Despite the out of context quote of Augustine about his outlook on Genesis, he was indeed a literalist! Non-fundamentalists then vainly quote him.
As one who hated dissent from Christ=insanity, he favored burning dissenters at the stake. How could he ever favor science?
Besides, as Dawkins and Stenger advocate, mechanism rules, and thus, teleology contradicts science-Lamberth's mechanism argument- and thus, cannot complement it, and thus theistic evolution is no more than an oxy-moronic obfuscation!
Both scientists urge others to learn real science. Science eviscerates theism= reduced animism, and thus, reduced animism is as superstitious as full animism and polytheism!
How could he ever have accepted evolution which denies in effect original sin? Despite Michael Ruse, theology and science cannot mix from the side of science.
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Friday, February 22, 2013
Thursday, February 21, 2013
Monday, February 18, 2013
Wednesday, February 6, 2013
Our moral sense
I think that overall our moral sense provides more for altruism and empathy than for those bad activities.. Everyday most people help each other, whilst few engage in those bad activities.
I agree with Paul Kurtz in " Forbidden Fruit' and Quentin Smith in his book on ethics and religion that the common decencies are universal.
To concentrate on those bad activities is what the immoral ethicists do. We are not evil by nature as Ellis Albert in " The Myth of Self -Esteem," notes but rather more good than bad.
As Sam Harris in " The Moral Landscape" and Alonzo note, science can inform us about how to proceed with our choices
Theists beg the question that God gave us the moral sense. over the millennia, humanity has refined the sense with better ethics, and putative God did not give an evolving ethic!
Why, as S.T. Joshi in " God's Defenders" notes, even the religious don't favor all their God's commands!
My covenant morality for humanity -the presumption of morality is similar to Richard Carrier's in his " Sense and Goodness without God: a Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism."
I agree with Paul Kurtz in " Forbidden Fruit' and Quentin Smith in his book on ethics and religion that the common decencies are universal.
To concentrate on those bad activities is what the immoral ethicists do. We are not evil by nature as Ellis Albert in " The Myth of Self -Esteem," notes but rather more good than bad.
As Sam Harris in " The Moral Landscape" and Alonzo note, science can inform us about how to proceed with our choices
Theists beg the question that God gave us the moral sense. over the millennia, humanity has refined the sense with better ethics, and putative God did not give an evolving ethic!
Why, as S.T. Joshi in " God's Defenders" notes, even the religious don't favor all their God's commands!
My covenant morality for humanity -the presumption of morality is similar to Richard Carrier's in his " Sense and Goodness without God: a Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism."
Friday, February 1, 2013
That big soul-man!
God is that big soul-man, and like souls, science finds no evidence for His soul: it finds that all minds depend on brains, so that notion of disembodied mind of God instantiates the argument from physical mind and [Matt] McCormick's why God cannot think or act.
Theologians then are using the argument from ignorance for their belief that He's have a disembodied one; they and most atheists know that to claim an embodied one would affirm what only a very few atheists think that, as the Soviet cosmonauts claimed, that they didn't find Him- no physical body- no God!
McCormick's argument carries the notion that His omniconsciousness and omnipresence preclude His thinking and His doings and why, He'd not have any kind of mind at all! To be able to think and act, beings must be aware of themselves as distinct from the rest of the world.This if omnipresent, He would not be distinct to do either.
He states:" [A]being must be limited in time and place in order to be conscious of objects and itself, being aware of their representations as representations, and form judgments about them.
.... The impossibility of omniconsciousness also has some serious implications for omniscience."
How then could one have a relationship with a being not able to respond?
This and the one from physical mind affirm perforce ignosticism/igtheism, theological non-cognitivism!
Theologians then are using the argument from ignorance for their belief that He's have a disembodied one; they and most atheists know that to claim an embodied one would affirm what only a very few atheists think that, as the Soviet cosmonauts claimed, that they didn't find Him- no physical body- no God!
McCormick's argument carries the notion that His omniconsciousness and omnipresence preclude His thinking and His doings and why, He'd not have any kind of mind at all! To be able to think and act, beings must be aware of themselves as distinct from the rest of the world.This if omnipresent, He would not be distinct to do either.
He states:" [A]being must be limited in time and place in order to be conscious of objects and itself, being aware of their representations as representations, and form judgments about them.
.... The impossibility of omniconsciousness also has some serious implications for omniscience."
How then could one have a relationship with a being not able to respond?
This and the one from physical mind affirm perforce ignosticism/igtheism, theological non-cognitivism!
Thursday, January 31, 2013
Evolution
And please read Clinton Richard Dawkins' " The Greatest Show on Earth," Jerry Coyne's " Why Evolution Is True," Neil Shubin's " Your Inner Fish and Donald Prothero's " What the Fossils Say and Why They Are Important" and Ernst Mayr's "What Evolution I " to understand evolution even better!
Talk Origins is a superb site!
Talk Origins is a superb site!
Friday, January 18, 2013
Saturday, December 29, 2012
Monday, December 24, 2012
No to theistic evolution- that oxymoronic obscurantism!
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
Why this Existence than another?
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?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)