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"
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)