Hello world!

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

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Hello world!

  1. stratoofga says:

    Strato of Lampascus, in line with modern science and his fellow Greek, Thales, recommends doing science without positing any teleology – planned outcomes-behind it, unlike his teacher Aristotle.
    I dedicate this blog to him and Thales and Carneades.
    The argument from non-intent or the atelic or teleonomic argument is that since the weight of evidence reveals no intent behind natural phenomena, therefore, no divine or paranormal intent happens to set off matters.
    God did it means no more than the rabbit’s foot non-intent to help anyone. We find no intent to help one be a clairvoyant and so forth. The supernatural and its twin superstition, the paranormal, what Paul Kurtz labels ” The Transcendental Temptation,” have no intent to help us whatsoever as the Cosmos operates teleonomically- no planned outcomes.
    The presumption of naturalism keel hauls any supernatural just as oxygen keel hauls phlogiston!
    It means that all natural causes and explanations aren’t only necessary and efficient but also primary and sufficient: they’re the sufficient reason, despite Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz. This neither begs the question nor sandbags those of that temptation but merely means one should provide evidence to overcome it as Einsteins overcame Newton. as one would t o over overcome David Hume’s corollary on miracles.
    Antony Garrard Newton Flew notes that Aquinas himself alludes to this presumption, failing to overcome it with his five arguments. It is comparable to the presumption of innocence.
    We skeptics desire to educate people to be skeptical of claims.
    I invite serious inquirers to post here ! How can we educate the public to examine these sorts of claims? What are your arguments against superstitious claims?
    I also invite bloggers of similare blogs to link with this one. Thanks!

    • stratoofga says:

      Folks, it is a logical fallacy to argue from the parts to the whole when they are in different categories. Hume-Russell-Edwards-Lamberth [i] contend that one makes this fallacy in asking of the Metaverse what made it as it is in the category of a team as distinct from each member having a mother, but Burke-Gale state that no, the Metaverse is akin to a car whose parts are made by other companies and it by still another. I contend since as the argument from Existence notes, there exists nothing exterior to it to cause it or material whence it comes., then not only can it not have a “mother,” it has no team maker either!
      Quentin Smith^ notes that it is irrelevant in the case of the Kalam argument about the fallacy, taking the Burke-Gale position.
      I now contend that we’re right and those two wrong about the fallacy not being applicable about cosmological arguments. I also find that the arguments beg the question. Anon on all that.
      What do you think? Do you find these arguments defeasible – defeatable- and why?

      ^ Smith, essay on Kalam in ” the Cambirdge Companion to Atheism”

  2. articulett says:

    Greetings to you on your new blog!

  3. Scintists are inquiring into how people see the pareidolia of agency as people see the one of Marian apparitions. Lamberth’s argument from pareidolia is that people see agnecy- intent- and design when there are only teleonomy and patterns. They use well-trained eyes to do so.
    This and Lamberth’s atelic one reflect science, which indeed as atheologian, Victor Stenger notes disconfirms God.
    Articulet, thanks.
    In biology, one finds functions rather than purposes to make a distincton.
    We as Jean-Paul Sartre notes are indeed responsible for our own purposes. Our own purposes, human love and our Sally Field life suffice. Divine purpose and love and the future state cannot validate our meanings and purposes!
    To lead that more abundant life, find out what Robrt price in”The Reason-Deiven Life” and Albert Ellis in ” The Myth of Self-Esteem” recommend!
    Ignosticmorgan’sblog@ WordPress.com
    Strato of Ga.@ WordPress.com
    Carneades Thales Strato of Ga@ Atheist Bloggers.com
    Viewers please rebut me or confirm my finding in whole or in part!

  4. As Existence is all, there can be neither something transcendent to it nor materials whence it came as Angeles’s argument from Existence notes. His the infinite regress argument notes that cause, event and time presuppose previous ones as most physicists now maintain.
    Lamberth’s atelic or teleonomic argument notes that the weight of evidence presents no divine intent behind natural causes, thus none for miracles, for patterns as designs, for the Big Bang and so forth. Not only does this eviscerate all teleological arguments but all arguments involving intent.
    The presumption of naturalism then notes that not only are natural causes and explanations necessary and efficient but also primary and sufficient; they are themselves the sufficient reason, Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz notwithstanding. This begs no questions but does demand evidence for any Divinity to override it as does Hume’s corollary on miracles to it.
    Not having any intent, then God has no referents as the Grand Miracle Monger, the Grand Designer,Primary Cause and so forth as we ignostics note.
    The Occasionalists, themselves unwittingly make the reductio ad absurdum and -no straw man- that Nicholas Malebranche does in maintaining that God Himself effectuates movement when we strike the eight ball! Nay, that or any similar notion just is word play!
    Nature surrounds us whilst the supernaturalists have to argue for the existence of God to affirm that He is the Creator and Sustainer of the Metaverse that is Existence when science reveals that natural causes and explanations suffice.
    Science confirms that no one becomes virgin- borned, resurrected, does miracles, answers prayers, transform the universes to become other universes and so forth. And as the atheologian- physicist Victor Stenger justly notes, were the Metaverse different, then some Deity might exists, but I add, were He a coherent, non-contradictory concept having referents.

  5. Pingback: Hello world! | Strato of Ga\’s Blog « Blog Archive « Griggs1947′s Blog

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s