Saturday, December 29, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
As Lamberth's teleonomic argument notes, since science finds no divine intent, then He has no referents as Creator, Grand Designer, Grand Miracle Monger and so forth and thus cannot exist, besides He has contradictory, incoherent attributes and thus cannot exist. Thus, theistic evolution means just an oxymoronic obscurantism!
Theists feel that evolution is His way of creation, but never do they purport how He can use evolution- just a baseless supposition! They must give evidence as to how He operates in the Cosmos instead of just supposing He does.
For them to claim that however, He hides Himself ambiguously as the late John Hick claims in order not to overwhelm our free wills to accept Him betrays evolution. What malarkey! That is just one of his rationalizations to obscure the truth: no intent appears, because none exists. He is just using the argument from ignorance! Before, that he implicitly uses the argument from personal incredulity that how could things be as they are naturally, in effect?
By using that intent, theists contradict instead of complementing science! Their notion cannot rest on being a metaphysical category instead of being a scientific one. That wold beg the question of that category! Metaphysics rests on science,so it must not contradict it. As Lamberth's new Omphalos argument complains, theistic evolutionists are in, effect, claiming that He deceives us with that ambiguity just as Gosse's old one claims that He deceives with apparent ancient ages for objects!
How does He operate? By the magic of let it be? Does He tweak mutations? Does He cause random events like the demise of the dinosaurs?
Please Tweet this! This article is key to the destruction of theism- reduced animism!
Wednesday, December 19, 2012
Saturday, November 24, 2012
Wednesday, November 21, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
We exist as the previous article notes due to our evolutionary history. Science finds no divine intent for us to have evolved. So,no, Deity had nothing to do with that.
Many theists do grant that natural causes are responsible for us, so they adhere to no God of the gaps, but all theists adhere to the God of the explanatory gap as though natural causes have to have a metaphysical boss. But as no divine intent appears, then ti's a category mistake and a begged question to nevertheless claim that He is that sufficient reason when no such obfuscation can trump science.
William Lane Craig and Richard Swinburne claim that Existence- the Cosmos- requires a personal explanation, as otherwise why would there exist this one instead of another? Carneades' atelic argument notes that that begs the question of directed outcomes.
The Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism claims that all natural causes and explanations themselves are the sufficient reason, and thus Deity would lack explanatory value.
The Lamberth the ignostic-Ockham notes that either He is so incoherent that He means no more than a square circle or is needlessly redundant, despite Alister Earl McGrath
Percy Bysshe Shelley implicitly endorses Aquinas' superfluity argument by stating:" To suppose that some existence beyond or above them [ the descriptions-laws- of Nature ] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for." And ti' s a begged question then to suggest that no, that's a category mistake.
This superfluity has caused people to murder. No need exists for the superfluity as any kind of gap!
It's up to the Stengers,not theologians to explore the why of Existence.
How could nothing possible exist anyway?
Monday, November 12, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Friday, November 2, 2012
Thursday, November 1, 2012
Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Dawkins claims scientists, not theologians will inform us about the formation of the universe. The supernatural adds nothing as Aqunas' superfluity , the Ockham and the presumption of naturalism note.Percy Bysshe Shelley implicitly use the superfluity argument in noting that " To suppose that 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 insist that why, that's a category mistake begs the question thereof.
Dawkins explains in his books how natural causes without boss God makes for transformations of living things. No divine intent necessary to explain how natural causes operate.
Stenger notes how the laws of Nature need no boss to operate, and I add, He's depend on them as the primary cause, not Himself! The laws describe how matters work without involving any divine intent.