Friday, December 21, 2012
Another believer in reality!
Yes, how could the putative Deity then act in the Cosmos. Why, He'd depend on the descriptions -laws- of Nature,M.L]instead of them depending on Him. As the previous article notes, why, he couldn't even change the position of photons!
That would be a miracle indeed!
Thales would note then that why, no divine intent can be entertained as nothing depends on teleology.
Unbelievers just have to be animists in that like full animists, they the reduced animists see supernatural intent when none exists, and thus are just as superstitious as full animists and polytheists!
Lamberth's argument from inherency notes that chaos, order, regularity, the laws of Nature inhere in Nature, acting on their own, thus needing no God to operate.
Tuesday, December 11, 2012
Monday, December 3, 2012
The Malebranche Reductio
Thanks theists! That God sustains the Cosmos means that yes, when I fall, He did it with gravity. Ti's His for guiding gravity responsibility.
Phillipe Malebranche's occasionalism enters our argumentation. Lamberth's the Malebranche Reductio notes that occasionalism posits Him as the real force when we hit a ball, not we ourselves. This evidences Him as that Primary Cause and Sufficient Reason.some secondary causes that we are! Malebranche reduces to absurdity unwittingly theism!
How could putative Deity act in the Cosmos anyway? By the magic of let it be!Until theists can at least adumbrate how He acts, they put forth a pseudo-explanation.
Fideists beg the question and use the argument from ignorance for their speciousness.
Leucippus notes that necessity rules. I include for now randomness as a part of it.
Natural causes need no transcendental "boss." Why, contradict science with that vacuous entity indirectly? Theistic evolution is just an oxy-moronic obscurantism!
To pontificate that why, evolution is His manner of creation is just to posit the superstition of animism, only the reduced form called theism as Lamberth's reduced animism argument notes.
Phillipe Malebranche's occasionalism enters our argumentation. Lamberth's the Malebranche Reductio notes that occasionalism posits Him as the real force when we hit a ball, not we ourselves. This evidences Him as that Primary Cause and Sufficient Reason.some secondary causes that we are! Malebranche reduces to absurdity unwittingly theism!
How could putative Deity act in the Cosmos anyway? By the magic of let it be!Until theists can at least adumbrate how He acts, they put forth a pseudo-explanation.
Fideists beg the question and use the argument from ignorance for their speciousness.
Leucippus notes that necessity rules. I include for now randomness as a part of it.
Natural causes need no transcendental "boss." Why, contradict science with that vacuous entity indirectly? Theistic evolution is just an oxy-moronic obscurantism!
To pontificate that why, evolution is His manner of creation is just to posit the superstition of animism, only the reduced form called theism as Lamberth's reduced animism argument notes.
Thales ever right! The Malebranche Reductio
The previous article defends Thales and other preSocratics against theistic obscurantism. Theistic evolution is just an oxy-moronic obscurantism!
I thank theists for letting me know that God guides gravity to make me fall! How nice of Him.
Why, Phillipe Malebranche further the argument for divine intent with his occasionalism: when we strike a ball, He is the effective agent,not we ourselves!This unwittingly makes for the Malebranche Reductio that reduces theism to an absurdity.
We have intent: that is truly teleological, whilst science finds absolutely no divine intent so that as that article notes, in effect, theism makes that obscurantism that does not add to knowledge but instead ridicules it!
Theists need Him for pseudo-explanation in their arguments from personal incredulity and from ignorance, which arguments underlay most of their other ones.
As Percy Bysshe Shelley notes:" To suppose that some existence beyond, or above them [M.L.] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what is already accounted for," For theists then to claim why, that's a category mistake would beg the question. He implicitly affirms Aquinas' superfluity argument that boomerangs on his own five ways!
Not only should we leave Him out of scientific matters but out of all else. To claim that He acts is just that obscurantism and superstition.
Deity acts no more than gremlins and demons as explanatory agents.
Thales is right, theologians wrong.
Thursday, November 29, 2012
Friday, October 26, 2012
Whilst he errs with the use of intuition, myths and the lack of evidence, Thales upholds reason. With Strato, he finds no intent behind Nature. He holds forth for self-motion, which I interprest as inherent motion, which Lamberth's argument from inherency upholds that chaos, order, regularity and the descriptions- laws- of Nature inhere in Nature so that the Cosmos and its parts need no divine director!
When intuitions base themselves on previous evidence, they can indeed do but otherwise they are just guesses. Myths are faulty animistic explanations. And evidence must ever uphold theories and such.
Thales made significant scientific discoveries, yet his adovcacy of excluding the superstitious divine intent make him wiser than Aristotle in that aspect.
Have you anything to add to this?
When intuitions base themselves on previous evidence, they can indeed do but otherwise they are just guesses. Myths are faulty animistic explanations. And evidence must ever uphold theories and such.
Thales made significant scientific discoveries, yet his adovcacy of excluding the superstitious divine intent make him wiser than Aristotle in that aspect.
Have you anything to add to this?
Saturday, October 13, 2012
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Tuesday, October 2, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)