Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy

Nature is -place holder for what? Oh, its causes that need no supernatural boss as science indeed shows how and why. The why of the theologian is just that superfluity, that place- holder of non-explanatory power!
Keith Parsons, fellow atheologian cries out : " Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable manner for unfathomable purposes does not seem to be any sort of a good answer."
The scrutable paradox is that this Grand Mystery, surrounded by yet even

Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy

When no evidence exists as noted, absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence and thus, no argument from ignorance. With God, theists essentially use the argument from personal incredulity that natural causes and explanations do not suffice, and thus perforce have to use the argument from ignorance to try to instantiate Him, Definitions without evidence, faith, postulation and presuppositional theology cannot instantiate Him.
Nature's causes are that gardner who operate with a supernatural

Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy

Grandstander, oh, so right on!
Evil arrives by necessity naturally so yes, we try to overcome it. Ti's not we the naturalists who demand paradise but theists themselves. The recently late John Hick makes a straw man out of the all or nothing fallacy and the slippery slope one- three fallacies from that ever-ready rationalizer! He claims that we want paradise but that boomerangs on him as theists demand that. We just take their assumption for the sake of argument, running with it to

Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy

Big City Dreamer, yes, because as astrophysicist-atheologian Victor Stenger maintains when mountains of evidence should appear, and none does, then absence of evidence is indeed evidence of absence, and no argument from ignorance, I add. After millennia of offering misinterpretations of evidence, and like they never will give any, no God most probably exists. Besides, each argument in turn for Him fails and most naturalist arguments succeed, He ends up with no referents as Grand Miracle Monger,

Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy

Chaos, regularity, the descriptions -laws- of Nature and order inhere in Nature. Were there eternal God, He'd depend on them to function, so that He'd be a secondary cause as with us! Yes, I just now found that He'd be on our level in that aspect but I already regarded Him as that secondary cause.
Yes, the Fuller-Lamberth the argument from inherency does find Him so!
Theists, unless you can give at least a general manner about how He functions, why, you have no case whatsoever