Arguments about God
Other Cheek, they are the result of applying logical relations.That the inferences are valid gainsay that our minds are determined or that our minds are such as you so state.[The article on materialism in "The Encyclopedia of Philosophy.]. Again, trial and error play their role here. I have two other sources to further this anon.
Theists, in effect, use Malebranche's argument that when we hit the eight ball , we are the secondary cause while He is the primary, the one who really hits the ball.
Lamberth's atelic argument is that as the weight of evidence shows no cosmic teleology, God has no role to play .This aligns itself with the presumption and the ignostic-Ockham. See also the contradicton in an agnostic and the two category misthake threads.
This argument counters all teleological ones.
It accompanies Hume's dysteological one that the imperfections show a committe of Gods, an incompetent one and so forth.
What counts for the imperfections without resorting to answering the problem of evil. One scholar states that a limited god has to make perfection while not having the power for the fluorishes that an omnipotent one has- to make imperfections.
Beside the presumption of naturalism and the ignostic-Ockham, , there are also other arguments we naturalists use in our postive atheology- natural morality [ covenenat morality for humanity, the definitive refutation of free will as theodicy [ the problem of Heaven] [ See those threads.] and the hiddenness problem and others.
SeanD. those propheicies refer to other matters. Christians use the double-bounce notion that they refer not onlly to whatwver was at hand but also to Yeshua, but there is no reason to read onto them that whatsoever. Indeed, the propheicies fail for their times or were written after the fact. So, one doubly fails in finding them applying to him! The argument from prophecy thus fails.
Nostradamus's fare no better. Clairvoyance is nonsense.
Miiracles are natural occurrences[ even frauds. Notice how with the advancement of medicine , the Vatican is approving fewer miracles from the saints or Mary or Lourdes. And when competent people invetigate the few approved ones, they are merely natural or nothing at all. As with the presumpton of naturalism, theists would have to show evidence to overcome Hume's admonitions here.
There was no Amazing Randi to verify Yeshua's miracles or the visions of those who saw him post-Resurrection; five hundred people can be ever so wrong! An atheist site is called Why does God hate amputees?
I'll check out the thread on the Kalaam but suffice for now to state that William Lana Craig begs the question is assuming a starting point.
The infiinite regress argument notes that time, event and cause presuppose previous times, events and causes. This follows from the scientific finding that Existence is eternal , from bounce to bounce or bud to bud [ See the thread Team Ashtekar, whereI 'll anon have more to say.
As Lee Smolin notes, Existence is everything; so, there can be no transcendental god.
Just click under Griggsy above to find most of those threads.
Jewry survived on its and others' own initialtive; there is no need for pareidolia here. So, argument from history fails.[ Did God also caused the Romani[Gpsies] and the Basques to survive?]
Science is acquired knowledge, as Sydney Hook notes, whereas faith begs the question of being knowledge. Faith begs the question of its subject. Reason moves mountains; faith cannot instantiate God! Faith trades on the argument from ignorace.
To equate blind faith in Him with trust in science and our faculties is to commit the fallacy of equivoation. The former trades on experience.
We do not commit the fallacy of multiple questions in asking what made or what designed God as William Sahakian would allege, as he begs the question and special pleads to exempt Him from those questions.