the mind of a god

[seer]

Empiricism requires facts. That is an empirical fact. The evidence for this fact is induction. Induction cannot require God, because induction rules Him out. Induction rules out divine intent. It rules out anything but naturalistic solutions as supernaturalistic ones would be parasitic on naturalistic facts so that natural causes themselves are the necessary being, the efficient cause, the primary cause and thus the sufficient reason! To act, had He intent, He'd be secondary to those causes instead of being primary!
Immediate sense evidence is an ignoratio elenchi- irrelevant. What counts is our being able to have the experience in the first place. In principle, the Multiverse theory is plausible due to some evidence, and we find no evidence for Him, even though in principle, we could were igosticism not the case against Him.
Were Popper wrong, then why the success of science and the sterility of religion?
Any defeater for naturalism would defeat its parasite supernaturalism. Harris perforce cannot be right. Thus, supernaturalists must use naturalism to overcome it but perforce fail!
Plantinga's from reason argument fails, because whilst evolution gave us the big brain, it guarantee's no truth attainment whilst our trial and error,intersubjectiviity and instrumentation help provide for truth attainment. We, not God, can guarantee the probability of that whilst to aver He guarantees that enters Carneades's argument that all teleological arguments beg the question of agency.
, No, not by faith, but understanding seeking more understanding instead of using ad hoc, convoluted assumptions that violate the Ockham! The Flew-Lamberth argument the presumption of naturalism thus prevails at every turn.
seer, why then would Harriss's point find me inconsistent? Lo, how the facts ever confirm empiricism! How can you argue then against uniformatarianism, which serves as the basis for empiricism? To defeat empiricism you'd have to consistently provide inductions and facts for your position. No, no tu quoque fallacy and no eqivocation. You equivocate knowledge with faith.
" Science is acquired knowledge whilst faith begs the question of being knowledge as Sydney Hook observes.' Fr. Griggs
See http://carneades-georgia.hubpages.com where at my own hub, I take on a woman who questions induction as a naturalistic truth but prattle as a supernaturalistic one.
Google lamberth's naturalistic arguments to see in depth analyses. Post at any of my many blogs noted where I've my original articles and reblogged ones from other sites with my own comments. Post here then what you find wrong with any of my points.
People test and find induction and empiricism true everyday whilst He depends on them as He'd depend on natural causes! Ti's supernaturalism then that self-refutes.
Other naturalists can further these remarks.
Supernaturalists cannot assume with convoluted, ad hoc assumptions but must give evidence that depends on induction and empiricism and not vice-versa! Natural laws , order,chaos and regularity inhere in the Cosmos,not by the magic of let it be! Why then assume that some magic being can fathom thousands of languages and dialects from billions of people at one time? Why assume that divine intent must lie behind natural selection when it is the non-planning, anti-chance agency of Nature? Nature shows pataterns and no intent but supernaturalists use the pareidolias of intent and design instead of what is there no intent and patterns.
All your arguments redound to arguments from personal incredulity and from ignorance!

Griggsy, you are the pot calling the kettle black. First, how do you logically justify empiricism except by empirical methods.This is question begging in the worse sense. A vicious circle. Second, induction is a logical fallacy based on the unprovable assumption that the future will resemble the past or that particular results can be applied universally. As Bertrand Russell made clear years ago:

Do any number of cases of a law being fulfilled in the past afford evidence that it will be fulfilled in the future? If not, it becomes plain that we have no ground whatever for expecting the sun to rise to- morrow, or for expecting the bread we shall eat at our next meal not to poison us, or for any of the other scarcely conscious expectations that control our daily lives.

So your whole argument is based on two logically unjustifiable principles - empiricism and induction... And in your other thread you said "all teleological arguments beg that question" - WELL SO DO ALL EMPIRICAL ARGUMENTS. This is clearly hypocritical Griggsy.

[Griggsy]

Then why the stupendous success of empiricism and induction when doting on God is a mere placebo,crutch and inspiration to get people to use their own inner resources?
Try refute both when that would be to use both- hypocrisy- to find both wrong is such nonsense, and what I find the anti- science and obscurantist people revel in.
Why don't you answer those points instead of making another inanity? No hypocrisy but instead analysis ensues.
I know about Russell's' empirical chicken. Nevertheless, uniformitarianism rings true as it also produces results. He makes the point actually about overgeneralizing but we have billions of years to vouchsafe that the sun will move in its trajectory until the next big bang. Why not let that fact come forth from the depths of your mind?
Again, answer those points in my previous post instead of that inanity!
By the way, your signature endorses the divine protection racket! Shame.

[seer]

Then why the stupendous success of empiricism and induction when doting on God is a mere placebo,crutch and inspiration to get people to use their own inner resources?
Try refute both when that would be to use both- hypocrisy- to find both wrong is such nonsense, and what I find the anti- science and obscurantist people revel in.
Why don't you answer those points instead of making another inanity? No hypocrisy but instead analysis ensues.
I know about Russell's' empirical chicken. Nevertheless, uniformitarianism rings true as it also produces results. He makes the point actually about overgeneralizing but we have billions of years to vouchsafe that the sun will move in its trajectory until the next big bang. Why not let that fact come forth from the depths of your mind?
Again, answer those points in my previous post instead of that inanity!
By the way, your signature endorses the divine protection racket! Shame.

Griggsy, the fact is that what you accuse others of you practice. You accuse teleological arguments of being circular, yet empirical arguments are just as circular. Induction as a way of knowledge is a logical fallacy. So rationally, what are you left with? And where is your evidence for a "next big bang" or the one before this present universe. A multiverse is just as nonsensical as a perpetual motion machine, never mind a violation of the second law of thermal dynamics. And how do you escape the irrational position of infinite regression? And thank you, but I will stick with my "divine protection racket." You obviously have nothing to offer - no hope...

[Griggsy]

Krauss and Hawking come to mind about the big bangs.
Seer, where is the induction for your inanity? To get to God requires induction so that to use Him as its ground is a vicious circle as noted! Why don't you answer without that inanity each point for induction? Science,due to induction brings forth medical advances whilst your putative One never heals! Induction works and is a basic fact, unlike Him,despite Plantinga's sophistry, isn't. No, yu dont'comprehend that law or else you wouldn't state such an obvious falsehood as creationists revel in. Your why, why just won't cut it! Show that induction won't work!
How can what obviously works be a circularity then? Otherwise, this ends the discussion.
My original question still holds. No one has dared answer it1 Imagining that omni- God can do anything logically possible rings false until supernaturalists proffer real evidence instead of guesswork!
McComick's argument from physical mind notes that the disembodied mind notion is just theological guesswork without an empirical basis Imagination, postulation, .definition and faith cannot instantiate. Instantiation
n requires induction and empiricism!
And without intent showing, supernaturalists have such a problem!

[seer]

Krauss and Hawking come to mind about the big bangs.
Seer, where is the induction for your inanity? To get to God requires induction so that to use Him as its ground is a vicious circle as noted! Why don't you answer without that inanity each point for induction? Science,due to induction brings forth medical advances whilst your putative One never heals! Induction works and is a basic fact, unlike Him,despite Plantinga's sophistry, isn't. No, yu dont'comprehend that law or else you wouldn't state such an obvious falsehood as creationists revel in. Your why, why just won't cut it! Show that induction won't work!
How can what obviously works be a circularity then? Otherwise, this ends the discussion.
My original question still holds. No one has dared answer it1 Imagining that omni- God can do anything logically possible rings false until supernaturalists proffer real evidence instead of guesswork!
McComick's argument from physical mind notes that the disembodied mind notion is just theological guesswork without an empirical basis Imagination, postulation, .definition and faith cannot instantiate. Instantiation
n requires induction and empiricism!
And without intent showing, supernaturalists have such a problem!

Griggsy, what are you going on about old chap? Did I ever say that deduction did not work? Did I ever even suggest that it was not useful? I was just highlighting your hypocrisy. You accuse others of begging the question with their arguments but you do the same thing! So rationally you are on no better logical ground than the theist. And what do you mean:how can what obviously works be a circularity then - you are joking right? Once again, how do you know that empirical methods work except by using empirical methods - that is circular - in the vicious sense. I mean you are just using a warmed over a verification principle which has long ago be discredited.

And Griggsy I'm still waiting for your evidence of a future big bang and the previous big bang before the one that created our universe. And how do you get over the irrational problem of infinite regression?

[Griggsy]

Seer , for evidence see Alex Vilenkin's " Many Worlds in One," Steven Hawking and Mlodinow's " The Grand Design" and Krauss's new book. You seem to be using the god of the scientific gaps. Now, the god of metaphysical gap won't do,because it adds nothing as a real explanation, only God did it. Unless one can specify how He does it, one is just prattling. Then one must show how theists can overcome Lamberth's atelic/teleonomic arguments that as science reveals no divine intent behind matters and the Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism that natural causes themselves are the Primary Cause in the chain of Efficient ones, the Necessary Being and the Sufficient Reason.
How do you get over the non-problem of infinite regression as per Angeles's the infinite regression argument, cause,event and time presuppose previous ones as most astrophysicists acknowledge. Or as should however were there no time before the Universe came about, then no divine cause can exist, as without time no cause happens.
Thus William Lane Craig's attempt to have God existing in timelessness but creating in time won't do.
Try to have an argument without induction! That's just a red herring here.

[seer]

Seer , for evidence see Alex Vilenkin's " Many Worlds in One," Steven Hawking and Mlodinow's " The Grand Design" and Krauss's new book. You seem to be using the god of the scientific gaps. Now, the god of metaphysical gap won't do,because it adds nothing as a real explanation, only God did it. Unless one can specify how He does it, one is just prattling. Then one must show how theists can overcome Lamberth's atelic/teleonomic arguments that as science reveals no divine intent behind matters and the Flew-Lamberth the presumption of naturalism that natural causes themselves are the Primary Cause in the chain of Efficient ones, the Necessary Being and the Sufficient Reason.
How do you get over the non-problem of infinite regression as per Angeles's the infinite regression argument, cause,event and time presuppose previous ones as most astrophysicists acknowledge. Or as should however were there no time before the Universe came about, then no divine cause can exist, as without time no cause happens.
Thus William Lane Craig's attempt to have God existing in timelessness but creating in time won't do.
Try to have an argument without induction! That's just a red herring here.

There s not one bit of evidence for Vilenkin's theory or any kind of multiverse, and it has been thoroughly discussed here:

http://www.theologyweb.com/campus/sh...ical-existence

And you are willing to accept the irrational position of infinite regression to deny an eternal Creator. Or will gladly believe in perpetual motion machines or violate the 2nd law of thermal dynamics. As far as Flew-Lamberth - hasn't Flew since converted to Deism? So I guess naturalism was not sufficient for him. And as far and invoking time in your argument - that is nonsensical since even the best thinkers do not even really understand what time is or isn't. As for the gaps argument - the universe is the whole ball of wax, if you don't have a natural explanation for that you got nothing.

Finally to induction - yes we all use it, but does not change the fact that it is a logical fallacy - so get off your high horse, as if the non-believer is on better rational grounds - you are not.

[Griggsy]

[I] The evidence suggests the Multiverse. More will come forth to substantiate or not the claim, however Being Itself flouts science as a scientific or metaphysical God of the gaps! How does Being Itself operate in Nature whether as outright creator or as the Primary Cause behind Nature metaphysically? Divinity, having intent,contradicts science's not finding intent.
Yes, unless theists can substantiate Him with scientific evidence or just showing how , without contradicting science, He adds information that is more than God did it, PMN, provisional methodological naturalism, cannot allow Him in science whilst IMN , i methodological naturalism won't even entertain the notion of His acting in Nature.
The second law supports metaphysical naturalism and -evolution. People who deny either misunderstand matters.
Flew failed to apply the presumption, instead listening to such as that idiot Schroeder who mislead him about abiogenesis and related matters. He should have checked with Dawkins and such scientists.
I give the infinite regress argument, which people should try to rebut instead of avoiding the matter! It's not irrational at all1 You are using the argument from personal incredulity instead of our conservation of knowledge, and thus betray reason! And ti's hardly irrational to vouch for induction on the basis of its success, because that it just irrational!

[Griggsy]

That's intrinsic methodological naturalism, the majority view of scientists. This however plays into the hands of pesudo-scientists who mislead the public about fair play when what counts is science, not woo.

[seer]

[I] The evidence suggests the Multiverse. More will come forth to substantiate or not the claim, however Being Itself flouts science as a scientific or metaphysical God of the gaps! How does Being Itself operate in Nature whether as outright creator or as the Primary Cause behind Nature metaphysically? Divinity, having intent,contradicts science's not finding intent.
Yes, unless theists can substantiate Him with scientific evidence or just showing how , without contradicting science, He adds information that is more than God did it, PMN, provisional methodological naturalism, cannot allow Him in science whilst IMN , i methodological naturalism won't even entertain the notion of His acting in Nature.
The second law supports metaphysical naturalism and -evolution. People who deny either misunderstand matters.
Flew failed to apply the presumption, instead listening to such as that idiot Schroeder who mislead him about abiogenesis and related matters. He should have checked with Dawkins and such scientists.
I give the infinite regress argument, which people should try to rebut instead of avoiding the matter! It's not irrational at all1 You are using the argument from personal incredulity instead of our conservation of knowledge, and thus betray reason! And ti's hardly irrational to vouch for induction on the basis of its success, because that it just irrational!

Ok Griggsy, I'll give you the last word on the above, but let me ask you a question. I was converted to Christianity at 37 (I'm now 59), before that I was at least agnostic, perhaps atheistic. Since my conversion I have become a better employee, a better son and father. Kinder and more generous. I have a peace and comfort that I never experienced before Christ - and I have hope, hope that this vale of tears is not all there is in life. So if I'm wrong, in the end, at death, what have I lost? What could you possibly offer me Griggsy?

[Griggsy]

I offer truth and -that more abundant life!
Pascal's Wager, Seer, violates logic! Horse reason wins by default when horse faith fails to show up: when theism offers no reason but faith, it offers nothing as reason for itself.See my thread the presumption of rationalism to see why faith fails.
What you've lost is time that you' d have for other matters.
Keith Ward, born-again advanced theologian, you and millions of others just don't realize that one can find inspiration to do better and to feel better from other sources! That therefore is no reason,but just a feeling.
Others from other religions and from ideologies can feel the same. Many atheists feel and do better after becoming atheists! Folks, why expect people to convert to this or that from a little exposure? See my blog here for my essential refutation of religion and my threads for a full account and my recommendations for reading. And the same applies to defenses of religion.

[seer]

I offer truth and -that more abundant life!
Pascal's Wager, Seer, violates logic! Horse reason wins by default when horse faith fails to show up: when theism offers no reason but faith, it offers nothing as reason for itself.See my thread the presumption of rationalism to see why faith fails.
What you've lost is time that you' d have for other matters.
Keith Ward, born-again advanced theologian, you and millions of others just don't realize that one can find inspiration to do better and to feel better from other sources! That therefore is no reason,but just a feeling.
Others from other religions and from ideologies can feel the same. Many atheists feel and do better after becoming atheists! Folks, why expect people to convert to this or that from a little exposure? See my blog here for my essential refutation of religion and my threads for a full account and my recommendations for reading. And the same applies to defenses of religion.

But Griggsy, your worldview offers nothing but death. No hope. Remember, I lived the majority of my adult life as a non-believer, I know how I thought and felt then and how I think and feel now. So again Griggsy - what do you have to offer?

[Griggsy]

Finally, I have just read this comment! Yet, much intuition and no foundation for that incurs! One still surmises HIs stupendous way of hearing and understanding billions of people at one time! Now, I certainly don't want to use the argument from personal incredulity but instead the one from our conservation of knowledge. Thus my incredulity aside, where is the evidence that why yes, He can! Ti's repetitive surmises at hand only!
Before one can infer intent, one has to have evidence of how He could indeed operate in and behind the Cosmos. One cannot infer that very intent without that operation showing up.
Paley could infer human teleology from previous ones, but not conflate natural with anthropogenic ones. Inferring such is superstition, whether full animism or reduced.
I continue old threads just as philosophers continue old arguments as theists ever bring forth old garbage in new cans that we have to dump. As one philosopher states, it's fun to do so and I add, mental exercise!

[seer]

[I] I continue old threads just as philosophers continue old arguments as theists ever bring forth old garbage in new cans that we have to dump. As one philosopher states, it's fun to do so and I add, mental exercise!

And atheists too offer nothing new - same old death and hoplessness and an irrational belief in infinite regression...

[SatanTheAlien]

And atheists too offer nothing new - same old death and hoplessness and an irrational belief in infinite regression...

I'm an atheist and I believe in reincarnation, even reincarnating on other planets as alien beings. I surely don't see my belief in no gods as hopeless. I also don't see it as irration, nore do I see any infinite regression.