the presumption of naturalism and arguments about God

Reply Wed 22 Oct, 2008 05:58 pm
[INDENT]:detective: Not only are natural causes and explanations efficient they are also necessary, primary and sufficient as the presumption of naturalism reveals: they are the sufficient reason, contrary to Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. As the ignostic-Ockham reveal, to posit God adds nothing to any kind of explanation. This neither begs the question nor sandbags theists but the simple demand as Khethil would note, I dare say, that theists and paranormalists provide evidence to overcome this presumption as one should try to overcome David Dume's analysis of miracles.
As Existence is all [Lee Smolin] , then there can be no transcendent God. As Hans Reichenbach notes, for something to have a cause, it must stand in relation to something else and Existence does not as noted, so there can be no First Cause. The infinite regress cause reveals that as time, cause and event presuppose previous times, causes and events and again there can be no First Cause. Anon I'll reveal the general fallacy of cosmological causes- First, Contingent and the Kalaam.
As the weight of evidence shows no cosmic teleology- no predetermined plans for evolution and other natural cause to operate Paul Draper, Ernst Mayr, Richard Carrier], the atelic argument reveals no divine mind to guide natural selection. To presuppose the divine plan is to imply backwards causation that Prof. Weisz notes puts the effect before the cause, the future before the past, inverting time. Anon I'll revel that weight of evidence.
All teleological arguments - design, from reason, probability and fine-tuning [ the anthropic principle presume for which they first they give evidence as to some pre-determined plan for us to have arrived. :surrender:When we look all around us, we discern patterns for which people see the pareidolia - like seeing Yeshua in a tortilla- of design.This rests on the mere feeling that a caring, super mind had us in mind- begging the question when natural selection , the anti-cahnce agency of Nature forms beings in working as a mindless sieve,sorting them out as to fitness. Alvin Platinga,Fr. Albert Ewing and Clyde Staples Lewis assume that God had to design our mental faculties such that we could trust them. Nay, we learn to trust them from trial and error. Does Platinga's Satan make us err - Descartes's demon hypothesis? Nay, invoking occult causes overlooks that one should provide evidence therefor.
Probability further applies after the fact rather than before it. And fine-tuning inverses the situation as we conform to the constants rather than the opposite. And the Ockham applies.
:Not-Impressed: Miracles ever turn out to be natural. The Vatican falsely finds miracles from events at Lourdes and after prayers to saints. When one really investigates them, the indeed turn out to be natural after all. And with better medical findings, even the Vatican finds fewer miracles. Prayer rests on post hoc reasoning- coincidences. Does God play favorites by helping one find car keys but denying help to victims of pogroms? And it is so fatuous to make a case for answered prayers as it is the cop-out that God might have a good reason to deny fulfillment or maybe later He'll answer yes thereto. Tests reveal no difference amongst groups with or without prayers.:brickwall:
The argument from history and prophecy that He saved Jewry has no force as they and their allies saved them. Again, it is a case of pareidolia. Prophecies are good guesses, after the fact, false or so general that they can apply to many different situations. Those about Yeshua refer to other matters but Christians read the double bounce into them so apply to him. The writers of the Gospels or he himself went by those prophecies- no fulfillment. Isaiah was wrong about Damascus going into oblivion as it still stands. The Nile has never dried up. And so forth.Laughing
The argument from angst is as Augustine, puts it, that we are ever so restless when we are not in the bosom of God and as Frederico Jose Ayala puts it that God helps us overcome dread and find ultimate purpose. No evidence supports any of this! One can overcome dread through therapy as I did and ones own purposes, human love and this Sally Field life suffice: they are the sufficient reason. :shocked:
The argument from happiness goes with that one. We can find happiness without Him as Robert Price reveals in "The Reason-Driven Life.":flowers:
What say ye about why there is God or not? Would you become nihilistic if you finally realized there is no God? What keeps theists from embracing atheism?:nonooo::eek:
  • Topic Stats
  • Top Replies
  • Link to this Topic
Type: Discussion • Score: 0 • Views: 1,004 • Replies: 5
No top replies

Reply Thu 23 Oct, 2008 09:23 am
@skeptic griggsy,
How are you defining God here? Do you mean the God of Roman Christianity? If so He's a straw man.
skeptic griggsy
Reply Sun 2 Nov, 2008 08:02 pm
:bigsmile:Nay, that is no such thing as so many believe in Him in that manner!
I refer to any supernatural being [ The pantheistic God is Nature itself; I am with Quinten Simith, a naturalist pantheist.
How might one rebut this atheology? Why does one believe or not in Him?
How might one defend natural theology without begging those questions? :eek:
One would do well in trying to rebut those points in order to further theism. How then might one make meaningful First Cause- Ultimate Explanation- Designer? What is the evidence to overwhelm the presumption?
Oh, what resources would one recommend to set me straight?:detective: I rely on Michael Martin, Graham Robert Oppy, Robert LePoidevin, Jonathon Harrison, Howard Jordan Sobel, John ****** Mackie, Richard Carrier, Paul Draper, Antony Garrard Newton Flew [ before his dotage], Paul Kurtz, Clifford Richard Dawkins, Paul Edwards and Kai Nielsen.:flowers:
Thanks for the thanks!
0 Replies
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 10:08 am
@skeptic griggsy,
I think the matter of proper definition is not so lightly put aside.
It is obvious that the image of God as seen by the judaeo-Christian tradition has little validity in the light of modern science.
But I am pretty sure someone could come up with a definition of God which fits all the facts.
Didymos Thomas
Reply Fri 7 Nov, 2008 02:06 pm
Quick note, Sarek, the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition is seen in many ways, some of which are mutually exclusive.
0 Replies
Reply Sun 9 Nov, 2008 06:00 am
@skeptic griggsy,
Sceptic - If the first cause argument make our common notion of God unworkable then why does it not also make our common notion of existence unworkable?
0 Replies

Related Topics

How can we be sure? - Discussion by Raishu-tensho
Proof of nonexistence of free will - Discussion by litewave
Destroy My Belief System, Please! - Discussion by Thomas
Star Wars in Philosophy. - Discussion by Logicus
Existence of Everything. - Discussion by Logicus
Is it better to be feared or loved? - Discussion by Black King
Paradigm shifts - Question by Cyracuz
  1. Forums
  2. » the presumption of naturalism and arguments about God
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.1 seconds on 07/24/2024 at 05:42:03