Sunday, January 6, 2013
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!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)