Arguments about God, including the ignostic-Ockham

[HeadingNorth]

My exact words were that it depends on how YOU define God.

 

To which I pointed out that it makes no difference. There is no possible definition of God that can support a logical argument to claim His existence.

[Grahame]

to quote a friend of mine:

 

"Hooray! Another thread about religion etc"

 

Unless you have something that is helpful and constructive would you mind not making comments please.

[Grahame]

To which I pointed out that it makes no difference. There is no possible definition of God that can support a logical argument to claim His existence.

 

You don't define God in any way shape or form.

 

Got that. Have you anything more to add?

[HeadingNorth]

You don't define God in any way shape or form.

 

 

But you do, and your definition does not support a logical argument for His existence. No definition ever will.

[Grahame]

But you do, and your definition does not support a logical argument for His existence. No definition ever will.

 

Got that. Have you anything more to add.

[BobbyDazzler]

Socrates stated that unlike most people, that he knew that he didn't know too much and thus coudn't go beyond the data as we'd say today, and then he pounced upon his opponents, showing that what he knew outweighed their opinions.

So I use this signature @ some sites: @ 'Fr.Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism." Yes, I find that supernaturalists make flimsy arguments that I go after with my naturalism.

Frankly, instead of trying to be funny, try to answer the points and ask me what I mean. That is the proper way to treat others as you' d want others to treat you,eh?

The neurological problems stem from my schizotypy, meaning, amongst other disabilites, I'd have language problems. No professor ever took umbrage at my style in my essays. One told me to use transitions. My French one , herself Franco-American, liked it.

I never fault someone for language use, ever only for points made.

So what are your views on this subject for which so many murder others? Elsewhere some even like my style and praise me for my content.

So why or why not God?

And support mental health and take away its stigma, please so as to treat others with respect!

Again, I'll be pithy in future posts. A poster elsewhere urged my to mention my neurological problem so that others would understand that it is indeed a problem that does harm my style.

Good will and blessings to all who treat others as they ought to.

Ignostic Morgan [ this name was to long ]

The following is as though it were a separte post to show that I'm working against that severe problem, which doesn't harm me otherwise, just on-line.

Heading North, ah, how perspicouos of you- I just had to use that word- self-deprecaton. That is, you're also an ignostic, finding that definitions for Him mean nothing without evidence, sir or ma'am! See folks how pithy that was?

Have you not got a girlfriend son?

[[Matt]]

Unless you have something that is helpful and constructive would you mind not making comments please.

Considering this thread is pointless and the thread starter is just typing incoherent drivel, isnt this entire thread completely non constructive?

[[Matt]]

But then aren't all atheists ignorant when it comes to spirituality? Mind you that doesn't stop them having plenty to say.

No. Spirituality need not mean a belief in a deity. Most of the far eastern religions are based on philosophies that lack a theistic view. The closest they come to a concept of a god is a pantheistic view of the world; in other words they worship nature as their god but not a god.

 

Hope that helps...

[Grahame]

;6117048']Considering this thread is pointless and the thread starter is just typing incoherent drivel' date=' isnt this entire thread completely non constructive?[/quote']

 

I guess that like a lot of other atheists he is going round all the forums attacking Christianity and if that is the case then what he posts needs showing up for the drivel it is.

 

Why atheists have to be like this I don't know. I just think people should be left in peace to follow whatever belief they want and if people have no belief then fair enough, but people do not need to be clobbered continually over the head with other peoples prejudices. There are some on here who take great delight in doing that as well and it needs to stop in my opinion. We don't need it.

[Zaytsev]

Why do you disbelieve or believe in God?

Do you find that He adds insight to natural causes and explanations?How can He be the First Cause, Grand Designer and Grand Miracle Monger when science shows pellucidly no intent behind any cause and any design and any miracle?

As science also illuminates that universes stem from quantum tunneling, one cannot vouchsafe any First Cause.And the infinite regress argument reflects that as cause, event and time presuppose previous ones.

As the argument from Existence illuminates, nothing can external to it to either cause it or be whence it comes.

The argument from physical mind reflects that we only know such minds , no supernaturalist ever has evidenced a disembodied mind but only make a guess - an it must be or it may be - to argue for it.T'is a:loopy:notion.

All these arguments attest to His being fatuous, nebulous, otiose and vacuous- meaningful only as is Santa Claus but not as a reality, being as a married bachelor- again the ignostic argument.

Citing any scriptures adds nothing to this discussion and being jejune also adds nothing to what philosophers take pains to consider, from whom I get most of these arguments.

All teleological [intent] arguments- fine-tuning, probability, from mind and design beg the question that we were wanted- intent. No, evolution had no intent to have us or-any other comparable being evolve; yes, no purpose exists for us but t'is a non-sequitur to whine that therefore we have no purpose as we have to make our own.

All cosmological arguments beg the question of that intent. Teleonomy -no planned outcomes -exhibits itself to cause the universes.

Aquinas begs the First Cause [ which he did not call it; also called the etiological]]when he maintains that to take it away takes away all intermediate ones. He again begs the question in finding the Necessary Being in his two categories of contingency and Necessary Being in the argument from contingency. Again,t'is that it may be or it must be guesswork that keeps theologians at work.

He argues well that it is from day to day eternally rather than as the begged question of the starting point that William Lane Craig finds with his jejunered herrings about the Hilbert Hotel, the infinite library and the running man in the Kalam argument.. And Leibniz begged the question of nothing in asking why is there something rather than nothing as nothing means nothing as the ancient Greek philosophers knew; this is his big blunder.

Yes, supernaturalists beg questions, special plead and do guesswork to evince Him ,so Fr. Griggs stands affirmed!

His other blunder is to assume that the sufficient reason has to be God when the presumption of naturalism overrides that so that natural causes and explanations themselves are that sufficient reason.

Again, what do you maintain about Him?

Oh, do ask honest questions if you don't fathom what I maintain!

Goodwill and blessings to all!

Ignostic Morgan

I recommend thes blogs: Carneades @ Bloggers, griggs1947's blog @ WordPress and Rationalist @ Google bog spot.

 

 

Please stick to the topic as many find it a necessary one!

 

 

I think the more pressing question is 'have you ever kissed a girl'.