Argument from inherency
Posted 12-31-2012 at 10:28 PM by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy
Chaos, regularity, the descriptions -laws- of Nature and order inhere in Nature. Were there eternal God, He'd depend on them to function, so that He'd be a secondary cause as with us! 
Yes, I just now found that He'd be on our level in that aspect but I already regarded Him as that secondary cause.
Yes, the Fuller-Lamberth the argument from inherency does find Him so!
Theists, unless you can give at least a general manner about how He functions, why, you have no case whatsoever for His very existence! By the magic of let it be?
And then Lamberth's teleonomic argument claims that science finds no divine intent, so how could He function?
Carneades' atelic argument notes that theists beg the question of desired outcomes. How could He function without determining outcomes?
The argument from physical mind and McCormick's why God cannot think.. note that the idea of disembodied mind flaunts reality. These are not arguments from personal increduity but instead from our conservation- background- of knowledge.
Lamberth's the Malebranche Reductio argues that Nicholas Malebranche himself unwittingly reduces to absurdity His omnipotence with his occasionalism that when we act, God does the action instead!
Alexander Smoltczyk alleges that He is neither a principle nor a person nor an entity? How then could He function? How then could He instantiate Himself as any kind of answer?
How then could He function in the Cosmos.
Furthermore, per Aquinas' superfluity argument, He adds nothing as an explanation.
How then could He function?
Henry Drummond's the God of the scientific gaps notes that as science progresses,the less He can do. Lamberth's the God of the explanatory gap argues that He serves as no kind of explanation in line with the superfluity, Lamberth's the ignostic-Ockham argument and the Flew-Lamberth, the presumption of naturalism and the Fuller-Lamberth argument.
How then can a mindless being without intent, superflous, cannot effectuate Himself as an explanation then function?
Science explains the how and -why of things! The supposed divine why ranks with square circles!
Yes, I just now found that He'd be on our level in that aspect but I already regarded Him as that secondary cause.Yes, the Fuller-Lamberth the argument from inherency does find Him so!
Theists, unless you can give at least a general manner about how He functions, why, you have no case whatsoever for His very existence! By the magic of let it be?
And then Lamberth's teleonomic argument claims that science finds no divine intent, so how could He function?
Carneades' atelic argument notes that theists beg the question of desired outcomes. How could He function without determining outcomes?
The argument from physical mind and McCormick's why God cannot think.. note that the idea of disembodied mind flaunts reality. These are not arguments from personal increduity but instead from our conservation- background- of knowledge.
Lamberth's the Malebranche Reductio argues that Nicholas Malebranche himself unwittingly reduces to absurdity His omnipotence with his occasionalism that when we act, God does the action instead!
Alexander Smoltczyk alleges that He is neither a principle nor a person nor an entity? How then could He function? How then could He instantiate Himself as any kind of answer?
How then could He function in the Cosmos.
Furthermore, per Aquinas' superfluity argument, He adds nothing as an explanation.
How then could He function?Henry Drummond's the God of the scientific gaps notes that as science progresses,the less He can do. Lamberth's the God of the explanatory gap argues that He serves as no kind of explanation in line with the superfluity, Lamberth's the ignostic-Ockham argument and the Flew-Lamberth, the presumption of naturalism and the Fuller-Lamberth argument.
How then can a mindless being without intent, superflous, cannot effectuate Himself as an explanation then function?
Science explains the how and -why of things! The supposed divine why ranks with square circles!
Total Comments 0
