the ignostic and Occam arguments

skeptic griggsy

As a strong atheist, I am also an ignostic.A.J.Ayers thought that ignosticism made nonsense of both atheism and theism as God is meaningless,but I disagree. Rabbi Sherwin Wine gave the name ignosticism[also called non-cognitivism]. God is the tautology that God wills what He wills, so unimformative.God did it is a mystery posing as an explanation. But contrary to Richard Swinburne and Alister McGrath, a personal explanation means nothing: it does not give new insights. To quote the atheologist, Keith Parsons:[GOD] hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf. ..Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable way for unfathomable reasons seems to be no sort of a real explanation." The magic of God did it is pure nonsense.But granting meaning to the term,Occam's razor shows it is unneeded anyway as causalism has its own powers to transform matter-energy.As Antony Flew once knew, one has to start with the presumption of naturalism to make a case for theism. So, with the ignostic or the Occam argument, God is no more needed than gremlins to account for auto problems. These two arguments show no need for God of either popular or erudite argumentation.

Zombrex

First time hearing about the term Ignostic, but I like it

I find the whole question of "God" as ridiculous

Its like "magic" ... Clarke (I think) once said that any great advance of technology is indistinguishable from magic. But the point was that it is always technology, not magic

Magic is simply an imaginary concept we invented. If anyone could actually do magic it wouldn't be magic, it would be technology. And if it was technology it wouldn't be magic. It is a requirement of magic that it doesn't actually exist because it is a concept that only exists in our imagination

The same can be applied to God

If a god actually exists he isn't a god. He is an extra-terrestrial intelligence. And as such he isn't a god.

Part of the attraction of ideas like "god" and "magic" is the undefinable aspect. We can keep them in our imagination. If they actually existed in the real world this would change that. By become real they change how we would classify them.

5uspect

Hi Griggsy, welcome to Boards.
Interesting post, I've heard Ignosticism mentioned before but not in great detail thanks for that.
Wicknight, I think you're talking about the third of Clarks "laws" there.
From Wikipedia:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.

2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.

3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

Sapien

Assuming that this won't send the thread entirely off-topic...

Wicknight wrote:

Magic is simply an imaginary concept we invented. If anyone could actually do magic it wouldn't be magic, it would be technology. And if it was technology it wouldn't be magic. It is a requirement of magic that it doesn't actually exist because it is a concept that only exists in our imagination

Define magic, would you?

Wicknight wrote:

Part of the attraction of ideas like "god" and "magic" is the undefinable aspect. We can keep them in our imagination. If they actually existed in the real world this would change that. By become real they change how we would classify them.

What would you say to someone who practices magic? To someone to whom it is real?

Zombrex

Sapien wrote:

Define magic, would you?

magic n
The art that purports to control or forecast natural events, effects, or forces by invoking the supernatural.

That is pretty much what I'm talking about

Sapien wrote:

What would you say to someone who practices magic? To someone to whom it is real?

I would say they aren't practicing magic, they are practicing technology.

Dades

Wicknight wrote:

I would say they aren't practicing magic, they are practicing technology.

Or deluding themselves as to any connection between what they are attempting through magic, and what actually happens.

Cardinal

Sapien wrote:

What would you say to someone who practices magic? To someone to whom it is real?

I'd say they're deluded.

Zombrex

The Atheist wrote:

Or deluding themselves as to any connection between what they are attempting through magic, and what actually happens.

Well that is kinda the point. "Magic" is always the deluded non-explanation

For example if you went back in time with a TV people in the 15th century would call it "magic" ... of course a TV isn't magic it is technology. But because the serfs in 15th century won't understand this they will call it magic.

Magic, and in a more general sense "supernatural", are simply nonsense terms born out of our ignorance to what is actually happening.

Sapien

Wicknight wrote:

I would say they aren't practicing magic, they are practicing technology.

No, I think there is an important distinction.

Wicknight wrote:

Magic, and in a more general sense "supernatural", are simply nonsense terms born out of our ignorance to what is actually happening.

You're being unfair. Suppose, for a moment, that the supernatural exists - that there are avenues of cause and effect open to the human mind far beyond the reach of scientific understanding. Perhaps inherently impenetrable by the scientific method. It may still be possible to exploit these effects without coming to understand them in the same way that we understand the physical bases for technology. The methodology of modern magic is, if one is to look at it in these terms, entirely heuristic.

The supernatural cannot exist in scientific terms - except as a term for a level of cause and effect in the physical universe that science has not yet been able to describe. Even still, scientifically speaking, it would probably be best not even to give a term to such a thing. There is no logical reason, however, to discount the existence of the supernatural, except for parsimony - but parsimony is only a tool, it does not actually determine the boundaries of existence.

I don't know much about Emergentism and Holism, but I'm sure, if I did, I'd be able to make these arguments much more convincingly.

The Atheist wrote:

Or deluding themselves as to any connection between what they are attempting through magic, and what actually happens.

Cardinal wrote:

I'd say they're deluded.

Do you have any real reason for this? Is this because you dismiss the existence of the supernatural? If so, why? It is possible to use magic without any belief in the supernatural.

Could this be an example of quasi-skeptical superstition?

Dades

Sapien wrote:

Is this because you dismiss the existence of the supernatural? If so, why?

I guess so. This was discussed before. Countless phenomenon were considered "supernatural", and countless have been shown to have a scientific explanation. Hence my extreme reluctance to consider the existence of an actual supernatural phenomenon. What is supernatural anyway, only something that is as yet unexplained?

Sapien wrote:

It is possible to use magic without any belief in the supernatural.

I don't know. If I pray am I using prayer? Hardly, I would have thought - I don't believe in a god.

Hivemind187

Personally, though a confirmed atheist (pun definitely intended), I am not so quick to dismiss all "magick" (note the K) as bunkum as I would be when it comes to religion.

I, like a lot of people, came to my understanding of the universe, reality and my atheism through learning anything I could from where ever I could. I have, for example, read the Goetic Keys of Solomon, AE Waite's "The Book of Black Magick" and numerous other titles by authors from Crowley, to LaVey, to unatributed texts. I give this information to lend creedence to my next paragraph.

While I find no reason to believe in the nonsensical poetry found in much of the gnostic magical texts (so called "high magick") there is something to be said for the hedge or "low magick" variety. In many cases, the so called "magick" was little more than the misunderstood application of science readily understood today by bio-chemists, psychologists, physicians and physicists.

For example, "love amulets" were a common application of hedge or folk magick (referred to as Hoodoo in north America and similar to some Voodoun practices). The method invloved the use of various samples of coarse (pubic) hair and bodily fluids (including urine and menses). These talismans and fetishes supposedly empowered people to attract the object of their lust.

To you and I in the 21st century this is the application of confidence building psychology and biological pheromones for the purposes of getting your end away. Needless to say that many of these talismans did work, though perhaps not the for the reasons the with, shaman etc would have claimed at the time.

There are also examples of hedge magick which use a systematic approach. Its called sympathetic magick. Basically the idea is to take an item or sample of the person you wish to effect and this forms the foci of the spell/ritual (voodoo doll, witches bottle etc). While there is no reason to believe that it really works, it is an example of how it is not just assumed that magick works by ethereal means, rather this shows that people were considering how to connect two things together for a desired result. A scientific approach, rudimentary, flawed and baffling in this day and age, but still, the seeds were there.

Another interesting concept is the practice of ritual magick. In some instances the method involves reaching an almost hysterical or self-hypnotic state underwhich the sensation of emotion is highly elevated. At the moment of casting (climax in some cases) the magician would focus his mind, intention and emotions on a specific individual or outcome and, for lack of a better term, make a wish. Theroetically, this was the realease of emotional and psychic energy into the world to effect something distant or to change a situation that would otherwise be unchangeable. A crude attempt to manipulate quantum reality in a way.

My point is that it is unfair to admonish and dismiss all "paranormal" activity and practice out of hand. Rational skepticism (prove it to me before I will really believe it) is a reasonable approach but it shouldnt spill over in to the realm of dismissal based on a stuuborn beliefs - that is religion not science.

(None of this means I actually BELIEVE any of it, just that it is very interesting)

5uspect

Thats true something is only supernatural until it is explained as part of the natural world. The point is, I think, is that people latch onto what they see as being supernatural because it, by their definition, cannot explained naturally and as a result is to be revered or considered sacred. A natural explaination would destroy the magic in more way than one.

Zombrex

Sapien wrote:

You're being unfair. Suppose, for a moment, that the supernatural exists

Yes but what is the "supernatural" if it actually exists?

Surely it is just "the natural" then. And to manipulate the natural we use technology.

Zombrex

5uspect wrote:

A natural explaination would destroy the magic in more way than one.

That is kinda what I was getting at

Part of the concept of "supernatural" is the allure of the fact that something isn't explained. So our imagine swims with the possibility of something doing something we know cannot be done. We like to think that the rules can be broken.

If one the other hand we discover or invent a "natural" way to do something then that thing becomes something we can do and the "magic" is broken.

Magic is more a product of our imagination and the allure of believing that we can bend or break the rules of reality. Where as technology is working with these rules in a proper sense. I think we realise that only the second ever actually happens, but we like to allow our imaginations to go with the former.

Same applies to religion

Hivemind187

Wicknight wrote:

That is kinda what I was getting at

Part of the concept of "supernatural" is the allure of the fact that something isn't explained. So our imagine swims with the possibility of something doing something we know cannot be done. We like to think that the rules can be broken.

If one the other hand we discover or invent a "natural" way to do something then that thing becomes something we can do and the "magic" is broken.

Magic is more a product of our imagination and the allure of believing that we can bend or break the rules of reality. Where as technology is working with these rules in a proper sense. I think we realise that only the second ever actually happens, but we like to allow our imaginations to go with the former.

Same applies to religion

Except, that to many people Religion is about control of the masses and empowering a deity (or the creator of that deity by proxy) and magick is about the freedom to imagine and to empower oneself by harnessing the (super)natural world.

Sangre

I would have thought magic is, by definition, breaking the rules of the universe as we know them e.g. appearing from thin air. Obviously if this was possible then the rules were wrong and we change them to incorporate this phenomenon and thus the 'magic' disappears.

I really like the term 'ignostic', think I might start using. Even if there was a God, by definition, we'll never be able to tell so who cares?

Sapien

The Atheist wrote:

I guess so. This was discussed before. Countless phenomenon were considered "supernatural", and countless have been shown to have a scientific explanation.

I am using the word supernatural intending its formal meaning, that is "above nature", not merely that which remains unexplained, which I would rather call paranormal. Properly used, the word supernatural should have a similar meaning to transcendent. In this sense, something could, ultimately, be explained and remain supernatural - provided the supernatural can be explained in itself.

Sapien wrote:

It is possible to use magic without any belief in the supernatural.

The Atheist wrote:

I don't know. If I pray am I using prayer? Hardly, I would have thought - I don't believe in a god.

I'm not sure what you mean. As I have said, by supernatural I mean somehow above or outside of nature, not merely unexplained. One might use magic believing its effectiveness is merely unexplained and that the supernatural does not exist; or that the idea of the supernatural is a useful model or device that happens to work towards certain ends.

Hivemind187 wrote:

While I find no reason to believe in the nonsensical poetry found in much of the gnostic magical texts (so called "high magick")

Right. You realise that all of the sources you quote (apart from that fule La Vey) are of high magick? And...

Hivemind187 wrote:

Another interesting concept is the practice of ritual magick.

... high magick, for all intents and purposes, is ritual magick.

Wicknight wrote:

Yes but what is the "supernatural" if it actually exists?

Surely it is just "the natural" then. And to manipulate the natural we use technology.

By definition, as I have said, the supernatural would be above or beyond nature. One can interpret that as one will - in terms of divinity; or time and space; or the perceptual limits of the human mind and person.

Wicknight wrote:

Part of the concept of "supernatural" is the allure of the fact that something isn't explained. So our imagine swims with the possibility of something doing something we know cannot be done. We like to think that the rules can be broken.

If one the other hand we discover or invent a "natural" way to do something then that thing becomes something we can do and the "magic" is broken.

That is part of it - imagination in magick is certainly very important. It is also important to note that magickal thinking allows us to achieve certain things much more easily. Particularly in matters of psychology and behaviour, magical approaches work better and more easily than scientific ones, and can achieve some things that scientific approaches, as yet, cannot. So it is not true to say that supernatural beliefs or techniques are only of use until such time as science catches up - magic and magical thinking have inherent advantages.

There are many practitioner of magic - many very expert and devoted - who are convinced of its worth simply on this basis; who have no belief in the supernatural, but think of magic as a kind of ancient, intuitive and naturalistic psychological technology. This interpretation can be extended to explain a great number of the effects attributed to magic - most, in fact. So the idea that the rules are being broken is not at the heart of magic.

"Rules being broken" could, of course, refer to the idea of the actual existence of the supernatural, and its rules being imposed upon, or overriding, natural rules. This is the more obvious, immediate and simple interpretation. Personally, I, for epistemological reasons, have very little difficulty in accepting the idea of the supernatural, or transcendent existence. Perhaps influences such as Edwin Abbott's Flatland explain this.

Sangre

Sapien wrote:

"Rules being broken" could, of course, refer to the idea of the actual existence of the supernatural, and its rules being imposed upon, or overriding, natural rules. This is the more obvious, immediate and simple interpretation.

If the 'rules' can be broken then the rules are incorrect and need to be adjusted accordingly.

skeptic griggsy

Suspect thanks!Theology tries to make palatable the obscurant backed up by the obfuscatory and mumbo-jumbo backed up by double talk to sell the ineffable and guesswork that makes God. :mad: Soteriology tries to make palatable ritual cannabalism and human sacrifice for the divine protection rackett:eek: .Christology tries to make palatable the making of God out of a quack. And theodicy tries to make palatable the wrongdoing of God in not putting us in a safe place as possible as a good parent would have!:rolleyes: The term God is mere guess after guess signifying nothing. We no more need God than we need gremlins or phlogiston to explain matters.Contrary to Richard Swinburne God as a personal explanation is not a cause unlike the final cause that is natural selection and contrary to Alister McGrath, God being redundant as the Occam shows, conveys no insights and contrary to Alvin Platinga, we have no warrant for seeing God as basic. Whether God has no meaning or if He does is redundant, one finds no use for Him! We have no need of Him for purpose as we are our own purposes.This life, our own purposes and human love suffice; it is "mustabatory" as Albert Ellis would say to bray for a future state ,divine purpose and divine love and pathological.:mad:

Dades

I have to say griggsy, I didn't expect you back.
But your diatribes do hurt my head.

Asiaprod

The Atheist wrote:

I have to say griggsy, I didn't expect you back.
But your diatribes do hurt my head.

Its a pattern that's developing, lets get back to the supernatural, it is really interesting.

Scofflaw

The Atheist wrote:

I have to say griggsy, I didn't expect you back.
But your diatribes do hurt my head.

Nietzche meets James Joyce....and they pretend to be Sartre.

cordially,
Scofflaw

skeptic griggsy

Sorry! I see that they are diabtribes as you state,but that is the format. What counts Atheist is the substance. Surely, you would agree with it.But as noted, Wick. and Suspect find them fine. They understand the gist of my comments quite well and can "translate" them! I am with Dawkins,finding theism nonsensical.That is my argument in a nutshell. As noted, some who disagree with me fulsomely do understand my comments and show where they disagree.

Hivemind187

Scofflaw wrote:

Nietzche meets James Joyce....and they pretend to be Sartre.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Actually ... that would be really interesting ... I wonder if we can get Channel 4 to do a special

Dades

skeptic griggsy wrote:

Sorry! I see that they are diabtribes as you state,but that is the format.

Don't be sorry - be interactive!
Or not, it's a free world.

Myksyk

In your own style then Griggsy ... "your philosophical musings embrace a Joycian impenetrableness with little of the compensating literary substance which might make them tolerable. As Dawkins once opined, such inaccessibility often indicates a lack of honest thought. If these are the most transparent constructions you can muster it augers ill for board-based dialogue which will be nought but requests for clarification and confirmation."

Say it simply mate ... the ideas ain't so profound that they need the help of a postmodern style to be shared.

Zillah

Sapien wrote:

I'm not sure what you mean. As I have said, by supernatural I mean somehow above or outside of nature, not merely unexplained. One might use magic believing its effectiveness is merely unexplained and that the supernatural does not exist; or that the idea of the supernatural is a useful model or device that happens to work towards certain ends.

So...this supernatural, does it have its own rules or does it have no rules? (Rules refering to, say, the law of physics for the universe as we know it)

Zillah

Myksyk wrote:

In your own style then Griggsy ... "your philosophical musings embrace a Joycian impenetrableness with little of the compensating literary substance which might make them tolerable. As Dawkins once opined, such inaccessibility often indicates a lack of honest thought. If these are the most transparent constructions you can muster it augers ill for board-based dialogue which will be nought but requests for clarification and confirmation."

Say it simply mate ... the ideas ain't so profound that they need the help of a postmodern style to be shared.

That was beautiful.

And far, far more legible than Griggsy's tongue twisters.

Sapien

Zillah wrote:

So...this supernatural, does it have its own rules...

Presumably. Though there would be no reason to presume that we could understand them - just as the quandrangles in Flatland cannot conceive of the true nature of the Lord Sphere's existence.

Zillah

The Flatland reference is actually quite interesting. A four dimensional shape, while beyond our ability to visualise, can easily be represented mathematically, and hence does not qualify as a relevant metaphor. I suspect all metaphors will fail you, because as soon as you define the elements you have already made the metaphor innappropriate to this ambiguous "above nature" concept you're toying with.

Surely if we cannot understand the rules by which it functions then we cannot sucessfully interact with it? If there is any element that is repeatable and effective then surely we have already made progress towards understanding it? Surely if this supernatural reality can interact with our own then they must share rules, such as mathematics and physics etc?

Also, if it does defy understanding then it must require the operation of faith to be believed in?

Scofflaw

Zillah wrote:

The Flatland reference is actually quite interesting. A four dimensional shape, while beyond our ability to visualise, can easily be represented mathematically, and hence does not qualify as a relevant metaphor. I suspect all metaphors will fail you, because as soon as you define the elements you have already made the metaphor innappropriate to this ambiguous "above nature" concept you're toying with.

Surely if we cannot understand the rules by which it functions then we cannot sucessfully interact with it? If there is any element that is repeatable and effective then surely we have already made progress towards understanding it? Surely if this supernatural reality can interact with our own then they must share rules, such as mathematics and physics etc?

Not necessarily, I would think. The supernatural might have no fixed rules - which characteristic alone would differentiate it from the natural. Or the rules might be in some totally different format - narrative rules, for example - which overrule maths/physics etc.

However, I think the Flatland analogy, while attractive, is just that - an attractive analogy. Alas, a similarly attractive analogy might be, say, the idea that things we make have a designer, and so, by analogy, do the things we don't make...and we know where that leads.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Sapien

Zillah wrote:

A four dimensional shape, while beyond our ability to visualise, can easily be represented mathematically, and hence does not qualify as a relevant metaphor.

True - though being able to describe something mathematically and understanding it in an intuitive, quotidian way are not the same thing. But you have a point. Fine then - if we thought about our own reality in four dimensions more often, and allowed ourselves to relax the fourth axis a little (there being no real physical reasons not to do so) perhaps we might gain insight into what a supernatural reality might be like. And then, what about other dimensions? What if this whole dimension business isn't really what it's all about, and our very own Lord Sphere is about to come at us from a totally unexpected, er, angle. The point of the exercise is to try to think a little less anthropocentrically - to suppose that reality as we see it may simply be one face of the jewel of truth (blugh! - sorry).

Zillah wrote:

I suspect all metaphors will fail you, because as soon as you define the elements you have already made the metaphor innappropriate to this ambiguous "above nature" concept you're toying with.

Well yes, it's not easy - though I do like Flatland as a metaphor. You may be taking it a little too literally - I didn't necessarily mean that I imagine the supernatural existing in higher numbers of space/time dimensions. Though, who knows.

Zillah wrote:

Surely if we cannot understand the rules by which it functions then we cannot sucessfully interact with it? If there is any element that is repeatable and effective then surely we have already made progress towards understanding it? Surely if this supernatural reality can interact with our own then they must share rules, such as mathematics and physics etc?

Perhaps, perhaps not. Maybe the logic that constrains our minds does not span all of existence. Perhaps we do not possess the concepts to transcend the natural.

Zillah wrote:

Also, if it does defy understanding then it must require the operation of faith to be believed in?

Not really. To understand something and to acknowledge its existence are two different things. If God descended from the clouds, set three-mile-long feet on the Earth and announced "Hullo, I'm God", we would pretty much have to believe in him, whether we understood him or not.

skeptic griggsy

The two arguments are the nutshell of atheology. They show either that God has no meaning or if He does, then is redundant. God did it is absurd and to combine God with natural processes requires coming up with guesses on how He can influence matters without being the God of the gaps. We ignostics do indeed find God as nothing but guesses trying to explain one mystery after another to explain God such that God really explains nothing.God did it is silly.Causalism-natural processes as the Atheist notes- explain matters. It is begging the question to demand an overarching explanation. To use God is the same as using gremlins to explain auto problems.

Tim Robbins

skeptic griggsy wrote:

The two arguments are the nutshell of atheology. They show either that God has no meaning or if He does, then is redundant. God did it is absurd and to combine God with natural processes requires coming up with guesses on how He can influence matters without being the God of the gaps. We ignostics do indeed find God as nothing but guesses trying to explain one mystery after another to explain God such that God really explains nothing.God did it is silly.Causalism-natural processes as the Atheist notes- explain matters. It is begging the question to demand an overarching explanation. To use God is the same as using gremlins to explain auto problems.

Ever hear of a comma?

robindch

A paragraph break wouldn't go amiss either.

skeptic griggsy

Wow, I did not realize I was writing in that style! Sorry for the commas but I cannot do anything about paragraphing. God-talk is mere word play,revealing nothing.I am hoping now that I reconfigured my computer, I can get new messages without having to Google.Thanks for trying to help me, buddies!:cool:

5uspect

skeptic griggsy wrote:

Wow, I did not realize I was writing in that style! Sorry for the commas but I cannot do anything about paragraphing. God-talk is mere word play,revealing nothing.I am hoping now that I reconfigured my computer, I can get new messages without having to Google.Thanks for trying to help me, buddies!:cool:

Sangre

He's talking in tongues!

Asiaprod

Sangre wrote:

He's talking in tongues!

I am trusting that very, very, soon skeptic griggsy will start talking in tongues that have commas and paragraphing, and ,more importantly, something original and engrossing to say. I am finding it very hard to believe there is a real person at the end of all these diabtribes.
Consider this a first warning skeptic griggsy.

skeptic griggsy

Maybe my cortical defects are at play. How can one establish any attribute of God without an empirical basis? It is merely a series of guesses for a mystery surrounded by other mysteries, which only say that God did it.The transcendent ,both the supernatural and the paranormal, are just guesses.One can never find evidence for them. One no more needs them than patent officials would approve patents for perpetual motion machines! There is no real empirical meaning for God and allowing meaning anyway, one would have to overcome the Humean-Kantian critique to make ad hoc assumptions for Him in order to overcome the razor.People feel that there must be something beyond the universe to account for it and they use pareidolia to see that something.This is the challenge that both arguments and others have to overcome. Furthermore, we face a psychological challenge to show theists how wrong they are.They need Sky Pappy, the ground of being, to be their shepherd and their giver of meaning,their imaginary friend to overcome dread according to some theists. No, they need to heed Albert Ellis to overcome that "mustabatory" need.

Asiaprod

skeptic griggsy, I did warn you. You are banned till such time as you PM me explaining why you feel I should lift the ban.

skeptic griggsy

How can one establish the attributes of God without just guessing? Imperfections show at most a limited god. Why could it not be a succession of gods rather than an eternal one to sustain the cosmos?As natural selection accounts for apparent design and the Ockham shows Him needing supplementary assumptions that are questionable , how could He account for new life forms. How could He not Himself need explanation? To argue like one Sahakian that is the fallacy of multiple questions, that itself begs the question and special pleads that God is thus exempt from causality. His putative attributes contradict each other, so incoherency applies to Him. It is mere guesswork to attribute anything to Him! Without an empirical basis, one, I think, has no reason to think that He means anything.[I put in the required periods. Cortical difficulties can hinder me from being lucid.Please support mental health!] We need Him as a personal explanation no more than we need gremlins,Thor or demons.And since the teleology supporting Him contradicts selection, there is thus more inchoherence involved in finding Him.

skeptic griggsy

How can one establish the attributes of God without just guessing? Imperfections show at most a limited god. Why could it not be a succession of gods rather than an eternal one to sustain the cosmos?As natural selection accounts for apparent design and the Ockham shows Him needing supplementary assumptions that are questionable , how could He account for new life forms. How could He not Himself need explanation? To argue like one Sahakian that is the fallacy of multiple questions, that itself begs the question and special pleads that God is thus exempt from causality. His putative attributes contradict each other, so incoherency applies to Him. It is mere guesswork to attribute anything to Him! Without an empirical basis, one, I think, has no reason to think that He means anything.[I put in the required periods. Cortical difficulties can hinder me from being lucid.Please support mental health!] We need Him as a personal explanation no more than we need gremlins,Thor or demons.And since the teleology supporting Him contradicts selection, there is thus more inchoherence involved in finding Him.

Tim Robbins

skeptic griggsy wrote:

How can one establish the attributes of God without just guessing? Imperfections show at most a limited god. Why could it not be a succession of gods rather than an eternal one to sustain the cosmos?As natural selection accounts for apparent design and the Ockham shows Him needing supplementary assumptions that are questionable , how could He account for new life forms. How could He not Himself need explanation? To argue like one Sahakian that is the fallacy of multiple questions, that itself begs the question and special pleads that God is thus exempt from causality. His putative attributes contradict each other, so incoherency applies to Him. It is mere guesswork to attribute anything to Him! Without an empirical basis, one, I think, has no reason to think that He means anything.[I put in the required periods. Cortical difficulties can hinder me from being lucid.Please support mental health!] We need Him as a personal explanation no more than we need gremlins,Thor or demons.And since the teleology supporting Him contradicts selection, there is thus more inchoherence involved in finding Him.

Is everything alright?

Dades

FYI everyone, we've learned that Skeptic Griggsy's unusual posting style is actually due to genuine condition that affects certain cognitive abilities. This effect of this is that his thoughts are put across in the somewhat jumbled manner we've seen.

In the light of this we'd request readers to show more patience than is typically found on the Net when reading his posts, or just to use their "back" button if it's too much.

In return, we'll ask Skeptic to at least use less smileys.

5uspect

I retract my previous post.

Tim Robbins

5uspect wrote:

I retract my previous post.

Dito mine too. Sincere apologies. My own posts break the records for typos so I can't talk either.

Dades

Nobody needs to apologise.
Just a miscommunication, hopefully now all cleared up.

As we were!

Asiaprod

Thank you all for your understanding

skeptic griggsy

Thanks Asiaprod and the others. Either God is otiose or if He has a meaning for the sake of argument, He is excess bagage. God did it as a personal explanation,contrary to Richard Swinburne, has no value as a final cause.The sufficient cause is natural selection, the anti-chance agency of nature, that is a power unto itself, not a force that some teleological agency works through.Theists through question begging and special pleading try to exempt God from natural laws but they only guess at that! I hope this is lucid.

skeptic griggsy

How does God operate? Can one in principle show how He could influence matters ? What would he add that natural explanations don't? How can it be meaningful to speak of God when no one can show how there is an empirical basis for His attributes? Why should one think that there just has to be something greater than the cosmos and behind it?Adding God seems to be just the Malebranchian notion that when we hit the cue ball, it is actually God who makes it hit the other balls!