Comments on: The God Conundrum http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/ Random samplings from a universe of ideas. Mon, 09 Nov 2009 09:47:28 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/comment-page-2/#comment-80992 Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth Thu, 02 Jul 2009 02:36:59 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/#comment-80992 Sean M. Carroll knows, as the teleonomic / atelic argument states that as, pace Ernst Mayr [ "What Evollution Is "] and George Gaylord Simpson, that since there is no cosmic teleolgy, not only is God irrelevant as the Razor notes as being Himself series of convoluted ad hoc assumptions, themselves needing confirmation, confirming methodological dismissal of Him as explanaotry in science, but also contradictory to natural selection, the non-planning, anti-chance agent of Nature.Theistic evolutionists, therefore, are making the new Omphalos argument, that albeit Nature has no purposes, actually that is part of God's hiddenness [ John L.Schellenberg dismisses that argument.] in His keeping epistemic disrnce form us in order not to overwhelm our free will [ John Hick]. As Jerry Coyne in " Seeing and Believing' and someone in a recent issue of Skeptic magazine notes, there was no plan for our arrival and no other being was likely to arrive in our stead, had we not arrived. And one begs the question in all teleological arguments- fromreason, fine-tuning, design and probability that divinity had us in mind. So divinity had us in mind reveals that it had us in mind? And the argument from pareidolia reveals that theists see divinity and design as people see Yeshua in a tortilla- not there. So here we have two naturalist [positive atheist] arguments agaisnt the existence of God. Then there is Hume's dysteological one from imperfections; here we should require theists to anawe Hime without resorint to theodicy, the series of cop-out of His nonchalance to all animal suffering. And @ Talk Reason, Amiel Rossow, notes in his essay on Kenneth Miller, that the latter takes out the front door -ID - only to bring it back as teleology by the back one. So , theistic evolution is an oxymoron! We ignostics find that stating as Alexander Smoltcyk, German journalist, that He is neither a principle nor an entiy nor a person but the ultimate explanation, means that He has no way of implementing His being that explanation. Just more theological gobbedygook. All theology is a series of cop-outs for a mystery, surrounded by still other mysteries, as that ultimate explanation , yet signifiying nothing whatsoever! So, he affirms ignosticism! Keith Parsons notes that to use Him is to ' hide our ignrance behind a theological fig leaf." And " [o]ccult power, wielded by a tanscendent being in an incsrutable manner for unfalthomable purposes does not seem to be any sort of a good explanation." Advanced theology , therefore, just means more obscurantism for God did it! So, PZ Myers's coutier's reply reveals the obscurantism of advanced theology. .... out of order, meant at the botom... Fr. Griggs took three courses in philosphy and has read in philosophy of religion; he is a mere lay polemicist, dabbling in philosphy and theology. Uner the nicknames naturalist griggsy, ratioanlist griggsy, skeptic griggsy, sceptique griggsy esceptico griggsy , griggs1947, lord griggs and lord griggs1947, he advances the naturalist/ rationalist evangel world over in several languages as Googling one of those names would show. He takes on advanced theologians unlike the mighty Dawkins! Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not that dead Galilean! We new atheists- we rock! ...back to the essay... Together, the ignostic-Ockham reveal either that He is otiose or else He is needlessly redundant, advanced theologian, Alister McGrath, Dawkins's nemesis, notwithstanding. So, advanced theology and errancy mean the same as fundamentalism- rubbish1!Errantists rationalize their fables: they find metaphors in the hard passages as Fr. Leo Booth notes. What is the metaphor then for the genocide? Not only do the fables not tell us how the heavens go, they are useless to tell us how to get to Heaven! One begs the question of Heaven! We naturalists have other positive arguments against Him- the problem of Heaven , the evidential argument from evil, the hiddenness problem, the presumptions of empiricism,naturalism, rationalism and skepticism and the covenant morallity for humanity- the presumption of humanism. We no more need Him as the sufficient reason than we need gremlins in addition to mechanics to explain mechanical failure, demons to explain my schzotypy and double depression and Newton notwithstanding, angels in addition to his laws to explain the planetary movemnents. Sean M. Carroll knows, as the teleonomic / atelic argument states that as, pace Ernst Mayr [ "What Evollution Is "] and George Gaylord Simpson, that since there is no cosmic teleolgy, not only is God irrelevant as the Razor notes as being Himself series of convoluted ad hoc assumptions, themselves needing confirmation, confirming methodological dismissal of Him as explanaotry in science, but also contradictory to natural selection, the non-planning, anti-chance agent of Nature.Theistic evolutionists, therefore, are making the new Omphalos argument, that albeit Nature has no purposes, actually that is part of God’s hiddenness [ John L.Schellenberg dismisses that argument.] in His keeping epistemic disrnce form us in order not to overwhelm our free will [ John Hick].

As Jerry Coyne in ” Seeing and Believing’ and someone in a recent issue of Skeptic magazine notes, there was no plan for our arrival and no other being was likely to arrive in our stead, had we not arrived. And one begs the question in all teleological arguments- fromreason, fine-tuning, design and probability that divinity had us in mind. So divinity had us in mind reveals that it had us in mind?
And the argument from pareidolia reveals that theists see divinity and design as people see Yeshua in a tortilla- not there.
So here we have two naturalist [positive atheist] arguments agaisnt the existence of God.
Then there is Hume’s dysteological one from imperfections; here we should require theists to anawe Hime without resorint to theodicy, the series of cop-out of His nonchalance to all animal suffering.
And @ Talk Reason, Amiel Rossow, notes in his essay on Kenneth Miller, that the latter takes out the front door -ID – only to bring it back as teleology by the back one.
So , theistic evolution is an oxymoron!
We ignostics find that stating as Alexander Smoltcyk, German journalist, that He is neither a principle nor an entiy nor a person but the ultimate explanation, means that He has no way of implementing His being that explanation. Just more theological gobbedygook. All theology is a series of cop-outs for a mystery, surrounded by still other mysteries, as that ultimate explanation , yet signifiying nothing whatsoever! So, he affirms ignosticism! Keith Parsons notes that to use Him is to ‘ hide our ignrance behind a theological fig leaf.” And ” [o]ccult power, wielded by a tanscendent being in an incsrutable manner for unfalthomable purposes does not seem to be any sort of a good explanation.”
Advanced theology , therefore, just means more obscurantism for God did it! So, PZ Myers’s coutier’s reply reveals the obscurantism of advanced theology.
…. out of order, meant at the botom…
Fr. Griggs took three courses in philosphy and has read in philosophy of religion; he is a mere lay polemicist, dabbling in philosphy and theology. Uner the nicknames naturalist griggsy, ratioanlist griggsy, skeptic griggsy, sceptique griggsy esceptico griggsy , griggs1947, lord griggs and lord griggs1947, he advances the naturalist/ rationalist evangel world over in several languages as Googling one of those names would show. He takes on advanced theologians unlike the mighty Dawkins!
Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism. Religion is mythinformation. Reason saves, not that dead Galilean!
We new atheists- we rock!
…back to the essay…

Together, the ignostic-Ockham reveal either that He is otiose or else He is needlessly redundant, advanced theologian, Alister McGrath, Dawkins’s nemesis, notwithstanding.
So, advanced theology and errancy mean the same as fundamentalism- rubbish1!Errantists rationalize their fables: they find metaphors in the hard passages as Fr. Leo Booth notes. What is the metaphor then for the genocide?
Not only do the fables not tell us how the heavens go, they are useless to tell us how to get to Heaven! One begs the question of Heaven!
We naturalists have other positive arguments against Him- the problem of Heaven , the evidential argument from evil, the hiddenness problem, the presumptions of empiricism,naturalism, rationalism and skepticism and the covenant morallity for humanity- the presumption of humanism.
We no more need Him as the sufficient reason than we need gremlins in addition to mechanics to explain mechanical failure, demons to explain my schzotypy and double depression and Newton notwithstanding, angels in addition to his laws to explain the planetary movemnents.

]]> By: Judaic vs Greek conception of God « Bazm-e-Rindaan http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/comment-page-2/#comment-80464 Judaic vs Greek conception of God « Bazm-e-Rindaan Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:34:08 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/#comment-80464 [...] 27, 2009 in External Articles | by Awais Aftab Excerpt from the article “The God Conundrum” by [...] [...] 27, 2009 in External Articles | by Awais Aftab Excerpt from the article “The God Conundrum” by [...]

]]> By: Sean Carroll on the compatibility of faith and science « Why Evolution Is True http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/comment-page-2/#comment-80009 Sean Carroll on the compatibility of faith and science « Why Evolution Is True Tue, 23 Jun 2009 19:29:44 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/#comment-80009 [...] the Steady State model was a reasonable hypothesis; likewise, a couple of millennia ago God was a reasonable hypothesis. But our understanding (and our data) has improved greatly since then, and these are no longer [...] [...] the Steady State model was a reasonable hypothesis; likewise, a couple of millennia ago God was a reasonable hypothesis. But our understanding (and our data) has improved greatly since then, and these are no longer [...]

]]> By: Psydan http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/comment-page-2/#comment-64585 Psydan Fri, 27 Feb 2009 01:31:53 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/#comment-64585 This was amazing. From one philosopher-atheist to another, I have to say, this is one of the most intelligent things I've read on the internet in a while. Thank you, Sean, for showing that even we who know the nuances of higher religious beliefs and philosophy still don't think that makes up for the failure of a belief system based on Bronze-age myths. Philosophy and Theology can never be reconciled, and so it is acceptable for Dawkins to write a book directed toward the common man, and attacking the common man's religion. This was amazing. From one philosopher-atheist to another, I have to say, this is one of the most intelligent things I’ve read on the internet in a while. Thank you, Sean, for showing that even we who know the nuances of higher religious beliefs and philosophy still don’t think that makes up for the failure of a belief system based on Bronze-age myths. Philosophy and Theology can never be reconciled, and so it is acceptable for Dawkins to write a book directed toward the common man, and attacking the common man’s religion.

]]> By: Die uns alle echt töfte findende Essenz aller Seinsmöglichkeiten « Begrenzte Wissenschaft http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/comment-page-2/#comment-61626 Die uns alle echt töfte findende Essenz aller Seinsmöglichkeiten « Begrenzte Wissenschaft Wed, 28 Jan 2009 14:00:38 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/#comment-61626 [...] die man aber zumindest gelesen haben sollte: der theoretische Physiker Sean Carroll [1] über das nicht lösbare Dilemma akademischer Theologie, die zwei grundsätzlichen Beeinflussungen unseres Gottesbildes miteinander [...] [...] die man aber zumindest gelesen haben sollte: der theoretische Physiker Sean Carroll [1] über das nicht lösbare Dilemma akademischer Theologie, die zwei grundsätzlichen Beeinflussungen unseres Gottesbildes miteinander [...]

]]> By: The Sacred | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/comment-page-2/#comment-61333 The Sacred | Cosmic Variance | Discover Magazine Mon, 26 Jan 2009 18:04:02 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/#comment-61333 [...] addresses a naive and simplistic view of religion,” etc. We’ve talked before about how “sophisticated” approaches to religion are not any better, and how Dawkins has served an extremely valuable rhetorical purpose. But there is a deeper point, [...] [...] addresses a naive and simplistic view of religion,” etc. We’ve talked before about how “sophisticated” approaches to religion are not any better, and how Dawkins has served an extremely valuable rhetorical purpose. But there is a deeper point, [...]

]]> By: AngelVamp http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/comment-page-2/#comment-21744 AngelVamp Mon, 29 Oct 2007 13:23:40 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/#comment-21744 This really a great discussion about the non-existence of God. It’s quite amusing that Christians believe in a God that is both omniscient and omnipotent. Yet it’s impossible for God to be both omniscient and omnipotent. An omniscient God would by definition know everything about the future. He would therefore know that old Uncle Joe is going to die tomorrow morning. Yet he couldn’t change Uncle Joe’s fate without being wrong about his knowledge of the future. Omniscience would make him limited in power. On the other hand, an omnipotent God could change the future at will. Since he can change everything, he doesn’t know the future with a 100% accuracy. Being all powerful would prevent him from being omniscient. The Christian concept of God is self-contradictory. Keep up the great work! AngelVamp http://www.vampiretemple.com This really a great discussion about the non-existence of God. It’s quite amusing that Christians believe in a God that is both omniscient and omnipotent. Yet it’s impossible for God to be both omniscient and omnipotent.

An omniscient God would by definition know everything about the future. He would therefore know that old Uncle Joe is going to die tomorrow morning. Yet he couldn’t change Uncle Joe’s fate without being wrong about his knowledge of the future. Omniscience would make him limited in power.

On the other hand, an omnipotent God could change the future at will. Since he can change everything, he doesn’t know the future with a 100% accuracy. Being all powerful would prevent him from being omniscient.

The Christian concept of God is self-contradictory.

Keep up the great work!

AngelVamp
http://www.vampiretemple.com

]]> By: Please Tell Me What "God" Means | Cosmic Variance http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/comment-page-2/#comment-21745 Please Tell Me What "God" Means | Cosmic Variance Sat, 20 Oct 2007 22:15:37 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/#comment-21745 [...] really does mean to the sophisticated believer. Something better than Terry Eagleton’s “the condition of possibility.” But no! We more or less get exactly that: Philosophers and theologians over the centuries, [...] [...] really does mean to the sophisticated believer. Something better than Terry Eagleton’s “the condition of possibility.” But no! We more or less get exactly that: Philosophers and theologians over the centuries, [...]

]]> By: Very Poor "postmodern" Thought, a Confession « Deep Grace of Theory http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/comment-page-2/#comment-21743 Very Poor "postmodern" Thought, a Confession « Deep Grace of Theory Thu, 24 May 2007 18:45:30 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/#comment-21743 [...] is reducible to belief in God! Thank goodness for atheists like Sean Carroll, who points out in his witty review of Dawkins that you can’t just blame Northern Ireland on [...] [...] is reducible to belief in God! Thank goodness for atheists like Sean Carroll, who points out in his witty review of Dawkins that you can’t just blame Northern Ireland on [...]

]]> By: Often in Error... http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/comment-page-2/#comment-21736 Often in Error... Wed, 02 May 2007 12:13:08 +0000 http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/cosmicvariance/2006/10/29/the-god-conundrum/#comment-21736 <strong>“Do you need to believe in God in order to pray?”</strong> Yes, I just read this question on a "curious" article that appeared today at the NYT (click for the full article), entitled "Matters of Faith Find a New Prominence on Campus"... “Do you need to believe in God in order to pray?”

Yes, I just read this question on a “curious” article that appeared today at the NYT (click for the full article), entitled “Matters of Faith Find a New Prominence on Campus”…

]]>