Wednesday, February 10, 2010

A Conscious Universe = God at Christianity Debate

A Conscious Universe = God at Christianity Debate

Dieu- cause second1 Miracles- naturelles

Puisqe, que Dieu depend sur l'efficace de la causalite de la nature elle-meme pour agir, Lui ne peut etre la Premiere Cause! La presomption de la nature, c'est que les supernaturalistes et paranormalestes doivent la surmener avec l'evidence. Les causes et explanations ne sont seulement pas efficientes and necessaire, mais aussi primaires et sufficientes. Elles, elles, sont la raison sufficient, neamoins Leibniz. Ca n'est pas une question circulaire mais l'exigence pour l'evidence comme avait Eistein contre Newton.
La corollaire de Hume sur les miracles suivit de meme.
Notez que la Vatican accorde une miracle a la Folle Mere Teresa a cause de la curaison d'une fillette de laqueelle le pere,lui, dit qu'elle etait sain en premiere lieu! Lorsques nous, les sceptiques s'enquerent, nous trouvons les miracles seulement les choses naturelles.

Wednesday, July 29, 2009

Theistic evolution- that oxymoron

+ @ Facebook, one finds Klink's article against theistic evolution. It, Jerry Coyne's ' Seeing and Believing" [ Google his name to find the article and also his ' Intergalactic Jesus"] and Amiel Rossow's essay on Kenneth Miller @ Talk Reason, to ponder that theistic evolution is indeed an oxymoron, contradicting natural selection as the means for evolution.Religion and evolution are not really compatible on the side of science; from the side of religion, they can be.
The teleonomic/ atelic argument gainsays that God has any in-put into the evolutionary process: such in-put contradicts selection, the non-planning, anti-chance agency of Nature. To argue otherwise makes the new Omphalos argument that He has in-put deceividly whilst selection only apparently has force but is under His control: nay, science illustrates no such thing!
Those three writings illustrate that errancy can be as silly as inerrancy. Klink notes how errantists twist the Tanakh to their way of thinking, which is on par with that of i to natural causes to explain things.
And the presumption of naturalism attests that not only are natural causes and explanations, efficient and necessary, they are also primary and sufficient: they are the sufficient reason. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz notwithstanding. This neither begs the question nor sandbags theists or paranormalists, but is simply the demand for evidence as Einstein overcame Newton.

Thursday, March 19, 2009


I mainain that Yeshua was just a fanatic cult leader. What say ye/
Why would one think that he is purely fictional?

Sunday, March 08, 2009

The presumption of rationalism

The presumption of rationalism is that one always should use reason in the acquisition of knowledge rather than faith. Reason can move mountains whilst faith makes for mountains of castles in the air.
Reason does not bring mad scientists or despotism; those are faith-based activities as not based in reason and real fact but instead in whims and disregard of facts. Reason is not without emotions.
Faith is the we just say so of credulity.. It begs the question of its subject [Articulett@ Skeptic Society]. Science is acquired knowledge whilst faith , as Sydney Hook remarks, begs the question of being knowledge.
Contrary to advance theologian haughty John Haught, Clifford Richard Dawkins does not make here an idiosyncratic definition of faith, nor do I, but use the word ad one does in stating that one must have faith.And it is no false dilemma to claim thus that reason and faith do in fact conflict rather than faith complements reason.
William Kingdon Clifford rightly maintains that we should never accept a claim without sufficient evidence; advance theologian Keith Ward maintains that with that heuristic method and attitude, we could never get out of bed!Nay, the amount varies, much of life's daily activities require no further evidence finding. He sets up the straw man of the all or nothing fallacy.
Advanced theologians abdicate reason like the primitive ones like Pat Robertson or Norman Geisler; faith does that to people!

Saturday, October 07, 2006

Fellow rationalists/skeptics/ naturalists/ non-theists, how did you become such? At , sixteen I read Nathaniels Branden's existence exists in the Objectivist newsletetter[ see the passage in Stein's first anthology on atheism]. Evolution had bothered me about belief in a god . Now Iwas liberated! Since then I have read so much in favor of atheism that I declare that theists have not and will not ever advance a convincing argument for a god.