons perhaps cause us to err just as he answers that they might cause natural evils. He bespeaks animism. His is theism as Lamberth's reduced animism is claims indeed such and just as full animism or polytheism with their many, theism with its one is superstition as no supernatural intent of any kind exists!
So Plantinga misuses gargantually his mind for the cause of woo!
Plantinga errs in how he perceives natural selection's acting. It, through adaptation, makes living things acting fairly well, not perfectly acting. Thus, we could not assume that it would make our faculties find the truth as he notes, but instead helps them do so. We need instruments to help our faculties and experiments and inter-subjectivity to find truths. So, no need to postulate divine telos- intent- ,teleology- for our ultimately finding them.
Sure, we can proceed to live on falsehoods but some of them would damage us.
I take it that he'd answer that why, demons perhaps cause us to err just as he answers that they might cause natural evils. He bespeaks animism. His is theism as Lamberth's reduced animism is claims indeed such and just as full animism or polytheism with their many, theism with its one is superstition as no supernatural intent of any kind exists!
So Plantinga misuses gargantually his mind for the cause of woo!
The Incarnation & the Trinity
The Incarnation and the Trinity are part of the mysteries surrounding that Ultimate Mystery that theists claim explains ultimately everything. But as fellow atheologian Keith Parsons explains: " Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable manner for unfathomable purposes does not seem to be any sort of a good answer." God did it means nothing unless theists can give evidence in a general manner for how He does it instead of giving a false assumption. How does He cause natural causes to act.? By the magic of let it be?
Lamberth's the Malebranche Reductio maintains that Nicholas Malebranche unwittingly reduces to the absurd God as the ultimate answer as his occasionalism states that when we act, ti's God who does the real action!
This notion of condescension is absurd: the Incarnation is absurd, because should Yeshua be wholly human, yet not do wrong, he wouldn't wholly human, because we all are born with determinants and acquire determinants that cause us to do wrong. Most people do right most of the time,but none can do good all the time.
The Trinity is absurd, so Aquinas stands right that it does take faith to accept it. It does no good to use the modal perspective that as water can be a liquid, a gas and a solid so can God be three persons [ Some Christians find modalism wrong.]. Water does not manifest itself in all three forms at the same time.
No, ti's theists who enslave themselves to faith that err!
We have no sensus divinatus- innate knowledge - that God exists and we should follow His commands. We do not deny Him by blinding ourselves to Him, but instead find no evidence or reason to accept His existence, and to postulate Him for our moral sense begs the question. We cannot follow His forked tongue- the thousands of sects who contradict each other on what He commands.
Paul and the author blaspheme us thereby!
Theists cannot rebut this whatsoever!
Why we don't need Yeshua!
Kant stands right in that we do have a moral sense: it is evolved and exists in rudimentary form in other primates. We each refine it.
We most certainly do not require revelation to do the moral. The morality of all revealed religions is a sorry, simple subjective one that misanthropes just made up.
No progressive theistic morality happens; we ourselves have over the eons refined it for the better.
God speaks with a forked tongue with His many revealed religions and many sects of them.
We rationalists are not enslaved to naturalism, because reason demands it as it requires evidence instead of intuition and revelation. Reason finds no evidence and no theory for the supernatural. To follow any religion violates rationality!
We most certainly do not require revelation to do the moral. The morality of all revealed religions is a sorry, simple subjective one that misanthropes just made up.
No progressive theistic morality happens; we ourselves have over the eons refined it for the better.
God speaks with a forked tongue with His many revealed religions and many sects of them.
We rationalists are not enslaved to naturalism, because reason demands it as it requires evidence instead of intuition and revelation. Reason finds no evidence and no theory for the supernatural. To follow any religion violates rationality!
Citing Scripture
Citing Scriptures, as the previous article notes, would not help us naturalists to accept God. We recognize them as contradictory to themselves and to reality. Their false history, regnant immoral codes and the Christian idea of salvation repulses us.
And why follow those of Smith's Fraud which not only include those of Christianity but those of that scam artist? Why follow his when he just made up everything? Amerindians are not of the Lost Tribes.
I exhort rational people to eschew all scriptures and all other woo. The supernatural reeks of superstition and is the twin of the paranormal, both of which remain what the recently late Dr. Paul Kurtz calls " The Transcendental Temptation," a must read book.
We rationalists exhume both the supernatural and the paranormal as coming short of the glory of humanity.
http://forgedbible.blogpost.comWhat rational person would accept the uncorroborated rants of uncorroborated writers who revel in miracles without foundation, contradict science otherwise? Why would she want to observe those irrational commands of the Tanakh that orthodox Jews follow, except for the stoning commands? Why would she think herself worthy of Hell of any sort when that Zoroastrian barbarism common to both Christ=insanity and Muhammad's Fits fits barbarism that is worse than anthropogenic evils in being eternal for most of those faiths.
Why would any rational person follow the Tanakh whose Yahweh is such a monster, who commands genocide and hardens hearts to keep people from repenting? Why would any rational person follow that irrational cult leader who came to bring a sword, break up families and wanted his sheep to hate other or else translated as loving him more than loving others and warned then of persecution as would any other cult leader? Why would any rational person follow the Scriptures of a hallucinatory man who was a child molester and reveled in war?
Why would any rational person follow the Scriptures of the Hindu Illusion or the Buddha Wrong Path that push reincarnation? Why would he follow those of the Jains when they advocate letting parasites that harm live? Why would he follow those of the Zoroaster Remnant [ Parsees] when they also have Hell? Why follow those of the Dao No Way?And why follow those of Smith's Fraud which not only include those of Christianity but those of that scam artist? Why follow his when he just made up everything? Amerindians are not of the Lost Tribes.
I exhort rational people to eschew all scriptures and all other woo. The supernatural reeks of superstition and is the twin of the paranormal, both of which remain what the recently late Dr. Paul Kurtz calls " The Transcendental Temptation," a must read book.
We rationalists exhume both the supernatural and the paranormal as coming short of the glory of humanity.
Thursday, January 3, 2013
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Hell- barbarism!
The previous Wikipedia article contains the objections to Hell.
I add that putative God would have no right over us in the first place due to our independence, and thus no right to judge or condemn us to Hell or even to annihilation!
Morality binds even Gods!
Morality finds that the notion of Hell ranks amongst the worst of barbarisms. Misanthropists just made it up.
Predestination makes matters worse. John Calvin was a notorious misanthrope, not only about the putative future state but about his contemporary state- his evil acts.
None can justify His judgment nor Hell!
And it would be just an argument from ignorance to maintain that as He is omniscient, He'd have the right to judge. We know enough to find that we know that too much evil already exists, so to hold that view, it inversely would be true that He actually knows less than we!
This gnu atheist finds theology and apologetics just rubbish. They defend the indefensible!
I add that putative God would have no right over us in the first place due to our independence, and thus no right to judge or condemn us to Hell or even to annihilation!
Morality binds even Gods!
Morality finds that the notion of Hell ranks amongst the worst of barbarisms. Misanthropists just made it up.
Predestination makes matters worse. John Calvin was a notorious misanthrope, not only about the putative future state but about his contemporary state- his evil acts.
None can justify His judgment nor Hell!
And it would be just an argument from ignorance to maintain that as He is omniscient, He'd have the right to judge. We know enough to find that we know that too much evil already exists, so to hold that view, it inversely would be true that He actually knows less than we!
This gnu atheist finds theology and apologetics just rubbish. They defend the indefensible!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)