Tuesday, February 26, 2013
Monday, February 25, 2013
Sunday, February 24, 2013
Saturday, February 23, 2013
Friday, February 22, 2013
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Rosa Rubicondior: Favourite Fallacies - The Kalâm Cosmological Argument.
Rosa Rubicondior: Favourite Fallacies - The Kalâm Cosmological Argument.
See my previous discussion concerning Rosa.
See my previous discussion concerning Rosa.
The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Part 1 (William Lane Craig) | That Religious Studies Website
The Kalam Cosmological Argument: Part 1 (William Lane Craig) | That Religious Studies Website
What is your take on that argument? I've provided and will provide more evidence why it fails.
Do you agree with Rosa Rubicondior?
WLC fails to provide real evidence but instead misinterpretation and misrepresentation of scientific evidence. He fails to overcome the differences betwixt finite and finite mathematics about the supposed contradictions, which are only red herrings. He emits farragoes of sophisticated, solecistic sophistry.
Read any matter that affirms his arguments and come back here to give your take.
What is your take on that argument? I've provided and will provide more evidence why it fails.
Do you agree with Rosa Rubicondior?
WLC fails to provide real evidence but instead misinterpretation and misrepresentation of scientific evidence. He fails to overcome the differences betwixt finite and finite mathematics about the supposed contradictions, which are only red herrings. He emits farragoes of sophisticated, solecistic sophistry.
Read any matter that affirms his arguments and come back here to give your take.
Monday, February 18, 2013
Sunday, February 17, 2013
Friday, February 15, 2013
Thursday, February 14, 2013
I'm convinced that...
I'm convinced that my life has objective meaning in my subjective choices in that I see objectively how my choices turn out. I garden and flowers emerge. I find them beautiful. Others do too. Ti's irrelevant that they don't last forever. I have found purpose in their blooming, so why should I whine that they don't last forever/
WLC and the Convince Me can whine that why, should naturalism be true, then their lives have no ultimate meaning as though that meaning could further validate their own lives.
As Inquiring Lynn, I state:" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning that neither God nor the future state can further validate."
Ti's our own ultimate meaning for our lives for us to give, not God. We are not His "things" to which He could give meaning and purpose. What repugnance to humanity!
For theists ultimate means beyond the grave, but for us naturalists, ti's what we ourselves want our own lives to mean.
Ti's no concern of mine about the future disappearance of the Universe for me to have meaning. That has no ultimate meaning for my life!
That " ultimate meaning" is just theists whining that they must die. Lo: what has that to do with eudemonia- human flourishing?
Aristotle is right that eudemonia - human flourishing-counts as meaningful. Epicurus finds that eudemonia involves pleasure. Unlike Aristippus' form of hedonism, this pleasure does not mean eat, drink and be merry without concern for the long range eudemonia. Epicurus and John Stuart Mill include the pursuit of knowledge as part of pleasure. I find that no tension exists betwixt the various pleasures -no higher and lower ones.
I find it meaningful to eat sweet potatoes and to read philosophy of religion. Why call the former the lower and the latter the higher? Why should I make that distinction? I find my life meaningful whatever I do for whatever amount of time. Different pleasures during the day makes a life more eudemonic.
I flourish by how I conduct myself . I require no God to give me a sense of eudemonia.
To find meaning and purpose for your life, study Albert Ellis' " The Myth of Self-Esteem, where He takes on whining as " mustabatory"- that sense that one just must have something or else poor ole me, and Robert Price's " The Reason- Driven Life," where he expatiate how reason can aid us in finding that eudemonia - each of us how to flourish.
These two men offer that more abundant life with meaning that theists just cannot fathom without their Being Itself, Sky Pappy! We need no celestial dictator to give our lives meaning and purpose!
Do you find your life meaningful and purposeful and why?
Saturday, February 9, 2013
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Monday, February 4, 2013
Friday, February 1, 2013
WLC- bad at math bigtime!
WLC uses the hotel and library argument as red herrings in his conflating the properties of finite items ad infinite ones. Infinity offers no contradictions. His intuition counts for his use of the fallacy of personal incredulity for disbelieving that infinity happens. Everyday arrives on time as Kyle Williams notes. WLC begs the question therewith his this day never would have happened twaddle! That adding of numbers upwards instantiate the potential infinity, thus instantiating the actual one! He flummoxes that one!.
He has friendly audiences who cannot know his methodology of erring! And, most don't want an actual debate, but some expert who agrees with them!
His Resurrection and moral arguments as the previous writer notes fare no better! People overrate him! Faith doth that to people!
Tuesday, January 29, 2013
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Friday, January 25, 2013
Monday, January 21, 2013
Friday, January 18, 2013
Wednesday, January 9, 2013
Friday, January 4, 2013
Wednesday, January 2, 2013
Yes to Carneades and Hume; no to Meyer
Carneades' atelic argument that all teleological arguments fail, notes that Meyer begs the question in assuming directed outcomes.
The author of those two articles there also refutes the cosmological and ontological arguments.He thereby updates Hume.
Science itself defeats theism as Lamberth's teleonomic argument argues that as science finds no supernatural intent behind natural phenomena, to postulate divine intent then contradicts rather than complements science. Thus, theism is no more than reduced animism per Lamberth's reduced animism argument , and thus as superstitious as full animism with its many spirits or polytheism with its many gods.
The supposed intelligence thus affirms animism.
Theistic evolution is just an oxymoronic obfuscation.
The author of those two articles there also refutes the cosmological and ontological arguments.He thereby updates Hume.
Science itself defeats theism as Lamberth's teleonomic argument argues that as science finds no supernatural intent behind natural phenomena, to postulate divine intent then contradicts rather than complements science. Thus, theism is no more than reduced animism per Lamberth's reduced animism argument , and thus as superstitious as full animism with its many spirits or polytheism with its many gods.
The supposed intelligence thus affirms animism.
Theistic evolution is just an oxymoronic obfuscation.
Skeptics and healing-miracles,pt.2
When skeptics investigate those Vatican- approved cures, they find no miracles. Thus, the Vatican's experts use their faith-based minds to declare miracles! With increasing medical knowledge, there should emerge fewer alleged miracles.
Believers in the woo of miracles never produce evidence, perhaps misinterpretations of evidence. To defeat Hume's corollary on miracles to the presumption of naturalism, theists must give real evidence, not faith-based confirmation.
Follow-ups should occur to see how long the alleged cure lasts.
As rituals, faith-healing and exorcisms are constitutional but as medical claims, the law should ban them due to their harm.
Why would God provide miracles such as weeping statues when people are dying from evils? Why would He help a person find keys and yet lets millions die in wars?
Actually, miracles rank with claims of the paranormal: scientists have pressing matters to entertain ,not research on woo.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)