One comment on “Rosa Rubicondior: Refuting the Arguments For God

  • Yes, should I never experience snow, then I wouldn’t really know it. And to know someone, one should be near her. Together, this does not mean that we should self-brainwash to know God! Following Blaise Pascal and Soren Kierkegaard does not lead to that more abundant life, but to those feelings of feeling at home in the Cosmos which one can have otherwise by engaging in learning things and doing things.
    All religious experience is just people’s own mental processes at work! To aver divine input begs the question, and despite Harrison in ” God, Freedom and Immortality,” we naturalists do not therefore, beg the question about Mary’s not being involved in miracle mongering!
    Those who cry out for that the anthropic principle means that matters had to be adjusted to use rather than we to them as evolutionary theory notes, beg the question of divine wanted outcomes per the atelic argument. Per the teleonomic argument, only teleonomy-causalism-mechanism rules so that to postulate Him behind events not only violates the Ockham with the convoluted, ad hoc assumptions for Him, but truly contradict rather than complement science! Supernaturalists aver that why, evolution is His method of creating life, but that makes for the new Omphalos argument that rather than like the old one where He deceives us with making things look very ancient,here He deceives us by letting us think that only teleonomy as science reveals rules!
    No, teleonomy rules- no wanted results and therefore, no conditions existed had we disappeared for any similar big brain animal to appear, Kenneth Miller notwithstanding as Jerry Coyne notes in ” Seeing and Believing” and Amiel Rossow in his essay on the yin and yang of Miller @ Talk Reason.
    No, evolution cannot be His method of creation! This new Omphalos argument is in line with John Hick’s epistemic distance argument where he alleges that God does not want to overwhelm us with His presence so He makes matters ambiguous regarding Himself. No, that obscures that no such matter appears when teleonomy is the only way to see matters: to find that ambiguity depends on the argument from ignorance whilst we naturalists have science in our favor of only interpreting matters teleonomically.
    Hick argues that, like Timothy Keller, that we have clues to His existence, but we each can interpret them either for or against Him. No, again, because teleonomy rules without any divine teleology behind it!
    To add that teleology obfuscates matters, making for a useless redundancy, Alister Earl McGrath notwithstanding. All teleological arguments beg the argument for that intent for wanted outcomes.
    What is the probability of life arising? No matter the numbers, when the conditions are right, life will arise. What was the probability of those two meteors creating those craters, the flowering plants arising and the warmer climate and – those random genes arising that culminated in us and – our fellow great apes?
    Again, no fine -tuning but randomness in accordance with necessity brought us about as we adapted to the environment rather than as this argument requires it adapting to us in foresight!
    People see intent and design when only teleonomy and patterns exist just as people see the pareidolia of Yeshua in a tortilla as the argument from pareidolia so notes. Scientists are investigating how and why people see patterns and those patterns as the pareidolia of design.
    Per David Hume’s dysteological argument [ argument from imperfections], we see evidence of faulty design that we could ascribe to a committee of gods, an infant God , as a matter of vegetarian growth and so forth. Now, that inveterate sophist Alvin Plantinga avers that omni- God can make flourishes- the imperfections whilst limited God must use economical means- perfections. That is such backwards thinking, but for him that’s his specialty!
    Plantinga makes the argument from reason- the self-refutation of naturalism that had He not made our faculties truth-gatherers, we’d have no reason to trust them! Again, he is begging the question of that wanted outcome for truth-gathering. Evolution itself explains how our faculties adapt themselves to the environment such that those whose faculties fail them have unwanted consequences!
    Could Darwin have trusted a monkey’s mind. Of course, one that was successful in avoiding being prey and going to the right branches. By trial and error, not by some preordained manner, do we learn to trust our faculties with instruments to aid them with what they lack as adaptation does not guarantee perfection to know the truth with certitude!
    Does Satan make for our errors as He apparently suggests in the argument from free will.
    And evolution does not let that putative God exempt from being morally obligated to have done better by us!
    Therefore, the fine-tuning anthropic argument, the probability one, the arguments from design and from reason all fail as clues to His very existence!
    Furthermore ,Plantinga exults in having eviscerated the logical problem from evil, but the problem of Heaven reveals his sophistry here! He finds that those imperfections that make for evil are the result of our free will, and that He has His mysterious ways- the unknown defense argument- for permitting unrequited evils, which is just another argument from ignorance for Him! He allows that peradventure Satan is behind natural evils but that ,too, is an argument from ignorance!
    ” Logic is the bane of theists.” Fr. Griggs

  • Leave a Reply

    Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

    You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

    Google+ photo

    You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

    Twitter picture

    You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

    Facebook photo

    You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

    Connecting to %s

    %d bloggers like this: