My Blog List

Hndsome bloke

Hndsome bloke



Welcome to Carneades, your resident skeptic [[skeptic griggsy].

Google naturalist griggsy, rationalist griggsy, skeptic griggsy, sceptique griggsy ,skeptiker griggsy and escpetico griggsy.

Ignostic Morgan

' God is in a worse position than Scare Crow who had a body to wich a mind could enter whilst He has neither.

"God is that married bachelor and thus cannot exist. No wonder He is ineffable! " I.M

" Life is its own validation and reward and ultimate meaning to which neither God nor the future state can further validate!"
Inquiring Lynn


Saturday, July 31, 2010

Carneades says:

Can God be  onmi-max God when incompatibility  arguments that we ignostics put forth  presenting His attributes as conflicting and incoherent? Carneades maintains no, because as for instance. to be perfect He'd have to be all virtuous but as not fearing anything that He cannot be and thus cannot exist. This is more than a probability statement but a certainty by way of analysis wheres as other naturalist arguments would be probable.
 Yet if we didn't discuss whether He could be virtuous or vicious, as David Ramsay Steele notes in " Atheism Explained : from Folly to Philosophy," then He is no kind of person we ever have known. even analogically.
  Since He is disembodied, He has no  brain with a mind. And have we ever observe such a being? No, and to argue otherwise is to commit the fallacy of ignorance, but then faith rests there.
We ignostics have many more such arguments.
 Might the visitors here have their own misgivingings about His powers, revealing that He cannot exist?


  1. I have always said that faith is the ultimate equalizer when it comes to religious beliefs. Since faith requires no evidence but rather a belief based on what one is taught, told, or brought up in. This is my own version of the theists mantra: If the facts contradict what we know to be true through faith, then the facts are wrong!

  2. Chaptpilot, Carneades also notes that Chrysippus uses the loaded world builder in his teleological argument with the analogy that just as a building requires a builder, the Cosmos requires a Creator greater than mankind.Why wouldn't natural forces themselves be the real causes?
    Thus he endorses, in effect the presumption of naturalism that not only are natural causes and explanations necessary and efficient but also primary and sufficient: he then refutes Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz eons about God being the sufficient reason. Thus, in effect, he eviscerate both the design and Aristotle and Aquinas's Primary Cause and Leibniz's Sufficient Reason cosmological arguments, it seems to me.
    To aver that He is that Primary Cause rather than they themselves being the sufficient cause. The Primary Cause rends natural causes as just apparitions as though they just followed His directives! Natural selection is teleonomic- no wanted outcomes- rather than being the vessel of teleological causes! The idea of Primary Cause contradicts what we discern in Nature that no wanted actions bestir themselves but rather mindless forces work.
    Now, this intent- agency-teleology begs the question of itself in all teleological - fine-tuning, probability, from reason and design and indeed any argument using intent as the one about miracles and divine actor in history to save Jewry[ What it could have been worse with pogroms and may another holocaust1].
    Chatboy, yes, faith then enters the picture as indeed one supernaturalist insists that no, the natural causes are indeed apparitions as He makes matters happen so that like with the old Omphalos argument with the apparent ages of items to make them look very ancient when he thereby deceives us, here he does so with the mere appearance that they are their own bosses!No, they are that they themselves are all together that Primary Cause.
    Thus theologians rather than seeing spirits behind natural phenomena see Him as the one great one:animism writ large!
    I've thus permuted my points under His simple ones!
    Thus I'm creative,eh?