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.

I'm a Believer!

I'm a Believer!

Strato Updated

Strato Updated

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.

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.  

Defending The Apparent Truth Of Evolution’s Mindlessness

Defending The Apparent Truth Of Evolution’s Mindlessness