Tuesday, October 30, 2012
Monday, October 29, 2012
Science against God
What twaddle ti's to prattle that science and religion don't overlap!To postulate Him as the Creator, the Grand Miracle Monger and so forth, then theists do indeed themselves have Him intrude into science, which contradicts science.
Science finds no evidence for miracles, the future state, works due to prayers, theResurrections, the Ascension, Mary's Assomption, transubstantiation, the Deluge,creationism, Muhammad's Ascension and splitting of the Moon and His actions in the Cosmos. This is not just then a matter of countering fundamentalism but all theism.To allege that no, ti's a category mistake to find no God as He is metaphysical,begs the question thereof.
The Coyne-Mayr-Lamberth the teleonomic argument alone eviscerates theism. God supposedly acts in the Cosmos and indeed cause it to arrive, but no, because were that so, science would find evidence for His actions; it finds none and thus, no divine intent interrupts the natural order.
No evidence ever arrives to find Him responsible for miracles,including answered prayers, which bespeak the post hoc fallacy-coincidence, and theists ever rationalize for failed prayers. Historians find no evidence that He has anything to do with the survival of Jewry, but evidence against His acting- the Holocaust. Astrophysicists find the Big Expansion no more than a transformation of pre-existing quantum fields. Biologists find no evidence that He helped the process of evolution alone.To prattle that why, evolution is His manner of creation begs the question, a false assumption.
The argument finds that instead of complementing science, religion contradicts it. From the side of science, to add God makes Him a useless redundancy,despite Alister Earl McGrath. Theistic evolution is just an oxy-moronic obscurantism.
Theism is according to Lamberth's argument from reduced animism another superstitio like full animism. Both use a false intent for actions: the former postulates God-one intent not found whilst the other manyalse intents.
To persist in arguing that no, He does have intent but per John Hick's epistemic argument, He hides Himself ambiguously so as not to overwhelm our free wills.
Science finds no evidence for miracles, the future state, works due to prayers, theResurrections, the Ascension, Mary's Assomption, transubstantiation, the Deluge,creationism, Muhammad's Ascension and splitting of the Moon and His actions in the Cosmos. This is not just then a matter of countering fundamentalism but all theism.To allege that no, ti's a category mistake to find no God as He is metaphysical,begs the question thereof.
The Coyne-Mayr-Lamberth the teleonomic argument alone eviscerates theism. God supposedly acts in the Cosmos and indeed cause it to arrive, but no, because were that so, science would find evidence for His actions; it finds none and thus, no divine intent interrupts the natural order.
No evidence ever arrives to find Him responsible for miracles,including answered prayers, which bespeak the post hoc fallacy-coincidence, and theists ever rationalize for failed prayers. Historians find no evidence that He has anything to do with the survival of Jewry, but evidence against His acting- the Holocaust. Astrophysicists find the Big Expansion no more than a transformation of pre-existing quantum fields. Biologists find no evidence that He helped the process of evolution alone.To prattle that why, evolution is His manner of creation begs the question, a false assumption.
The argument finds that instead of complementing science, religion contradicts it. From the side of science, to add God makes Him a useless redundancy,despite Alister Earl McGrath. Theistic evolution is just an oxy-moronic obscurantism.
Theism is according to Lamberth's argument from reduced animism another superstitio like full animism. Both use a false intent for actions: the former postulates God-one intent not found whilst the other manyalse intents.
To persist in arguing that no, He does have intent but per John Hick's epistemic argument, He hides Himself ambiguously so as not to overwhelm our free wills.
Denialism denies skepticism!
Those who deny climate change, evolution or other scientific matters proceed on the basis of the argument from personal incredulity, their ideology and other such woo. We skeptics proceed on the basis of the conservation -background - of knowledge, willing to look at all the relevant evidence and keep and open, but not credulous mind.
As that article expostulates, climate change is real , and we must take steps to overcome it. We liberals realize that entrepreneurs and scientists can find ways to do so, and thereby also increase the number of good jobs whilst libertarians, finding collectivism everywhere, deny climate change, cringing that efforts to thwart it, harms capitalism. That is ideological drivel that so strikes at reason and -humanity.
So, the denialists cherry pick the evidence, ignoring evidence and making up evidence and misinterpret evidence.
Please study the article about climate change and tell us how to overcome it and how better to get the message across.
As that article expostulates, climate change is real , and we must take steps to overcome it. We liberals realize that entrepreneurs and scientists can find ways to do so, and thereby also increase the number of good jobs whilst libertarians, finding collectivism everywhere, deny climate change, cringing that efforts to thwart it, harms capitalism. That is ideological drivel that so strikes at reason and -humanity.
So, the denialists cherry pick the evidence, ignoring evidence and making up evidence and misinterpret evidence.
Please study the article about climate change and tell us how to overcome it and how better to get the message across.
Thursday, October 25, 2012
Tuesday, October 9, 2012
Monday, October 8, 2012
Science rules!
Science does nake for that more abundant life whilst relligion is only a cruthc, a placebo that none actually need. Science cures people whilst faith-healing has no power and can even harm people. Science causes wonders whilst most of religion relies on miracles, which always are natural. Medicine answers maladies whilst prayer produces at most a good feelng for those who pray.
Science answers questions whilst religion relies and the arguments from personal incredulity and from ignorance and - adds nothing as a real explanation. The demand for a personal explanation in addditon to natural ones is an example of animism.
People can misuse science whilst religion is a misuse of reason!
The call for other venues of knowledge begs the question thereof. We need to use rational methods to acquire knowledge. To call that need scientistic bespeaks the animistic need for intent and the argument from ignorance..
Science answers questions whilst religion relies and the arguments from personal incredulity and from ignorance and - adds nothing as a real explanation. The demand for a personal explanation in addditon to natural ones is an example of animism.
People can misuse science whilst religion is a misuse of reason!
The call for other venues of knowledge begs the question thereof. We need to use rational methods to acquire knowledge. To call that need scientistic bespeaks the animistic need for intent and the argument from ignorance..
Sunday, October 7, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)