John Hick claims that God has to hide Himself -epistemic distance- so that He won’t override our free wills, and He does that by making matters ambiguous in relation to His very existence. Tobe sure, he is an errantist- the Bible does contain errors. Now, that egregious anthology posits that He portrayed Himself to several people. For inerrantists-fundamentalists, He did indeed show His backside! For Hick, that is metaphorical. OK. Yet, the verses themselves metaphorically do show that He interferes in the Cosmos.leaving traces such that nay, He reveals Himself already without infringing on those free wills.
Yet, no ambiguity exists but rather supernaturalists using the pareidolia of intent and design when only teleonomy and patterns exist per Lamberth’s argument from pareidolia.
Per his teleonomic argument, the evidence purports only teleonomy- mechanism- no wanted outcomes so that to add Him in the form of director of directed evolution, not only violates the Ockham with His convoluted, ad hoc assumptions but also contradicts rather than complements science!
No directed evolution exists!No ambiguity exists to suggest that He just might have a starring role!
Hick uses epistemic distance as part of his theodicy. He also uses the all or nothing and slipping slope fallacies to make his big one of the straw man that we nationalists want the easy way out by having this Earth otherwise. Nay! Ti’s he and other supernaturalists who claim that Heaven is such a paradise; we merely have to note that his response boomerangs on him!
Therefore, Fr. Meslier’s the problem of Heaven indicts God as that monster!
To be consistent, no hobgoblin of little minds, He should have made it the same here as there without those horrid tests of evil!
A guarantee of no wrongdoing with free will as in Heaven would indeed be required here!
Hick guesses that in Heaven there will be analogous virtues, and that eventually- after some serving tiem in some purgatory- all will find salvation!
With Robert Porter, we rationalists note that even if not like in Heaven, our free wills could exert themselves with good, better and best as the contraries rather than good and evil. Some people now even, without suffering great evils themselves,he notes, help others. Therefore, why not all people be such? And he notesthat natural and man-made disasters rob people of their free will such that they amouont to unrequited evils.
Such is why I call theologians comedians!
Hick is therefore universalistic in his theology. He is also inclusivistic, claiming that more than one way takes people to Heaven.
He is a unitarian Christian- Yeshua was not God! See his several books.
He thinks that maybe parapsycholigy can help supernaturalists in their apologetics [ at least did].
He sides with us against the inerrantists about science, but claims that any religion is better than none, because without one, people remain selfish! Nay, that just doesn’t ring! He obivously overlooks the many acts of altruism done each day! He overlooks all that carnage done in His name! He know that we rationalists behave well. He claims that we have no bottom-line ground for morality. Nay, Michael Shermer makes many good points in ‘ The Science of Good and Evil’. Other rationalists also adduce avidence why we do have a good morality. Google covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism to see my take on objective and subjective morality being intertwined!
Yet, no ambiguity exists but rather supernaturalists using the pareidolia of intent and design when only teleonomy and patterns exist per Lamberth’s argument from pareidolia.
Per his teleonomic argument, the evidence purports only teleonomy- mechanism- no wanted outcomes so that to add Him in the form of director of directed evolution, not only violates the Ockham with His convoluted, ad hoc assumptions but also contradicts rather than complements science!
No directed evolution exists!No ambiguity exists to suggest that He just might have a starring role!
Hick uses epistemic distance as part of his theodicy. He also uses the all or nothing and slipping slope fallacies to make his big one of the straw man that we nationalists want the easy way out by having this Earth otherwise. Nay! Ti’s he and other supernaturalists who claim that Heaven is such a paradise; we merely have to note that his response boomerangs on him!
Therefore, Fr. Meslier’s the problem of Heaven indicts God as that monster!
To be consistent, no hobgoblin of little minds, He should have made it the same here as there without those horrid tests of evil!
A guarantee of no wrongdoing with free will as in Heaven would indeed be required here!
Hick guesses that in Heaven there will be analogous virtues, and that eventually- after some serving tiem in some purgatory- all will find salvation!
With Robert Porter, we rationalists note that even if not like in Heaven, our free wills could exert themselves with good, better and best as the contraries rather than good and evil. Some people now even, without suffering great evils themselves,he notes, help others. Therefore, why not all people be such? And he notesthat natural and man-made disasters rob people of their free will such that they amouont to unrequited evils.
Such is why I call theologians comedians!
Hick is therefore universalistic in his theology. He is also inclusivistic, claiming that more than one way takes people to Heaven.
He is a unitarian Christian- Yeshua was not God! See his several books.
He thinks that maybe parapsycholigy can help supernaturalists in their apologetics [ at least did].
He sides with us against the inerrantists about science, but claims that any religion is better than none, because without one, people remain selfish! Nay, that just doesn’t ring! He obivously overlooks the many acts of altruism done each day! He overlooks all that carnage done in His name! He know that we rationalists behave well. He claims that we have no bottom-line ground for morality. Nay, Michael Shermer makes many good points in ‘ The Science of Good and Evil’. Other rationalists also adduce avidence why we do have a good morality. Google covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism to see my take on objective and subjective morality being intertwined!
Fr. Griggs 