Gettin' In Tune

Thank you for your repsone grissly.

I have not read Rundle, but I will not 100% subsribe to any individual or idea who of disposing nothing. Why hasn't there been more press about it? This is humanity's $1,000,000 question! Why is there matter instead of nothing? Why is there even space instead of no-space?

You are right that we cannot compare the cosmos to anything, and perhaps if we could that would only push the question about "god" further back, but not resolve it.

No offense, but I am tired about hearing about Ockhams's razor. It is not a law, but a measuring devise. Athiest who boil "down" to Ockham's razor tires me out. The conception of "god" is getting more complicated and cannot be chalked up to Ockham's razor.

We need to question our existence and where we came from, and to me that is "god". Does that support Ockham's razor

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

Jayhawker Soule

Which, as it stands, is little more than empty drivel. What does it mean to say "we came from god"?

Gettin' In Tune

Jayhawker, I think you might be attracted to me, since you won't stay away. I ask you once politely that you refrain from interacting with me. This is the second time I am asking. Is there something you do not understand?

I am sure that someone with your education and book learnin' can comprehend this: stay away from me.

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

skeptic griggsy

Sky Pappy, the ground of being, makes assumptions that are already shown to be faulty anyway. There can be no first cause and natural selection is the designer. So, those two false assumptions cause Him to be redundant.Do we use angels in addition to the laws of motion, Thor in addition to what makes weather, demons in addition to the causes of mental illness and gremlins as causes of mechanical problems.The Ockham here brings forth the presumption of naturalism that natural causes are the sufficent, necessary, primary and efficient causes. As with miracles, it is not question begging to notice this as it requires evidence to overcome this presumption. Add to that the ignostic argument, one notes that there is probaly no god as basic atheology and in accordance with the agnostic method.

skeptic griggsy

As Existence is all, there can be no supreme mind behind it! Existence, following Quentin Smith, is the " designer" through natural selection[ teleological argument begs the question in assuming God had a plan] the ulitmate cause[cosmologial,Aquinas begged the question in assuming that if one takes away the first cause,one takes away the intermediate.] and the greatest and necessary being[ontological.As everyting, nothng can be greater. And it is necessary for everyting else in it,]

__________________
:: Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. He might be wrong. And his cortical defects might harm his thinking and posting. Logic is the bane of theists.

Gettin' In Tune

A season later and.....

What message are you trying to convey? I am open for debate, but I have no positive assertion for god.

__________________
"But to find the truth we need imagination and skepticism both. We will not be afraid to speculate, but we will be careful to distinguish speculation from fact."--C.Sagan

skeptic griggsy

That is just what we ignostics challenge; we notice no substance and meaning for God,just guesses and mysteries.Negative theology cannot escape the challenge.

__________________
:: Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. He might be wrong. And his cortical defects might harm his thinking and posting. Logic is the bane of theists.

skeptic griggsy

The presumption of naturalism is that not only are natural causes and explanations efficient, they are also necessary, primary and sufficient. This neither sandbags theists nor begs the question, but demands evidence as Einstein adduced evidence to overcome part of Newton's laws.
The presumption shows therefore that Existence is all I show here. As the natural cosmological cause, it is the repository of all causes and explanations.
As the natural ontological argument posits there can be no god transcendent to and greater than Existence, and any god would have to be thus immanent and contingent.
As the dysteological argument shows. natural selection has no preconceived outcomes, no wanting us. Dysteological selection therefore contradicts teleological God with his planned outcome. That destroys theistic evolution. All teleological arguments- design, fine-tuning , probability and from reason- beg the question of preconceived outcomes.
Theists must adduce evidence to overcome Hume's criteria for miralcles ,including the resurrection of Yeshua or the ride of Mohammed to Heaven on a horse or any other such matter.
Theists must adduce evidence that God has favored the survival of Jewry through eons [There is this matter of the Holocaust!].
Theists must adduce evidence to show that any scriptures are divine other than mere say so.
Theists must adduce evidence to show that their religious morality has a foundation beyond the mere say so of the writers.
Theists must adduce evidence that our religious experiences are not just our own brain states.
Theists must overcome the ignostic-Ockham arguments to show that God has substanece and meaning and use.[ the other thread for comments]
Therefore, theists have plenty to adduce to show that Existence and the presumption of naturalism are not the final answers.

__________________
:: Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. He might be wrong. And his cortical defects might harm his thinking and posting. Logic is the bane of theists.

skeptic griggsy

The presumption of naturalism is that not only are natural causes and explanations efficient, they are also necessary, primary and sufficient. This neither sandbags theists nor begs the question, but demands evidence as Einstein adduced evidence to overcome part of Newton's laws.
The presumption shows therefore that Existence is all I show here. As the natural cosmological cause, it is the repository of all causes and explanations.
As the natural ontological argument posits there can be no god transcendent to and greater than Existence, and any god would have to be thus immanent and contingent.
As the dysteological argument shows. natural selection has no preconceived outcomes, no wanting us. Dysteological selection therefore contradicts teleological God with his planned outcome. That destroys theistic evolution. All teleological arguments- design, fine-tuning , probability and from reason- beg the question of preconceived outcomes.
Theists must adduce evidence to overcome Hume's criteria for miralcles ,including the resurrection of Yeshua or the ride of Mohammed to Heaven on a horse or any other such matter.
Theists must adduce evidence that God has favored the survival of Jewry through eons [There is this matter of the Holocaust!].
Theists must adduce evidence to show that any scriptures are divine other than mere say so.
Theists must adduce evidence to show that their religious morality has a foundation beyond the mere say so of the writers.
Theists must adduce evidence that our religious experiences are not just our own brain states.
Theists must overcome the ignostic-Ockham arguments to show that God has substanece and meaning and use.[ the other thread for comments]
Therefore, theists have plenty to adduce to show that Existence and the presumption of naturalism are not the final answers.

__________________
:: Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. He might be wrong. And his cortical defects might harm his thinking and posting. Logic is the bane of theists.

skeptic griggsy

The Razor supports the adequate theory that does not require ad hoc assumptions that God so requires.
Rem B. Edwards in :Reason and Belief...," maintains that we naturalist beg the question in assuming naturalism as the simpler theory that describes reality adequately when the supernatural does that also. Now, that one as noted, requires ad hoc assumptions [ mysteries].. that advert to God did it ,useless ones.
Haughty John Haught contemns us naturalists for not including other venues of knowledge than science. We can use valid ones ,but he begs the question that there are supernatural ones when he has not so demonstrated!

__________________
:: Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. He might be wrong. And his cortical defects might harm his thinking and posting. Logic is the bane of theists.