That author overlooks the fact that the Big Transformation- the Bang- was just that: no real origination happened! Therefore, science provides no support for divine intent, no more than Continuous Creation did! Hoyle held to the latter wrongly as the only support for atheism!
God requires convoluted,ad hoc assumptions- His attributes and referents that just make for incoherence and contradictions for the former and empty referents that make Him no more than a square circle or married bachelor that Lamberth's
the ignostic-Ockham finds quite absurd.
Then he proceeds with the unsubstantiated arguments from happiness-purpose and Augustine's from angst. He merely overlooks that his inspirtation from Deity was actually his own inner resources at work! He and others should realize that they themselves have those inner resources, but should they need inspiration, then they can find that elsewhere as from friends and family. Others would credit other beliefs for their doing better.
He has not at all overcome the objections to his Scriptures! I suspect he'd have far-fetched rationalizations for the contradictions within and without.
He focuses on love but overlooks that Yahweh ever commits crimes against humanity! The Deluge and Hell alone contradict his notion of love.
No rational and moral being would ever have another expiate for wrong-doers,and what his Scriptures call wrong are many times moral- homosexuality, for one. And that blood sacrifice blesses evil. We should expiate for ourselves when possible.
No Original Sin and no requirement for that blood sacrifice exists! Michael Ruse, naturalist wrongly maintains that why, science supports the biblical metaphors. No, humans have not devolved from that bite of that fruit. The overall metaphor reeks of barbarism!
No need exists for such accommodationist tactics
He proffers misinterpretations of evidence for evidence as theists are wont to do! He misinterprests science for divine creation, his and others' inspiration for divine inspiration, love instead of hatred for humaity and that barbaric blood sacrifice for real expiation and love.
Hume would find him so credulous!
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Tuesday, November 27, 2012
Sunday, November 25, 2012
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Monday, November 19, 2012
Sunday, November 18, 2012
Saturday, November 17, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Miracles-never! Pt.I
Hume makes no a priori case or argues in a circle against miracles but instead portrays how people fool themselves into believing in them.
People want to believe. People discount any facts against their beliefs.
Was there any follow-up of the alleged healing? Did the person actually have that purported malady? Did trickery ensue?
Healers can find people with enough sight to see their fingers so that they claim to heal the m but put forth their fingers right in front of the blind who see what they already could see, and thus no miracle happened!
Some people think that healers have healed them but die shortly thereafter.
Did the person have that particular malady? Was she misdiagnosed or misunderstood the doctor?
The Vatican contemns itself with its fraudulent claims of miracles ,based on the uncredible reports of its faith-based experts! Skeptics ever find no such miracleS. Mother Dearest Teresa does no miracles but the credulous Vatican prattles otherwise. And she was in reality a vile person as Christopher Hitchens proclaims!
What is the reason for Marian apparitions that the Vatican at times so relishes? None mean anything! Imaginative children made up the Fatima and the Medjugorje apparitions.
Why would the Deity make such when He did nothing for the victims of the Holocaust? What a perverted contrast!
Why the need for the bleeding statues? Again, we skeptics find natural causes.
The Vatican accedes to evolution but still pushes for ensoulment? When did that miracle happened in our evolution/ In the homo habilis?
That is obscurantism for which it ever loves.
Never do lovers of miracles give evidence for even just one miracle! They ever give misinterpretations as is their wont in presenting evidence anyway!
People want to believe. People discount any facts against their beliefs.
Was there any follow-up of the alleged healing? Did the person actually have that purported malady? Did trickery ensue?
Healers can find people with enough sight to see their fingers so that they claim to heal the m but put forth their fingers right in front of the blind who see what they already could see, and thus no miracle happened!
Some people think that healers have healed them but die shortly thereafter.
Did the person have that particular malady? Was she misdiagnosed or misunderstood the doctor?
The Vatican contemns itself with its fraudulent claims of miracles ,based on the uncredible reports of its faith-based experts! Skeptics ever find no such miracleS. Mother Dearest Teresa does no miracles but the credulous Vatican prattles otherwise. And she was in reality a vile person as Christopher Hitchens proclaims!
What is the reason for Marian apparitions that the Vatican at times so relishes? None mean anything! Imaginative children made up the Fatima and the Medjugorje apparitions.
Why would the Deity make such when He did nothing for the victims of the Holocaust? What a perverted contrast!
Why the need for the bleeding statues? Again, we skeptics find natural causes.
The Vatican accedes to evolution but still pushes for ensoulment? When did that miracle happened in our evolution/ In the homo habilis?
That is obscurantism for which it ever loves.
Never do lovers of miracles give evidence for even just one miracle! They ever give misinterpretations as is their wont in presenting evidence anyway!
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Sunday, November 4, 2012
Saturday, November 3, 2012
Martin Gardner on Deity
Martin Gardner assails the woo of the paranormal,yet falls for that of religion in being a fideistic deist.
He assails the etiological [Primary Cause] argument, for finding a regress of causes absurd, but that isn't Aquinas' position, he relies on Scriptures for finding no eternal Universe. Where he actually fails comes forth with his statement that taking away the primary cause, takes away all causes as that begs the question of that cause.
He rightly implicitly contemns the Kalam version:the fallacy of composition as Lord Russell applies in that we do find causes for matters in the Cosmos but cannot find any for the Cosmos.The eternal quantum fields evince that.
He notes, in connection with the previous argument, that people experience anxiety in contemplating that regression. William Lane Craig exploits that anxiety with his red herrings about infinity.
He finds teleological arguments false. He finds,in effect, that people impute to patterns a pattern-maker, but evolution exhumes why we don't need to use Deity to explain the how of pattern-making. I add that Carneades atelic argument disposes of that sophism- the argument to design- by finding it a begged question as all teleological ones are.Then, he notes implicitly that the probability argument fails in that it assumes equiprobability of outcomes when necessity rules randomness: the random has no directed outcome as to the need for some occurrence but natural selection uses it ; he notes that organic molecules come together by " unblind chance" that I add as when H2O occurs.
Then he alludes to the fine-tuning form. Why, with the many universes forming in all eternity, then some would contain life. And the Gardner statistician argument portrays a statistician who after people have or have not killed themselves by Russian roulette,makes" a retrograde analysis,and concludes there is a high probability that the randomly selected guns being drawn by the survivors of the game."*
That applies also to Aquinas' teleological argument that relies on the archer with the purpose of sending an arrow to a particular spot, only he puts the bull's- eye around the arrow after it lands! Again, Carneades refutes nonsense. And he notes Voltaire's saying that eyes came about for wearing glasses!
He dismisses the common consent argument that billions of people believe in the supernatural.
Then he returns to the teleological arguments,noting that atheists can just as well find evidence of what C.S. Lewis calls the argument from undesign," what we naturalists should call Hume's dysteleological argument- from imperfections.
And I add , that theists fail in answering with their defenses and theodicies as this skewers God as an answer for pattern -making, and thus they have no defense in the first place for those defenses and theodicies!However, as fun, a some philosopher says, and I add,
as mental exercise, we naturalists will eviscerate those sophistries.
As an aside, Alvin Planting makes the gargantuan sophism that why, omni-God can cause flourishes - those imperfections whilst limited God must aim for perfection. And then to further assault reason, he finds that the arguments from the greater good and the unknown reason defense- arguments from ignorance!
Gardner explains at length what ails the ontological argument, but in essence, I note that defining Him as that utmost perfection defines cannot instantiate HIm, because it relies on no evidence.
Yet, he fails himself with his faith!
See the new article about his fideism in Skeptic Griggsy.
* Martin Gardner " The Night is Large: Collected Essays 1938 1995 "
He assails the etiological [Primary Cause] argument, for finding a regress of causes absurd, but that isn't Aquinas' position, he relies on Scriptures for finding no eternal Universe. Where he actually fails comes forth with his statement that taking away the primary cause, takes away all causes as that begs the question of that cause.
He rightly implicitly contemns the Kalam version:the fallacy of composition as Lord Russell applies in that we do find causes for matters in the Cosmos but cannot find any for the Cosmos.The eternal quantum fields evince that.
He notes, in connection with the previous argument, that people experience anxiety in contemplating that regression. William Lane Craig exploits that anxiety with his red herrings about infinity.
He finds teleological arguments false. He finds,in effect, that people impute to patterns a pattern-maker, but evolution exhumes why we don't need to use Deity to explain the how of pattern-making. I add that Carneades atelic argument disposes of that sophism- the argument to design- by finding it a begged question as all teleological ones are.Then, he notes implicitly that the probability argument fails in that it assumes equiprobability of outcomes when necessity rules randomness: the random has no directed outcome as to the need for some occurrence but natural selection uses it ; he notes that organic molecules come together by " unblind chance" that I add as when H2O occurs.
Then he alludes to the fine-tuning form. Why, with the many universes forming in all eternity, then some would contain life. And the Gardner statistician argument portrays a statistician who after people have or have not killed themselves by Russian roulette,makes" a retrograde analysis,and concludes there is a high probability that the randomly selected guns being drawn by the survivors of the game."*
That applies also to Aquinas' teleological argument that relies on the archer with the purpose of sending an arrow to a particular spot, only he puts the bull's- eye around the arrow after it lands! Again, Carneades refutes nonsense. And he notes Voltaire's saying that eyes came about for wearing glasses!
He dismisses the common consent argument that billions of people believe in the supernatural.
Then he returns to the teleological arguments,noting that atheists can just as well find evidence of what C.S. Lewis calls the argument from undesign," what we naturalists should call Hume's dysteleological argument- from imperfections.
And I add , that theists fail in answering with their defenses and theodicies as this skewers God as an answer for pattern -making, and thus they have no defense in the first place for those defenses and theodicies!However, as fun, a some philosopher says, and I add,
as mental exercise, we naturalists will eviscerate those sophistries.
As an aside, Alvin Planting makes the gargantuan sophism that why, omni-God can cause flourishes - those imperfections whilst limited God must aim for perfection. And then to further assault reason, he finds that the arguments from the greater good and the unknown reason defense- arguments from ignorance!
Gardner explains at length what ails the ontological argument, but in essence, I note that defining Him as that utmost perfection defines cannot instantiate HIm, because it relies on no evidence.
Yet, he fails himself with his faith!
See the new article about his fideism in Skeptic Griggsy.
* Martin Gardner " The Night is Large: Collected Essays 1938 1995 "
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)