Naturalist Griggsy: Kelosophy

Naturalist Griggsy: Kelosophy

via Naturalist Griggsy: Kelosophy.

MWEB Forums: is errancy any more reliable than inerrancy?

MWEB Forums: is errancy any more reliable than inerrancy?

via MWEB Forums: is errancy any more reliable than inerrancy?.

 What do you opine about the enclose thread?

Naturalism: its glory

Naturalism’s and science’s glory is the ever-changing fount of knowledge, notwithstanding fellow skeptic Joh L.Schellenberg’s protestations against naturalists relying on science. Now, contrary to many, we are not scientistic, relying only on science, but any other venue of knowledge must rest on evidence. And haughty John Haught excoriates us naturalists for denying other avenues of knowledge but begs that question of other venues.

     Rem B. Edwards cries that we naturalists beg the question in not allowing the supernatural as it is just as comprehensive as naturalism, but no, rather he begs the question in that supernaturalism violates the principle of parsimony, resting on convoluted, ad hoc assumptions.

   ” Logic is the bane of theists.” Fr. Griggs

No intent but purpose for us anyway!

 Strato’s finding that no intent lies behind natural causes and explanations confrims itself in that  those who find divine inent for their  purposeful existence, take human purposes that they favor, claiimig His intent for us to have purpose.

   We oursleves determine our own meanings and purposes. This Sally Field life, human purposes and love exist whereas one prattles about the future state and divine purposes for us and divine love that otherwise why live as life would be pontless. No, it is such a non-sequitur to infer no purpose for us from science finding no intent- purpose.

Tools ‹ Strato of Ga’s Blog — WordPress

Tools ‹ Strato of Ga’s Blog — WordPress.

Hello world!

Welcome to WordPress.com. This is your first post. Edit or delete it and start blogging!