Sunday, February 24, 2013

The genesis of revered ignorance!

         The  preceding essay demonstrates the genesis of  revered ignorance! Instead of revering science to inform their views, such proud ignoramuses prefer an undocumented source of undocumented misanthropes. It troubles such pathetic people that science does go against their supposed truthful scriptures.
          The writer faults his fellow ignoramuses for not adhering to is form. We full skeptics find that old age creationists only follow science up to a point: they gladly accept the ancient age but still refuse to let science tell them the truth of the genesis of humans.
          Theistic evolutionists accept gladly evolution, but not the fact that science finds no divine intent, and thus, theistic evolution contradicts rather than complements science, being no more than an oxy-moronic obfuscation!
           We full skeptics find that science does find no God, including Martin Gardner's one. Faith can not  instantiate the deist God!
           Haughty John Haught proclaims that why, blind faith can lead to danger, but true faith envelopes the whole being, and Alister Earl McGrath proclaims that first believers find the evidence for belief  and then use faith for certitude. Both approaches cannot obviate the fact that no matter how defined, faith opposes rational methodology!
           Science acceptance does not lead to scientism- that only science finds truth, but one must use rational means to verify any matter.
           By the way, the distinction betwixt methodological and ontological naturalism cannot gainsay the fact that methodological naturalism itself is mechanistic! Thus, the NCES and others making that distinction err in thinking that that distinction actually can assuage creationists!
           Creationism methodology precludes people from accepting mechanism no matter how accommodationists define matters!

Why Don’t Many Christian Leaders and Scholars Believe Genesis? - Answers in Genesis

Why Don’t Many Christian Leaders and Scholars Believe Genesis? - Answers in Genesis

Monday, February 18, 2013

Morality- real claim

William Lane Craig  takes as gospel truth all the matter in the Bible. He defends the commands for genocide. He defends the divine command theory.
 He has no evidence for his claims for the anthology, none for his God and none for morality.
 Why should any rational person find creditable the talking snake and the talking donkey and all those miracles?
 He cannot defend the  putative genocide as morality condemns such. He cannot with that other fool C.S.Lewis claim why, to find God immoral then one has to have an objective morality, one independent of people's subjectivity. No. In part, morality depends on that subjectivity- the overruling of our tastes and whims with our considered judgment, which depends on our evolved moral sense- empathy- and reason and facts-- wide-reflective subjectivism underpinning the humanist,objective ethic. As with science, it is tentative- we can refine it- and debatable, His is the egregious simple subjectivism of malignant, malicious misanthropes, who largely made up morality due to their egregious tastes and whims; the simple subjectivism of those who have a good moral sense can be just fine.
     WLC prefers that egregious morality to that of Lord Russell or Michael Ruse or the wide-reflective one of Hobbes and Hume.^

       He'd let the holy spirit- his own inner thought- to override his reason should he find no evidence for the Resurrection and all. He prefers being a dupe to ancient immoral- thinking men than to test claims. That inner thought is his own fear of reality at work by using , his own certitude but claiming that that spirit speaks to him. Telepathic God would violate physics!

       Dogmatism cannot instantiate God. We have no sensus divinitatus- divine sense- the holy spirit at work, despite that other fool Alvin Plantinga!

  What rational person would accept those biblical tall tales? No evidence exists for them, just men spouting off! Why, history  finds much of that egregious anthology wrong! Yet, he wants others to base their lives on that anthology from Hell!
  He spouts logical fallacies for his Kalam argument! He thinks that his rhetoric can instantiate God!

ExChristian.Net: “Morality Based on Consequences” plus 2 more - - Gmail

ExChristian.Net: “Morality Based on Consequences” plus 2 more - - Gmail

Sunday, February 17, 2013

That burden!

 Wilson and Alvin Plantinga go for that self-evident God, thereby proving they lack wisdom in that respect!