the presumption of naturalism and Existence

[skepticgriggsy]

[/ Theists have the it must be argument the one from God as to rights: either our rights come from Him and are thus inalienable or they come from the state and thus revocable. Nay, our level of consciousness bestows them o nus as the U.N. implicitly notes. And in line with " cousin" Morgan's Canon, we ought follow the recommendation of the Great Ape Project to grant the other great apes more protections. Yes, we most humanists do in fact favor those apes over the unborn! /b]
We ignostics question the very notion of the intelligibility of God. Our naturalist/ ignostic argument i is that if He is disembodied, then He has no brain and thus cannot act or think! His attributes, we ignostics note, are incohernt and contradict each other. The First Cause and so on arguments themselves reflect meaninglessness!

[skepticgriggsy]

[/ Theists have the it must be argument that from God come rights: either our rights come from Him and are thus inalienable or they come from the state and thus revocable. Nay, our level of consciousness bestows them o nus as the U.N. implicitly notes. And in line with " cousin" Morgan's Canon, we ought to follow the recommendation of the Great Ape Project to grant the other great apes more protections. Yes, we most humanists do in fact favor those apes over the unborn! /b]
We ignostics question the very notion of the intelligibility of God. Our naturalist/ ignostic argument is that if He is disembodied, then He has no brain and thus no mind thus cannot act or think! His attributes, we ignostics note, are incoherent and contradict each other. The First Cause and other arguments themselves reflect meaninglessness!

[NH Baritone]

Griggsy:

Your failures at editing and technical issues are stealing your credibility. I'm more worried about you than your arguments.

[Tim-the-Hermit]

Two of my purposes are to take away the stigma of mental illness and to support mental health.

Interesting. Why those two in particular?

Perhaps because they are simply very worthwhile purposes. The stigma, prejudice and injustice that those with a mental illness can face is often much worse than with other types of illness.

[JustJim]

Perhaps because they're extremely personally relevant to him. Have you read his posts? You can tell when he's off his meds....

Jim

[skepticgriggsy]

David Hume has the claim against miracles as a corollary to this presumption.Again, he isn't arguing in a circle: he is relying on the criteria for knowledge that I adumbrate @ skepticism. When we skeptics investigate faith-healing claims and Vatican-approved miracle claims, we find that they are natural, if not fraudulent. Notice that in the case of the former, healers will have wheel-chairs for people who already can walk! They brush aside the real cases. Then is is a matter of the post hoc fallacy- coincidence. It could be just a temporary matter of just feeling better or just remissions which happen anyway. Should a doctor give a prediction against a cure, that is just a probabiilty, not a certainty, so we require no God to explain matters. Notice that with the progress of knowledge, there are fewer and fewer Vatican-approved miracles! Moter Dearest Teresa will become a saint,because of two required miracles, when ,in fact, the father of a girl in India declares no miracle for her.
So, Haught can bleat other venues of knowledge, but the facts belied him!
Why would God make such miracles as that of Fatima and the pareidolias of Mary and Yeshua? They are so inconsequential and not important like genocide. Why would Yeshua just have cure a few when he could have cured the many?
No Amazing Randi was around to expose his miracles. Just as ever, people misobserve. Sleight of hand played its hand. And other miracle mongers dis as well. Did Jjim Jones or oraal Roberts, those two frauds, ever resurrect anyone as claimed/ The conservatism of knowledge acts against miracles. Hume's dictum is that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Godists make the arguments from angst and happiness without any evidence. The former as Augustine puts it is that we are restless unless in His bosom and the latter is that He'd make us far happier, give us that more abundant life. Should one have angst or dread as creationistic theist Dr. Francisco Jose Ayala puts it, she should get therapy as I did.
Ayala alleges that we need Him for our ultimate purpose. Nay, we don't need Him as our transitory lives, human love and our own purposes quite suffice as Dr' Robert Price in " The Reason-Driven Life" and Dr. Albert Ellis in " The Myth of Self-Esteem" reveal.
The presumption of empiricism requires factn not unsupported intuitions and revelations. What are the fact surrounding the alleged miralces.
The presumption of humanism is our covenant morality for humanity, which requires that all receive miracles. See that thread,please.
The presumption of rationalism that requires the use of reason, rejecting faith. Reason moves mountains of ignorance whilst faith rests on the arguments from ignorance and incredulity. And I expatiate on the presumption of skepticism @ the thread and give there criteria for knowledge that one must use to overcome these presumptions!
Science, as Dr. Sydney Hook observes, is acquired knowledge whilst faith begs the question of being knowledge. Faith, the we just say os credulity, begs the question of its subject [ Articulett]. Faith is a replaceable crutch or placebo; reason is ever required. It takes faith to believe in miracles. Se the thread the presumption of rationalism.please.
These presumptions make for that more abundant life that that ever dead miracle monger never really could!
So , we can all have real wonders with these presumptions that miracle mongers never could.
I see real connections amongst arguments for and against Him
Have you observed a real miracle, and how can you verify that?
Do you need that divine crutch to get through life or do you realize that she who helps herself, helps herself without divine input?
Do you think that you need divine approval for your purposes in life?
That teleonomy means a purposeless world does lead to the non-sequitur that thus we have no adequate human purposes. Divinity cannot add value to life! A future state cannot add value to life!
" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning.'
Two of my purposes are to take away the stigma of mental illness and to support mental health.

[humanguy]

Two of my purposes are to take away the stigma of mental illness and to support mental health.

Interesting. Why those two in particular?

[skepticgriggsy]

humanguy, so that other humans will better relate to us and to get help for others, I have those two. Also, my great passion is to help rid over the next few decades as much woo as possible, including the supernatural.

[skepticgriggsy]

Were God transcendent, then He couldn't be omnipresent or vice-versa, so here is an incompatibly argument affirming the ignostic challenge that He cannot exist.
As being disembodied, He cannot be a person; but a person has to have a body, so He cannot exist. And without a brain, He has no mind and thus can neither think nor act and thus cannot exist. Again, He cannot exist. A double whammy!
Carneades, the first ignostic notes that as courage is a virtue, and He has nothing to fear to overcome, He cannot be that perfect being and yes, He cannot exist. Then again, as David Ramsay Steele^ notes, for the sake of argument, then disregarding virtues and -vices, He is no kind of person we'd recognize! Again, a double whammy!
Ah, naturalists err in using the argument of the stone in that is is nonsensical to pose the dilemma that can God lift a stone so heavy that He cannot lift it.
Naturalists [ Sartre and Rand ] err in maintaining the worship and moral agency argument that as God, He merits worship, but, [ for the sake of argument] we are autonomous beings, so to require us to worship Him overcomes that autonomy and thus He cannot exist. Then again, we owe no God worship nor would one rightly be able to condemn us, but rather faces the one-way street outlined @ the problem of Heaven...! Thus for the sake of argument, we have here a double whammy!
The problem of evil illuminates the incompatibility of His omnibenevolent, omniscience and omnipotence. See the problem of Heaven...
And the Star Trek argument that as perfect He'd create perfection, but no perfection exists and thus He cannot exist! The Eden myth fails as literal or metaphorical!
And as He has incoherent,contradictory attributes and He has no referents as Primary Cause and so forth, He cannot exist.

^ "Atheiism Explained: from Folly to Philosophy"