Why God cannot exist!
Posted 11-05-2012 at 03:32 PM by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy
Those prepared apologists would just answer with logical fallacies, making more sophistry, I dare say, as I comprehend their modus operandi.
The fine-tuning argument exhumes that they do misinterpret the evidence. They declaim about the parameters permitting life. Carneades' atelic argument belies that: they beg the question of directed outcomes! As Douglas Adams pictures their argument with his puddle argument, they look silly: a puddle notes that some intent had it come to be, ignoring that some one made a hole in which rainwater fell. The only intent-human- was for the hole for a post. No intent but just a meteorlogical cause caused the rainfall. We evolved due to randomness and natural selection, both acts of necessity, not divine intent for us to evolve with them serving as the way the intent would ensue.
William Lane Craig in his Kalam misinterprets the evidence for the Big Transformation of what already existed as the complete beginning of the Cosmos.
Jewry,with help from others saves itself the evidence notes, again no warrant for divine intent-that misinterpretation. And no, Alvin Plantinga's greater good and unknown arguments do not exonerate the Deity from letting the Holocauset happen, as they are only arguments from ignorance. What a misinterpretation of the evidence that Israel came about due to divine intent.
Theists misinterpret the evidence for an onotological grounding for morality, which grounds itself in humanity, with the notion that God grounds it. But, hardly as the Euthyphro notes. And no evidence comes forward for His nature being good as that begs the question, despite Aquinas. And with all the sects, He would speak with a forked tongue!
Thus, I run rings around those prepared apologists! I fathom their prattling all too well. Yes, I shall do more studying to overcome their supercilious argumentation.
Thank you both.
Might those who raise my reputation, comment on this post and others in this blog!
For a blog that eviscerates the very idea of God: http://ignosticmorgansblog.wordpress.com
Another with much information from other sources,besides my own articles and comments: http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com
Google Lamberth's naturalists arguments about God to find my other blogs and Google Skeptic Griggsy to find my arguments also. I combine and permute them.
I would take on co-administrators.
Fellow rationalists, let me know wherever else you post.
I also recommend WEIT, Debunking Christianity, Always Have an Answer, the Uncredible Hallquist and Theo- sophistical R.
The fine-tuning argument exhumes that they do misinterpret the evidence. They declaim about the parameters permitting life. Carneades' atelic argument belies that: they beg the question of directed outcomes! As Douglas Adams pictures their argument with his puddle argument, they look silly: a puddle notes that some intent had it come to be, ignoring that some one made a hole in which rainwater fell. The only intent-human- was for the hole for a post. No intent but just a meteorlogical cause caused the rainfall. We evolved due to randomness and natural selection, both acts of necessity, not divine intent for us to evolve with them serving as the way the intent would ensue.
William Lane Craig in his Kalam misinterprets the evidence for the Big Transformation of what already existed as the complete beginning of the Cosmos.
Jewry,with help from others saves itself the evidence notes, again no warrant for divine intent-that misinterpretation. And no, Alvin Plantinga's greater good and unknown arguments do not exonerate the Deity from letting the Holocauset happen, as they are only arguments from ignorance. What a misinterpretation of the evidence that Israel came about due to divine intent.
Theists misinterpret the evidence for an onotological grounding for morality, which grounds itself in humanity, with the notion that God grounds it. But, hardly as the Euthyphro notes. And no evidence comes forward for His nature being good as that begs the question, despite Aquinas. And with all the sects, He would speak with a forked tongue!
Thus, I run rings around those prepared apologists! I fathom their prattling all too well. Yes, I shall do more studying to overcome their supercilious argumentation.
Thank you both.
Might those who raise my reputation, comment on this post and others in this blog!
For a blog that eviscerates the very idea of God: http://ignosticmorgansblog.wordpress.com
Another with much information from other sources,besides my own articles and comments: http://fathergriggs.wordpress.com
Google Lamberth's naturalists arguments about God to find my other blogs and Google Skeptic Griggsy to find my arguments also. I combine and permute them.
I would take on co-administrators.
Fellow rationalists, let me know wherever else you post.
I also recommend WEIT, Debunking Christianity, Always Have an Answer, the Uncredible Hallquist and Theo- sophistical R.
Total Comments 1
Comments
-
Do you really need the supposed Deity to give you purpose and love? Do you really want a relationship with Him? Do you really need Him for inspiration to get your inner resources going? Do you and others need Him for being moral?
Do you need Him for an over-arching explanation as to why things are as they are? Why would you need Him to explain why evolution and other processes work when natural selection and other evolutionary process explain matters anyway and so forth?
Are we naturalists just to naive or smug to think that godless nations would flourish?
Why do you believe in the supposed Deity?Posted 12-17-2012 at 04:52 PM by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy
