the two categroy mistake

[Griggsy]

[B][/ A s Exostece is a;;, there perforce cammpt be the transcendent God.. Still in Existence, we cannot discern the effects of God as the presumption of naturalism holds and the ignostic-Ockham has no work for Him.
Determinism perforce means no randomness. But we observe randomness. That enough mutations arose for selection to werk on to make us, was random. as to occasssion but not as to having causes.
Nay, Exuistence wasnoit set up tio bring us about: that begs the question as noted above as all teleological arguments beg that question. The anthropic observation of fine-tuning is merely that: it has no teleological significance..Selection has no goal and to find a goal contradicts the finding of science that the weight of evidence shows that, thus the result that the aatelic argumetn protrays no God at work. To discern Him is to play upon pareidolia as seeing Yeshua i a tortilla.
And that underpins the teleological arguments. It is the Feurbachian projection at play.
To discern Him at work is to make the new Omphalos argument that even though there is no teleology, that is merely God's dellusion so as to keep the epistemic distance from us in order to make for ambiguity- John Hick's aspect notion so that He does not overhwelm our fre will .Nay, that is a palpable contradiction.
Thhat one can have the aspect of discerning God or the other one embodies Pascal'S irrational Wager. His advice to follow religoous observances is nothing more than to self-brainwash.So, please, apologists, do not ask us rationalists to invite Hiim into our hearts
John L. Schellenberg makes the naturalist argument from hiddenness that He hides Himself that He is non-existent. A beomg whose attributes are so attenuated as not to be detectable is as good as non-existemt.
Nay to Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson, as Coyone declaims that they poist God acting through selection in the way of convergence but as noted there was nothng to converge. No god tweaks selection.God does not tweak through indeterminacy..
Thus, Clifford Richard Dawkins is right that one does not have to bone up on theology as it is vacuous, but I will take on Keith Ward,, John Haught and Alister McGrath, the haughty Haught higher level
theologians.
That there is no cosmic teleology does not make for the no seqiter that we cannot have our own worthy purposes and that they are not valuable if not eternal. This Sally Field life, our own purpose and human love suffice; a fure state, divine purpose and divine love are illlusions for which one should not bray that it is sad not to have them; Robert Price in "The Reason-Driven Life: and Albert Ellis in "The Myth of Self-Esteem," pellucidly portary a valuable life for each of us.
Face it:: God is an imaginary freind that faith cannot instantialte!

[Griggsy]

Abelard, indeed they do as the placebo effect is the inspiration, without divine input, to get them to use their inner resource!
To allege that He works on them just is an argument form ignorance and begs the question.
To allege that prayer works when there seem to be positive effects begs is the post hoc fallacy- coincidence, and tests disconfirm it. And supernaturalists rationalize when the results are no.
We naturalists must keep supernaturalists on thier toes sbefoe they play the shell game!
Carneades @Aimooo.com

[nightbringer]

No circular argument involved whatsoever. Biologists have well established that natural selection is the force behind changes...

No, mutations are the physical force behind changes, natural selection is simply an occurrence whereby a newly generated trait survives in an organism.

... whereas one has to prove a mind exists that has anything to do with natural selection ...

For what purpose? To convince non-theists? Perhaps, but a inductive argument might also do the trick. And what about those who already have a rational belief in theism? What is the problem is their metaphysical belief that God orchestrated evolution in some manner?

and as I and Rossow have shown that is contradictory to natural selection and rests on the the begged question that we are the wanted result.

Where have you shown a contradiction between natural selection and teleology? I certainly can't see one. And please explain exactly how there is a begged question going on here.

Natural selection shows no ultimate purpose.

This is true if we believe evolution in conjunction will philosophical naturalism. But the theist has no need to reach such conclusions.

One adduces the new Omphalos argument that although it looks as though natural selection is the force for change, that is a deception when really a mind is behnd it . One has to take that which is provisionally certain against that which has to be demonstrated to make an argument that stands .So without making a non sequitur ,how does one leap to a minded- designer?

You are very inconsistent. You first of all claimed that natural selection and teleology are contradictory. Now you are claiming that teleogy is only irrational given, natual selection. Perhaps there isn't a convincing argument based on evolution for the conclusion that a mind orchestrated it. It doesn't follow that a theist who has other rational grounds for theism is thereby irrational in their belief in theistic evolution.

Minds put together watches but natural selection acts on the properties of a living thing to transform its descendants .

Technically natural selection doesn't act. It is an entirely descriptive concept, not a prescriptive one.

Without a circular argument and a non sequitur , how does one adduce a creator ?

As already stated, perhaps one can't from evolution alone. But it does not follow necessaily that theistic evolution is irrational.

One hardly begs the question in presenting as an argument in favor experience against one, one has to demonstrate as Hume did with the case of miralcles , also an argument falsely accused of begging the question. Show that natural selection is incomplete in its domain rather than begging the question of a second category and then falsely accuse someone of begging the question !

Using evolution to disprove teleology does beg the question if you're trying to convince someone who has rational grounds for theism as you're assuming philosophical naturalism.

Diamond showed that the second category is begged in more detail . The argument just shown to be circular just is another reason for my signature statement! Science is causal as Weisz showed and teleology is out . Causality is one condition at a time making possible another whereas teleolgy implies the result beforehand and thus the effect before the cause as Weisz put it .Argue with scientists if one must on this. Watts r1 might have more to state about causality and teleology. Once I find Weisz's full account from "The Science of Biology , I will put it here .

A mind can intend a casual process to achieve a certain end, therefore no contradiction exists. At all.

Basically to show that theistic evolution is irrational or false you must first show that of theism generally. Good luck with that.

[Griggsy]

[COLOR="DarkSlateBlue"]Yes, nightbringer, selection is that cause that works on the mutations alright without divine input as previously illuminated. One has to give evidence of that disembodied mind before one can claim that it directs anything. I maintain against Plantinga that the argument from physical mind eviscerates the God-idea right from the start! I Ti's a begged question to imply divine intent and direction in that is what one must evince from the start! Yes, supernaturalists have other arguments but this naturalist atelic one also eviscerates them also as they also rest on that intent![ No, we naturalist beg no questions here you supernaturalists sure do! One has to start off with the presumption of naturalism [ See that thread; I don't do homework!].
No, science itself illuminates no teleology! That is a given ,not a begged-question pace George Gaylord Simpson [ " The Life of the Past"] and Ernst Mayer [ What Evolution Is;]. , and contrary to my friend, Eugenie S.Scott.
No, your contradiction remains, because Nature is teleonomic after all! And as Weisz notes, backwards causation steps outside reason!
Without ever evincing any intent-agency-purpose-teleology but the mere claim that science and religions are compatible, evolutionary creationists and creationist evolutionists utterly fail to make the case for Divine Mind!
And Plantinga, notwithstanding, being disembodied, God cannot have a brain and thus no mind with which to think and act,much less to have intent! Thanks for falling into Morgan-Lynn's Trap!
Oh, and we naturalists find grace such a demeaning term! And the blood-sacrifice of the Atonement mocks morality.
We new atheists go for the supernaturalist jugular! Note my previous responses here.
carneades.aimoo.com
stratoofga.wordpress.com
democritus.posterous.com
! /COLOR]

[Griggsy]

And not only does divine teleology contradict natural explanation, it also violates the Ockham Razor. A double whammy!
See the ignostic-Ockham thread!

[Griggsy]

Religion cannot predict. It has no scope. It has convoluted,ad hoc assumptions ,violating thus the Ockham. It is vacuous. Thus, it can proffer no knowledge other than its own assumptions about itself. Theology is the subject without a subject!!


http://carneades-georgia.hubpages.com

[Griggsy]

In the end ti's Aquinas' superfluity argument [ affirming the Ockahm] that eviscerates theism. He argues that why, God adds nothing to explanations. And the argument boomerangs on him with his silly,five failed arguments!
Percy Bysshe Shelley notes: " To suppose that some existence beond, or above them [ the descriptions-laws- of Nature] is to invent a second and superfluous hypothesis to account for what already is accounted for." No, no category mistake occurs to suggest that why, there's metaphysical existence as that would beg the question.
In the end, Lamberth's reduced animism argument puts to death the need for divine intent as arguments about God will show.

[Griggsy]

Were there that second category, then God would direct matters, and scientist never woluld do experiments,because the outcome would always be the same. As th e superfluity argument notes, God is superfluous as any kind of explanation. To postulate a presonal explanations as WLC and Richard Swinbune do is " to invent a secondary and superfluous hypotheisis to account for what is already accounted for, notes Shelley. For theists then to claim that he makes a category mistake is to beg the question thereof.

[SatanTheAlien]

If God were behind evolution, why be so deceptive. Why make it appear to be something natural? It appears to be so natural (not guided) that even most theistic evolutionist adhire to the watch maker. God created/made the watch, wound it up, then set it on autopilot. This is the anology Sir Isaac Newton used for God creating the universe. He built the necessary parts, and then let it run by itself, just like a wound-up watch.