Borel thus affirms Leucippus' necessity instead of infirming it. Creationists in the wide sense = theists just cannot superrate what Leucippus and other pre-Socratics have to say affirming ontological naturalism!
Mutations are random in the sense that they happen without considering the needs of organisms but still by necessity. Natural causes necessitate, not with any kind of supernatural intent as their supernatural boss, such that to affirm intent means people revel in superstition as Lamberth's theism = reduced animism notes, just as much as full animists and polytheists do!
To declare, however, that why, God uses epistemic distance as John Hick and others do argue that God to keep from superrating our free wills with His overwhelming presence is just to embrace Lamberth's new Omphalos argument, that He deceives by letting scientists only discerning mechanism when His intent- telos- teleology rules just as Philip Gosse's old one does with apparent ancient age for scientists to affirm evolution.
By the way, Jews and Christians own texts maintain the He appeared before people [ as Yahweh in the Tanakh and Yeshua in the Testament] and performed miracles, yet did not overwhelm people's free wills! Theodore Drange.
Anyway, per Lamberth's argument from autonomy, He'd have no right to demand worship and a relationship with us and couldn't morally rule over us, facing the one-way street that Fr. Meslier's the problem of Heaven requires that He 'd have put us into a better situation!
s argument from unbelief notes that had God really wanted a relationship with all, then only one text clearly read would have appeared and He would not - my words- speak with a forked tongue through the thousands of sects!
John L. Schellenberg's hiddenness arguments gainsays that epistemic distance argument: no
difference exists betwixt that hiddenness and no existence!
Our ultimate meanings our what we declare! We are not His pottery to which He can give purpose! What a blasphemy upon humanity that William Lane Craig and Francisco Jose Ayala wish upon us all- that divine purpose!
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate." Inquiring Lynn
Theists can zig-zag all they desire but in the end go from quicksand to quicksand!
What is your take on Borel's arguments and that previous authors and mine?
Tuesday, February 19, 2013
Monday, February 4, 2013
Saturday, January 26, 2013
Randomness -no to Morriss
See my comments as Skeptic Griggsy.
Necessity rules randomness, which has no purpose to favor any new life form. Necessity rules natural selection, the non-planning, anti- chance agency of Nature, acting as a sieve in evolution
Theistic evolutionists thus use the superstition called divine intent just as any other animists do as Lamberth's theism= reduced animism argument notes. Theistic evolution thus is just an oxy-moronic obscurantism!
The pre-Socratics are ever right, whilst naturalist Aristotle is ever wrong about teleology. That error and his own science held Europe back in science!Wednesday, January 16, 2013
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)