Friday, November 30, 2012
Thursday, November 29, 2012
WLC
William Lane Craig is an unmitigated disaster!
The previous article details his lies.
He credulously accepts as true the uncorroborated statements of the writers of the Tanakh and the Testament. He revels in proclaiming "facts' that prove the Resurrection but no, manifest the woo and -the barbarism of the writers of the Gospels. Those supposed facts ring no more true than those about Muhammad' ascension on that horse or his splitting the Moon.
He not only accepts the genocide as moral but also the Deluge and - Hell as moral. His morality then is no more than might makes right, hardly an objective one but instead an egregious simple subjectivism, whilst the simple one of Lord Russell is quite good. I favor the wide-reflective subjectivism, which I find underpins objective morality!
So, he hardly can find his morality superior to that of humanism.
He whines that minus Deity, we are forlorn, but why whine when reality favors humanism as making for the more abundant and happy life.
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate." Inquiring Lynn [ me]
Eternity cannot further validate any life,because life has value for us no matter how long it lasts. That evils happen cannot gainsay that but can instead gainsay Deity. What I post will pass away but it validates itself for all who read it. The Founding Fathers would have validated their lives even had they failed.
All the good will still be good when the Universe passes away. What intransigent whining about its end to humanity! Instead of whining,people should study Robert Price's " The Reason-Driven Life" and Albert Ellis' " The Myth of Self-Esteem," books that challenge in effect that very whining.
WLC's Kalam argument fails as it assumes a starting point. He uses the red herrings of the hotel and the library, which don't portray the impossibility of infinity as he conflates finite and infinite mathematics. The potential infinity is the actual one in that one never arrives at infinite end point as that would contradict infinity: so adding makes for infinity!
His sophistry here is so apparent.
Also, he finds the Big Transformation- the Big Bang- as the origination of everything when it was just a transformation of the quantum fields!
His personal explanation fails, just another argument from ignorance as saying that why, as the world is had to be a personal decision or otherwise, things would have turned out differently. No, no choice involves itself but necessity as Leucippus teaches. Actually, he thereby proclaims the reduced animism that theism is as Lamberth's reduced animism argument notes. No divine intent manifests itself no more than the intent of spirits of full animism or polytheism.
People so overrate him as a philosopher! Why, Ayn Rand ranks with him.
The previous article details his lies.
He credulously accepts as true the uncorroborated statements of the writers of the Tanakh and the Testament. He revels in proclaiming "facts' that prove the Resurrection but no, manifest the woo and -the barbarism of the writers of the Gospels. Those supposed facts ring no more true than those about Muhammad' ascension on that horse or his splitting the Moon.
He not only accepts the genocide as moral but also the Deluge and - Hell as moral. His morality then is no more than might makes right, hardly an objective one but instead an egregious simple subjectivism, whilst the simple one of Lord Russell is quite good. I favor the wide-reflective subjectivism, which I find underpins objective morality!
So, he hardly can find his morality superior to that of humanism.
He whines that minus Deity, we are forlorn, but why whine when reality favors humanism as making for the more abundant and happy life.
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate." Inquiring Lynn [ me]
Eternity cannot further validate any life,because life has value for us no matter how long it lasts. That evils happen cannot gainsay that but can instead gainsay Deity. What I post will pass away but it validates itself for all who read it. The Founding Fathers would have validated their lives even had they failed.
All the good will still be good when the Universe passes away. What intransigent whining about its end to humanity! Instead of whining,people should study Robert Price's " The Reason-Driven Life" and Albert Ellis' " The Myth of Self-Esteem," books that challenge in effect that very whining.
WLC's Kalam argument fails as it assumes a starting point. He uses the red herrings of the hotel and the library, which don't portray the impossibility of infinity as he conflates finite and infinite mathematics. The potential infinity is the actual one in that one never arrives at infinite end point as that would contradict infinity: so adding makes for infinity!
His sophistry here is so apparent.
Also, he finds the Big Transformation- the Big Bang- as the origination of everything when it was just a transformation of the quantum fields!
His personal explanation fails, just another argument from ignorance as saying that why, as the world is had to be a personal decision or otherwise, things would have turned out differently. No, no choice involves itself but necessity as Leucippus teaches. Actually, he thereby proclaims the reduced animism that theism is as Lamberth's reduced animism argument notes. No divine intent manifests itself no more than the intent of spirits of full animism or polytheism.
People so overrate him as a philosopher! Why, Ayn Rand ranks with him.
Friday, November 23, 2012
Aquinas vs. Aquinas- naturalists win!
Aquinas beats himself with his superfluity argument that we should never use Deity as the overall explanation. Percy Bysshe Shelley implicitly expounds it thusly:" To suppose that some existence above, or beyond them [ the descripions-laws- of Nature] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounte for.' And, not ti's no category mistake, which only begs the question thereof.
People might as well pray to me! They'd receive the same responses,only I declare I have no powers to change matters- honesty! Realized prayers are only post hoc- coincidental, and unanswered ones receive the theist unknown defense argumenwt- one from ignorance by means of rationalizations!
To appeal to miracles as most theists do appeals actually to ignorance of reality. When skepticcs investigate miracles, they only find natural forces at work,not because of bias but due to lack of facts for divine intent there, and the facts illustrating what actually happens. Too bad, that the Vatican relies on its faith-based panels to find those non-existent miracles, which should decline with medical advances. Why such matters as finding keys instead of overcoming any holocause? Why the silly Marian apparitions instead of having only one set of scriptures that are truthful? No, Dranges' argument from non-beliefs supports the superfluity argument!
To define God as goodness delivers the same dilemmas as the original Euthyphro does: it the goodness independent of Him or can He change it. and ti's another begged question anyway!
Defining Him with omni-attributes, as cataphatic theology dies, without evidence for them justs makes Him vacuous such that why, He cannot possibly exist!And by non-dfining Him as not this ,not that just defines Him into vacuity again1 Both sides lose!
We know that Jews and others saved Jewry, so adding Him is extraneous as how could that ever be possible in light if the Holocaust?
Science suffices as the sufficient reason itself as it fits the facts whereas God rests on convoluted, ad hoc assumptions- His referents and attributes. And God did it as the Lamberth's God of the explanatory gap furthers explantion no better thn Drummond's the God of the scientific gaps.
To assuage any existential angst, despite the unsubstantiated Aquinas' argument from angst, people should seek therapy.
To prattle that why, without Him, we'e be so forlorn as then we'd have no purpose for living or doing right. What useless whining! Why would any rational person depend on that non-sequtur that,because no Deity gives us purpose, we then have no purposes. What an application of the all or nothing fallacy? We are our own purpose and we make others.
Ti's then to deny humanity any dignity at all: it betrays us as His pottery when morality dictates that we owe Him nothing and He has no rights over us!That brands us as mere things!
Theism in this matter inverts the truth when it laments that naturalism does that! Hardly.
Naturalism regards us as part of Nature but we do the ultimate valuing in ascribing great worth to ourselves. We don't, despite theistic insistence, become gods,taking matters egoistically into our own hands. That again betrays humanity!
To invoke Him as providing order and regularity and such merely cannot gainsay the superfluity as Lamberth's argument from inherency claims that order, chaos, regularity and the descrioptions -laws- of Nature inhere in the Cosmos.
Why, then the attempt ot overide the superfluity? Why, ti's the animist superstition. Lamberth's reduced animism argues that theism is just reduced animism and thus relies on none evidenced supernatural intent.
How then can we not find intent? Ccience as the Coyne-Mayr-Lamberth teleonomic argument argues that why,science finds no divine intent, and thus Deity does not intervene in natural processes and thus is not Himself and thus cannot exist! Why, His attributes involving intent thus cannot exist, thus He cannot be the Creator and so forth and again He cannot exist.
How do theists find intent then? Per Lamberth's argument from pareidolia, theists discern intent and design when only causalism- mechanism- teleonomy exist just as people see those Marian apparitions or Yeshua on a tortilla.
Thus for lack of intent also supports the superfluity as do the Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism and Lamberth's the ignostic-Ockham.
People die from faith-healing and exorcism, and people murder due to that superfulity! That no there there, That gargantuan superstiton!
The misinterpretations of evidence to support that superfluity alone should make one a gnu atheist but all the evils done in its name does gainsay all the good ,beause one can find that good elsewhere!
Instead of Him as the inspiration to get them to use their own inner resources, people can use inspiration from other sources; again, why ascribe power to that superfluity by denying ones own powers as the actual power involves, other than help from others?
Definition without evidence, faith and postulation cannot instantiate Him- that square circle or married bachelor!
And what then do you claim?
Tuesday, November 20, 2012
Sunday, November 11, 2012
Saturday, November 10, 2012
Friday, November 9, 2012
Errantists and inerrantists err against humanity!
The theocons have just suffered major set-back in the election. Voters have rejected two of those fools, voted in favor of marriage equality and said no to constitutional change for inequality thereof.
They can console themselves by whining that why, it not the politics, stupid, but instead individual moral change. No, even to that, because their morality is immoral!
None of them want to apply the biblical law even though their Shepherd told them not to change it at all, other than his own implied changes.Neither errantists nor inerrantists can point to any need for those evil passages. What good metaphors can the former find ? What far-fetched rationalizations do the latter use?
Haughty John Haught with temerity states, why, ti's not morality but hope that endures throughout all Scriptures, glossing over the horrors. William Lane Craig and Paul Copan defend the commands for genocide. No , might does not make right! And no being has the right ever to demand such horror!
Both sides err with their defenses of that anthology of hate!
And no need exists for that blood sacrifice for expiation and salvation!
The divine protection racket reverberates across the ages as misanthropy! Petty-minded, preachers of perversity still ever try to get others to subscribe to that racket, worse than the Mafia's,because it is eternal!
So, both errantists and inerrantists err against humanity?
What do you think?
They can console themselves by whining that why, it not the politics, stupid, but instead individual moral change. No, even to that, because their morality is immoral!
None of them want to apply the biblical law even though their Shepherd told them not to change it at all, other than his own implied changes.Neither errantists nor inerrantists can point to any need for those evil passages. What good metaphors can the former find ? What far-fetched rationalizations do the latter use?
Haughty John Haught with temerity states, why, ti's not morality but hope that endures throughout all Scriptures, glossing over the horrors. William Lane Craig and Paul Copan defend the commands for genocide. No , might does not make right! And no being has the right ever to demand such horror!
Both sides err with their defenses of that anthology of hate!
And no need exists for that blood sacrifice for expiation and salvation!
The divine protection racket reverberates across the ages as misanthropy! Petty-minded, preachers of perversity still ever try to get others to subscribe to that racket, worse than the Mafia's,because it is eternal!
So, both errantists and inerrantists err against humanity?
What do you think?
Thursday, November 8, 2012
Wednesday, November 7, 2012
Tuesday, November 6, 2012
Monday, November 5, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)