via Ignostic Morgan.
via Ignostic Morgan.
Please subscribe to The BitterSweet End!
How could an infinite God take on limitations? Could God still be infinite if he is limited?
Well before we tackle this question, let’s define the topic as according to some traditional apologetics. “The infinite nature of God simply means that God exists outside of and is not limited by time or space. Infinite simply means ‘without limits.’ When we refer to God as infinite, we generally refer to Him with terms like omniscience, omnipotence, omnipresence.” As stated by the Christian apologetic website Got Questions.org. Basically meaning God can do anything and everything, and nothing is impossible for God because he is infinite in nature.
To some this might seem like a nit-picky post, but I’m just pointing out the obvious. That if we say God is infinite & without limits. And then in the next sentence and same breath we say God can’t…(Fill in Blank Attribute.
View original post 477 more words
That’s why He ranks with married bachelors as nonsense! And believers make the argument from ignorance in deducing God from the lack of evidence.
The belief that god is omnipotent (all powerful); omniscient (all knowing) and Omnibenevolent (all good) is held by many religions. It is however, possible to note some contradictions with this belief.
The first one goes like this:
The argument here is that god cannot be all three, good, powerful, knowing because they are mutually exclusive. Theists will argue that god allows some evil to prevent a greater evil. Well if he is all powerful can’t he do both?
If god is all powerful can he make a room that he cannot get out of? This is…
View original post 235 more words
How can a person have a relationship with that superfluity, that superstition and that pseudo-explanation? What kind of religious experience could that be?
Theists, I query, how does He act in the Cosmos when He has no intent? Ah, with John Hick you’d find something like his epistemic distance argument that as He does not want to overwhelm our free wills with evidence, He comes forth ambiguously? No, no divine intent, means He cannot even hide! John L. Schellenberg’s hiddenness problem finds that He so hides Himself ,people can wonder what would be that difference betwixt His hiddenness and His non-existence?
How can people have a relationship with an ambiguity?
Now, Hick, no rationalist He, contradicts His Scriptures that when Yahweh performs grave punishments, His actions don’t overwhelm His sheep! They still “sin!’
We naturalists prefer evidence for claims and find that necessity rules, not animism!
View original post 177 more words
According to David Lewis Steele, the verification principle is doomed, because it finds God meaningless, even though He is, and had scientists use in principle for discoveries, why, there could be none.
I maintain otherwise:  we ignostics find Him semantically meaningful but factually meaningless and
 no, in principle, those discovereries were possible, whereas with Him, none can find Him, as lacking referents and having incoherent and contradictory attributes. To be in principle discoverable, evidence must arise, and thus, after millennia of failing to provide evidence but instead misrepresentations of evidence, here as astrophysicist – atheologian Victor Stenger, observes, where mountains of evidence should appear and none does, then evidence of absence is indeed absence of evidence and thus, no argument from ignorance.
What do you maintain? This merits more discussion and another essay.
The previous author uses sleight of Hand in his rebuttal to Coyne. Yes, from the side of religion, from believers, no incompatibility exist, because they see Nature teleologically in the end, as believers, but mechanistically as scientists and lay people in science itself. But from the side of science, gnu atheism, no, because that conflation of teleology with mechanism contradicts science! Yes, we can tell the creationists that why, methodological naturalism does not rest on ontological naturalism, so one can be a theistic evolutionist, but science itself is ” mechanistic!’ Thus, to add teleology after all is again to contradict science, and thus theistc evolution is incoherent!
That Mendel was a geneticist was just a historical event, not a causal one. Thus, no evidence for compatibility!
Coyne is again right to observe that individual scientists and others can have cognitive dissidence that they can holt the incompatibility of teleology and mechanism- causalism- teleonomy. The point about populations and individuals is an ignoratio elenchi- a red herring, not relevant even though true. Indeed, it itself shows the incompatibility of science and religion!
The author is making again a red herring with his definition of faith. Most people would say have faith even if you cannot find evidence for God, and some say no evidence but faith instantiates Him. That is blind faith. Now as trust, yes, he seems right but that isn’t how Coyne uses the term. Then again, to trust Him, one would have to have evidence for Him. And thus, blind faith again arises!
Thus, the author has an incoherent notion of faith that cannot gainsay Coyne!
Haughty John Haught maintains that faith envelopes ones entire being, and Alister Earl McGrath maintains that first believers find the evidence and then use faith to make it a certitude. But the author and both of them would have people not transcend their beliefs with new ones should the occasion arise!
Thus, however defined, faith is no way to instantiate Him!
Incoherency,faith, postulation and definition cannot instantiate Him!
We ignostics/ igtheists find incoherency throughout theism.
As naturalists, we eviscerate one by one arguments for Him, finding no referents for Him as Creator and so forth, and thus He’d be incoherent, lacking referents, He could not cohere with knowledge.
Per one argument alone, He lacks all referents- Lamberth’s the telenomic [mechanistic-causal] argument: Science finds no divine intent-teleology- at work in the Cosmos, and thus , He cannot be Himself, again, as the Creator and so forth.
According to the New Atheists, science and religion are supposed to be incompatilble. Nonsense. To appreciate the nonsensical essence of this belief, let’s have a look at Jerry Coyne’s USA Today article entitled, “Science and religion aren’t friends.” It is worth looking at this article as it represents the Gnu Atheists best shot at convincing the general public religion and science are incompatible.
We’ll start with the way Coyne sets up his case:
The biggest area of religious push-back involves science. Rather than being enemies, or even competitors, the argument goes, science and religion are completely compatible friends, each devoted to finding its own species of truth while yearning for a mutually improving dialogue.
There is no need for all the extra fluff about being friends with a mutually improving dialog. Note simply that Coyne does not bother to define what he means by “compatible.” So he must…
View original post 860 more words