Thales notes that we never should employ the supernatural in relation to science, and I add Richard Carrier's^ comment;[ The supernatural theory lacks any kind of coherent explanation of this 'supernatural ' hiding instead behind metaphors and assertions that merely perform a magic trick on the problems, dazzling crowds with one hand while concealing in the other the fact that nothing is really being solved or explained." And Keith Parsons notes: " Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable manner for unfathomable purposes does not seem to be any sort of a good explanation".... " [ The supernatural] hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf"
This affirms the ignostic challenge that God-talk is semantically meaningful whilst philosophically meaningless. Whilst the atomic theory in principle was verifiable the God-hypotheses is unverifiable.
Clyde Staples Lewis, Fr. Alfred Ewing and Alvin Plantinga use the argument from reason or the self- refutation of naturalism. They claim that unless God planned for our faculties to provide us with obtaining the truth, mindless natural selection would not have given us the reliability of trusting them, and thus naturalism woud self-refute.
They don't - and creationist evolutionists and evolution creationists also in general, even Kenneth Miller and Francisco Jose Ayala, master exponents of evolution themselves- comprehend the power of natural selection and other natural causes. Plantinga makes the bizarre example of a man who mistakenly thinks that to play with tigers he must run from them: that is, he saves himself with a false belief! Nay, we have evidence that selection itself causes us to have trust through trial and error of our faculties. Indeed, since that can be unreliable and can't suffice for all matters, we use instruments.
Does Plantinga speculate as he does with the problem of evil, that maybe the Devil makes for our errors? Does his defender Victor Reppert think so?
As Carrier,* my Internet friend, notes, selection itself gave us multiple faculties- unplanned for this- that help act as a check on the others.
He further notes that should we note a pile of stones that present a message, yes, that does indeed mean someone arranged the stone with the message on them. Whilst should we find a pile of stones at the base of some cliff, we infer a landslide could or did happen. Empirically, we learn that landslides cause stones to fall to the ground. The two examples then are so different.
And George H.Smith# notes that teleological arguments conflate the natural with the planned.
Again Carrier notes that:"Since our sensory organs would be lethal if they were regular generators of false information, and sense there would only be selected in the first place if they were regular generators of accurate information, there is no conceivable way on the theory of evolution that our senses could be unreliable to any substantial degree." Again, contrary to Ewing, we naturalists beg no question here as we have that evidence for selection's actions.
Carrier adds for us not to confuse reliability with authenticity.we see colors which " are only inventions of our brain. " Repetition of seeing the same pattern causes us to know the colors, no matter that they might be different from what our brains interpret them. Nature and our minds follow consistent behavior patterns.
Plantinga, underrated as a sophist,overrated as a philosopher, and other supernaturalists just have to have that anthropomorphic view that the divine guides natural causes and is the ultimate explanation.
Plantinga begs the question as all teleological arguments do that there was divine intent for us to evolve when teleonomy didn't planned for any species to arrive.
Again, Thales is ahead of supernaturalists! So are other pre-Socratics!
Theology is just animism having only one grand spirit but no better than that with the many! It explains nothing and lacks factual meaning and verification. Not only that, scientists attest that no one can be virgin-borned, do miracles, be Resurrected, ascend to Heaven in that manner, be the metaphorical or literal flesh and blood for believers to eat and drink as vampires and cannibals.
Isn't theology just dressed-up woo?
Viewers, as I myself have to reassess all this as a fallibilist, surely you will, too! Please, assess this argumentation yourselves, agreeing or disagreeing in part or in whole.
^ Carrier "Sense and Goodness without God: a Defense of Metaphysical Naturalism"
* Smith " Atheism: the Case against God"
viernes, 8 de octubre de 2010
jueves, 23 de septiembre de 2010
Thales
Thales was and - is explosive for the sake of knowledge1He started methodological naturalism and ontological naturalism by excluding any gods from activity in worldly affairs. Those who aver that he stated that the world is full of gods mistake his position: he would have meant by that that natural forces are themselves their own bosses or that magnets have souls when he meant that natural forces act on their own. He was both the first philosopher and the first scientist.
Nowadays after science finds no need to use God in methodological naturalism in that He explains nothing, purveyors of intelligent design are trying to bring Him into science as the boss of natural forces and - creation evolutionists and such evolutionary creationists as Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson, Francisco Jose Ayala and Francis Collins are proclaiming that science and religion go hand in hand, but that obfuscates and - blasphemes science in that it finds no intent behind natural causes and explanations as Lamberth's atelic or teleonomic argument adumbrates that the weight of evidence evinces teleonomy- no planned outcomes- rather than teleology-planned outcomes so that to argue for God's intent is to contradict those very natural causes. Natural selection, the non-planning,anti-chance agency of Nature acts like a sieve in determining what lifeforms succeed: to add God therefore would contradict it, making it irrelevant in effect.
Consequently, creation evolution and evolutionary creationism both are oxymoron, and conflict with rather than make Him compatible with science. Certainly, there are indeed scientists like the mentioned ones who think that they are compatible but that is cognitive dissonance- compartmentalisation - at work. Therefore the accommodationists err philosophically and -scientifically when they prattle that religion and science are compatible! Only from the side of religion could they be seen compatible as it is compatible with the paranormal,its twin superstition that make up what Dr.Paul Kurtz calls " The Transcendental Temptation," a must read book.
Obfuscating science is wrong. Miller cannot deliver the goods that God is involved in natural phenomena when he finds Him acting at sub-atomic events: that is a wild guess like what theologians guess anyway at His attributes and referents1 That is the god of the gaps! Read Amiel Rossow's article on the yin and yang of Miller and what Jerry Coyne, my friend, notes in " Seeing and Believing" about Miller and Giberson's approach with their obscurantism, both@ Talk Reason.
The Occasionalists themselves make the reductio ad absurdum- and no straw man- that Nicholas Malebranche finds in stating that He does the actual execution of the act when we strike the eight ball! That brings into stark relief the absurdity to claim that He is that Primary Cause when the phenomena themselves are the primary causes.
We ontological naturalists find that people should not only in science but in other matters exclude any God.
And then arises the presumption of naturalism and the igostic-Ockham challenge to supernaturalism.
Nowadays after science finds no need to use God in methodological naturalism in that He explains nothing, purveyors of intelligent design are trying to bring Him into science as the boss of natural forces and - creation evolutionists and such evolutionary creationists as Kenneth Miller, Karl Giberson, Francisco Jose Ayala and Francis Collins are proclaiming that science and religion go hand in hand, but that obfuscates and - blasphemes science in that it finds no intent behind natural causes and explanations as Lamberth's atelic or teleonomic argument adumbrates that the weight of evidence evinces teleonomy- no planned outcomes- rather than teleology-planned outcomes so that to argue for God's intent is to contradict those very natural causes. Natural selection, the non-planning,anti-chance agency of Nature acts like a sieve in determining what lifeforms succeed: to add God therefore would contradict it, making it irrelevant in effect.
Consequently, creation evolution and evolutionary creationism both are oxymoron, and conflict with rather than make Him compatible with science. Certainly, there are indeed scientists like the mentioned ones who think that they are compatible but that is cognitive dissonance- compartmentalisation - at work. Therefore the accommodationists err philosophically and -scientifically when they prattle that religion and science are compatible! Only from the side of religion could they be seen compatible as it is compatible with the paranormal,its twin superstition that make up what Dr.Paul Kurtz calls " The Transcendental Temptation," a must read book.
Obfuscating science is wrong. Miller cannot deliver the goods that God is involved in natural phenomena when he finds Him acting at sub-atomic events: that is a wild guess like what theologians guess anyway at His attributes and referents1 That is the god of the gaps! Read Amiel Rossow's article on the yin and yang of Miller and what Jerry Coyne, my friend, notes in " Seeing and Believing" about Miller and Giberson's approach with their obscurantism, both@ Talk Reason.
The Occasionalists themselves make the reductio ad absurdum- and no straw man- that Nicholas Malebranche finds in stating that He does the actual execution of the act when we strike the eight ball! That brings into stark relief the absurdity to claim that He is that Primary Cause when the phenomena themselves are the primary causes.
We ontological naturalists find that people should not only in science but in other matters exclude any God.
And then arises the presumption of naturalism and the igostic-Ockham challenge to supernaturalism.
domingo, 29 de agosto de 2010
Re: "The Transcendental Temptation"
Why haven't those who are atheists content to demy that science does keel haul the supernatural? Yes, there are those atheists who deplore we new atheists going at the jugular of supernaturalism by proclaiming that science itself renders belief in the supernatural irrational? Thes naturalist defenders of the supernatural go out of their way not to exhume the irrationality of the supernatural by objurgating us new atheists-naturalists as mocking the supernaturalists sensibilites such that even the errantists- nonfundamentalists- would become like the fundamentalists in decrying science, yet they never supply evidence, because none exists for that silly position!
The supernaturalists themselves who embrace all of science themselves with cognitive dissonance- compartamentalization- see God's directivity behind natural causes. One form of this is occasionalism, mainly associated with Nicholas Malebranche, that teaches that natural causes are impotent,but He is the actual cause. When we strike the eight ball, He makes it go! Thus Malebranche himself reduces God the Sustaine to the absurd!
Before science weighed in with finding no teleology- divine or otherwise, Thales himself dismissed the god's directivity. He was using Ockham's Razor in effect. The weight of evidence per Lamberth's atelic or teleonomic argument is that natural causes are teleonomic- without planned outcomes rather than teleological - with planned outcomes such that to posit the latter as directing the former contradicts science such that evolutionary creationism and creation evolution both obfuscate-oxymoronic.
The people of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason and others commit the rationalist fallacy- that of thinking that with education, less superstition would ensue, but alas, no1 Why the brightest of people just obfuscate more so ! Observe such as John Polkinghorne and Alister Earl McGrath who know their science but ever insist on obfuscating and objurgating us who call their attention to that obfuscation. They put their thoughts into finery, but those thoughts rank with those of the paranormalists! One supernaturalist prattles that why, we have that finery whilst they don't, but woo is woo! Kenneth Miller can bleat that he can be Catholic and an evolutionist; why, yes, he can from the side of religion as a married person can be an adulterer, but from the side of science, he merely obfuscatesClinton Richard. Dawkings is right that such people aren't being consistent whilst Massimo Pigliuscci errs in saying no to that.
To consistently follow Thales's rule, leave the supernatural out of everything! We have no need of it for our purposes. That Existence has no purpose does not make for the non sequitur that we have no purposes or that they need ultimate justification, for as Inquiring Lynn states:" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose."
That counters the evolutionist Francisco Jose Ayal who contends that we need Him in order to overcome dread and have a purpose. No, counseling helps to overcome dread, and our own purposes, human love and this one life suffice; the future state could not validate this one life and so forth. Divine love and purpose and the future state are not needs as Albert Ellis in " The Myth of Self-Esteen" would note as howling at the moon!
And no divine power owns us nor can one call us to worship it; were there one, it would have the one-way street of having put us into a better environment in the first place per the problem of Heaven.
The arguments from angst and happiness-purpose then fail. Augustine notwithstanding, no evidence intrudes to justify that we are restless unless in His bosom and as noted, we make our own purposes, and one of them is to be happy.
Dr. Paul Kurtz calls the twin superstitions of the paranormal and the supernatural ,'The Transcendental Temptation."
Viewers how might we enlighten the superstitous, or do you dispute any of the above?
Chatpilot, thanks!
The supernaturalists themselves who embrace all of science themselves with cognitive dissonance- compartamentalization- see God's directivity behind natural causes. One form of this is occasionalism, mainly associated with Nicholas Malebranche, that teaches that natural causes are impotent,but He is the actual cause. When we strike the eight ball, He makes it go! Thus Malebranche himself reduces God the Sustaine to the absurd!
Before science weighed in with finding no teleology- divine or otherwise, Thales himself dismissed the god's directivity. He was using Ockham's Razor in effect. The weight of evidence per Lamberth's atelic or teleonomic argument is that natural causes are teleonomic- without planned outcomes rather than teleological - with planned outcomes such that to posit the latter as directing the former contradicts science such that evolutionary creationism and creation evolution both obfuscate-oxymoronic.
The people of the Enlightenment and the Age of Reason and others commit the rationalist fallacy- that of thinking that with education, less superstition would ensue, but alas, no1 Why the brightest of people just obfuscate more so ! Observe such as John Polkinghorne and Alister Earl McGrath who know their science but ever insist on obfuscating and objurgating us who call their attention to that obfuscation. They put their thoughts into finery, but those thoughts rank with those of the paranormalists! One supernaturalist prattles that why, we have that finery whilst they don't, but woo is woo! Kenneth Miller can bleat that he can be Catholic and an evolutionist; why, yes, he can from the side of religion as a married person can be an adulterer, but from the side of science, he merely obfuscatesClinton Richard. Dawkings is right that such people aren't being consistent whilst Massimo Pigliuscci errs in saying no to that.
To consistently follow Thales's rule, leave the supernatural out of everything! We have no need of it for our purposes. That Existence has no purpose does not make for the non sequitur that we have no purposes or that they need ultimate justification, for as Inquiring Lynn states:" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate purpose."
That counters the evolutionist Francisco Jose Ayal who contends that we need Him in order to overcome dread and have a purpose. No, counseling helps to overcome dread, and our own purposes, human love and this one life suffice; the future state could not validate this one life and so forth. Divine love and purpose and the future state are not needs as Albert Ellis in " The Myth of Self-Esteen" would note as howling at the moon!
And no divine power owns us nor can one call us to worship it; were there one, it would have the one-way street of having put us into a better environment in the first place per the problem of Heaven.
The arguments from angst and happiness-purpose then fail. Augustine notwithstanding, no evidence intrudes to justify that we are restless unless in His bosom and as noted, we make our own purposes, and one of them is to be happy.
Dr. Paul Kurtz calls the twin superstitions of the paranormal and the supernatural ,'The Transcendental Temptation."
Viewers how might we enlighten the superstitous, or do you dispute any of the above?
Chatpilot, thanks!
miércoles, 12 de mayo de 2010
jueves, 6 de mayo de 2010
La Existencia su mismo se crea
Pues la Existencia es toda, como muestra el argumento de la Existencia, no puede estar un ser exterior o materiales de donde viene no hay: entonces un Ser primario.
Según el argumento del regreso infinitivo la causa, el evento y el tiempo dependen de causas, eventos y tiempos previas.
Entonces Dios no puede tener el referente de la causa primaria.
Según el argumento del regreso infinitivo la causa, el evento y el tiempo dependen de causas, eventos y tiempos previas.
Entonces Dios no puede tener el referente de la causa primaria.
miércoles, 28 de abril de 2010
Thales
Thales fue el primer naturalista ontológico y cientifico. Dice que solamente causas naturales cuentan porque los del sobrenaturalismo no sigue a nada. La historia lo confirma. El sobrenatural no contribuye nada a los conocimientos.
La presunción del naturalismo es que no solamente las causas y expoliaciones son eficientes y necesarias sino también primarias y suficientes Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz al contrario, son la razón suficiente. Esto no es un argumento circulo sino la exigencia para la evidencia. Es como la presunción de la inocencia, y Aquino si mismo refiere a el y echó con sus cinco argumentos de la falsificar.
La teleología no avance nuestros conocimientos. Ella supone un Gran Misterio con otros misterios para la substanciar, que ellos mismos necesitan que hay algo para los substanciar!
Nosotros, los ignosticos, hallan que El no tiene referencias como la Causa primara, el Gran Hacedor de Milagros y el Gran Diseñador y otros y tiene atributos incoherentes y contradictorias que lo hacen como un circulo cuadrático. Entonces, según este análisis, no puede existir. Entonces no es dogmático.
¿ Que piensan de esto? ¿ Piensan que existe Dios y el sobrenatural o no? ¿Que son sus argumentos para o contra El ?
La presunción del naturalismo es que no solamente las causas y expoliaciones son eficientes y necesarias sino también primarias y suficientes Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz al contrario, son la razón suficiente. Esto no es un argumento circulo sino la exigencia para la evidencia. Es como la presunción de la inocencia, y Aquino si mismo refiere a el y echó con sus cinco argumentos de la falsificar.
La teleología no avance nuestros conocimientos. Ella supone un Gran Misterio con otros misterios para la substanciar, que ellos mismos necesitan que hay algo para los substanciar!
Nosotros, los ignosticos, hallan que El no tiene referencias como la Causa primara, el Gran Hacedor de Milagros y el Gran Diseñador y otros y tiene atributos incoherentes y contradictorias que lo hacen como un circulo cuadrático. Entonces, según este análisis, no puede existir. Entonces no es dogmático.
¿ Que piensan de esto? ¿ Piensan que existe Dios y el sobrenatural o no? ¿Que son sus argumentos para o contra El ?
Suscribirse a:
Entradas (Atom)
