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"