Why God cannot exist!
Posted 02-12-2013 at 02:38 PM by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carneades-SkepticGriggsy
Were the parameters such that no form of life existed, would that show that God favored no form or would it be due to Leucippus' necessity? I find that necessity, including randomness, explains why life arose: the conditions that natural selections and drift and other forces used to cause it to arise need no divine boss.
Mechanism, not teleology-intent-orthogenesis-vitalism- explains the how and the - why. We need no supernatural, superstitious, supercilious why- that argument from personal incredulity answered by that argument from ignorance.
Random events have natural causes, being random on how they affect other matters. Random mutations do not favor any living thing but just happen to living things. The comet or asteroid or meteoroid that helped cause the demise of the dinosaurs, the cooling- off period and the arise of the flowering plants all were random events that influenced our own evolution but did not teleologically favor it; and natural selection the non-programming, anti-chance agent of Nature did not teleologically favor it.
Necessity can seem to favor developments, but not teleologically.
Theists ever adduce misinterpretations of evidence as evidence. The parameters involved in the putative fine-tuning that the weak anthropic argument notes does not favor life teleologically but only mechanistically.
What people find as mysteries to favor God is just another argument from ignorance-no evidence that people take as evidence!
Folks, the pre-Socratics are right against their fellow naturalist Aristotle -no form of intent lies in Nature. His error and his own science kept Europe scientifically backwards!
Aquinas failed and others fail to overcome the Euthyphro, because they beg the question of God being good by his own nature, and the same question arises as to that nature!
Our evolved moral sense is the background for our morality that we ground ontologically in ourselves; we need no God to ground it, and indeed, the notion that we do has matters inverse!^
Most of us most of the time use empathy in our relations with others; people need to extend empathy as the source of the planetary ethic that the late, great Paul Kurttz ever admonished us to develop. I stress that most of most of the time do good so as to overcome that religious and - secular notion that why, behold: all those Holocausts and other murders and such evil portray us all as wretched or at least show our moral sense as favoring the good as much as the bad. I find that ignorance explains some moral failings.
As Kurtz in " Forbidden Fruit" and Quentin Smith note most people follow the common moral decencies. My covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism explains how we can have a humanist ethic.
^ An essay exists that adduced why divine morality would be immoral.
Devine morality is just simple subjectivist morality of mean-minded, misogynistic misanthropists who use their own egregious tastes and whims for the most part to establish so-called divine command morality. And no God came forth with a progressive morality; our ancestors found out better morals as time went by.
Again, God did it explains nothing, but is only a false assumption due to the arguments from personal incredulity and from ignorance. We naturalists on the other hand use the scientific argument from the conservation -background- of knowledge with which to start, adducing evidence for new knowledge. That conservation keeps us from adducing woo as evidence. It takes real evidence not misinterpretations thereof to add to that conservation.
The Aquinas-Shellley superfluity argument embraces that conservation. That argument boomerangs on his own five ways!
Mechanism, not teleology-intent-orthogenesis-vitalism- explains the how and the - why. We need no supernatural, superstitious, supercilious why- that argument from personal incredulity answered by that argument from ignorance.
Random events have natural causes, being random on how they affect other matters. Random mutations do not favor any living thing but just happen to living things. The comet or asteroid or meteoroid that helped cause the demise of the dinosaurs, the cooling- off period and the arise of the flowering plants all were random events that influenced our own evolution but did not teleologically favor it; and natural selection the non-programming, anti-chance agent of Nature did not teleologically favor it.
Necessity can seem to favor developments, but not teleologically.
Theists ever adduce misinterpretations of evidence as evidence. The parameters involved in the putative fine-tuning that the weak anthropic argument notes does not favor life teleologically but only mechanistically.
What people find as mysteries to favor God is just another argument from ignorance-no evidence that people take as evidence!
Folks, the pre-Socratics are right against their fellow naturalist Aristotle -no form of intent lies in Nature. His error and his own science kept Europe scientifically backwards!
Aquinas failed and others fail to overcome the Euthyphro, because they beg the question of God being good by his own nature, and the same question arises as to that nature!
Our evolved moral sense is the background for our morality that we ground ontologically in ourselves; we need no God to ground it, and indeed, the notion that we do has matters inverse!^
Most of us most of the time use empathy in our relations with others; people need to extend empathy as the source of the planetary ethic that the late, great Paul Kurttz ever admonished us to develop. I stress that most of most of the time do good so as to overcome that religious and - secular notion that why, behold: all those Holocausts and other murders and such evil portray us all as wretched or at least show our moral sense as favoring the good as much as the bad. I find that ignorance explains some moral failings.
As Kurtz in " Forbidden Fruit" and Quentin Smith note most people follow the common moral decencies. My covenant morality for humanity- the presumption of humanism explains how we can have a humanist ethic.
^ An essay exists that adduced why divine morality would be immoral.
Devine morality is just simple subjectivist morality of mean-minded, misogynistic misanthropists who use their own egregious tastes and whims for the most part to establish so-called divine command morality. And no God came forth with a progressive morality; our ancestors found out better morals as time went by.
Again, God did it explains nothing, but is only a false assumption due to the arguments from personal incredulity and from ignorance. We naturalists on the other hand use the scientific argument from the conservation -background- of knowledge with which to start, adducing evidence for new knowledge. That conservation keeps us from adducing woo as evidence. It takes real evidence not misinterpretations thereof to add to that conservation.
The Aquinas-Shellley superfluity argument embraces that conservation. That argument boomerangs on his own five ways!
No, mechanism leaves no ambiguity that it rules, not any form of teleology!
Now I rename this argument Lamberth's mechanistic argument instead of teleonomic one due to different explanations about teleonomy and mechanism is the standard term anyeay. Ernst Mayer uses the term teleonomy , whence came the term for the argument.
To adduce teleology is to use animism in the form of reduced animism = theism as Lamberth's reduced animism argument claims.
How might people have a relationship with a superfluity and superstition?
Total Comments 0
