en-us https://www.intensedebate.com/users/318679 Comments by Morgan-LynnGriggs http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-possible-disproof-of-gods-existence/#IDComment54032697 Mitch , Martin and Nicholas Everitt in " The Non-Existence of God " and Theodore Drange in his book note , in effect that His incoherent attributes contradict each other, which means we ignostics cam indeed claim that there is no God! I find that as we atheists debunk His being the First Cause and otherwise, again He has no attributes and so, agian , the ignostic challenge goes forth.. This is what I was going to add at another series of posts. Carneades makes the ignostic argument . Rabbi Sherwin Wine named it so.[ Paul Kurtz calls it igtheism and others theological non-cognitivism.]. Ayers thought that it not only quash theism but atheism as well, but I take it to be a part of strong atheism. We not only have the problem of evil , but also this one, Shelelnberg's hiddenness problem,,Drange's argument from unbelief , the atelic , the argument from pareidolia, and the new autonomy argument.. I combine this challenge with the Ockham. Either He has no referents, and in that sense no meaning or else, contrary to Alister McGrath, Dawkins's nemesis, He is a useless redundancy. I note that as it takes convoluted, ad hoc assumptions for Him, He is no simple matter in that sense. Steele states that He is meaningful in that we understand matters about Him , but not in my sense. I await your replies. Mitch, you rock,sir! I use the present tense for dead philosophers as to their thought. Wed, 27 Jan 2010 04:10:43 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/a-possible-disproof-of-gods-existence/#IDComment54032697 http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-anthropic-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/#IDComment54028367 noen, I'm sorry that I didn't state sir or ma'am. Yes, we rationalists need not use the all,except to hoist theists and others. Burton Porter notes that there could be good but less evil as a contrast or better still good, better and best. He further states that humans and Nature take away the free will of millions. And some superrtogate- go beyond their duties even without themselves suffering. I suggest that theists and others do not fully comprehend the logic of the problem of Heaven.This demand for consistency is no hobgoblin of little minds! In contrast to Richard Swinburne who finds that we atheists overrate evil and underrate free will, I find that pointless evil overcomes omnipotent or limited God. So, the Imao Deo would be for us to be like His putative nature. Ah, but theists beg the question of that Nature! One cannot define or postulate Him into existence! That is the problem of the ontological argument also. They cannot thus overcome the Euthyphro in adducing that nature that Aquinas himself uses as well as he begs other questions. That bane. Thus, this anthropic argument holds seas! One indeed should study our arguments and vice versus, I 'm a fallibilitst and evidentialist. I'm a Huxleyan agnotic then as he defines the term. Then there are the Spncerian ones, who hold after Herbert Spencer, that no one can know the Unknowable, and He is such. And then there are the weak agnostics who hold that they themselves cannot know. Agnosticism is epistemological whilst atheism is metaphysical Thus ,atheists can be agnostics- soft atheists,at least. And then there are the theistic ones, who don't know His nature. Western theologians are generally apopathists: they describe Him positively whilst the Orthodox Christians are generally katapahthists, who ever state He is not such and such. I find that both bespeak of ignosticism! Anon on that. Google the ignostic-Ockham,please. Thus as an ignostic, I'm a gnostic atheist!, I call Carneades the first ignostic. noen, thanks for setting me right! Again, ma'sam [respectfully], my apologies. And I 'm a man also. Wed, 27 Jan 2010 03:37:03 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-anthropic-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/#IDComment54028367 http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-anthropic-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/#IDComment54018154 Mitchell, this is is the problem of Heaven that Graham Robert Oppy in 'Arguments about God,",,David Ramsay Steele in Atheism Explained: from Folly to Philosophy, Tad Clements in " Science versus Religion " and I @ many sites use effectively [ what I had called the definitive refutation of free will as a defense of evil ].. Michael Martin adumbrates on it in ' Morality, Meaning and Atheism." Yes, Mitchell, just like we cannot fly but still can effectively exist. Thus I contend theists -John Hick, in particular,- have a boomerang argument: Hick himself guesses there will be paradise in Heaven whilst he uses the all or nothing and the slippery slope arguments for his straw man , noted in Edward H. Madden and Peter H. Hare's "Evil and the Concept of God," "as we naturalists can contend that we object to pointless evils, not all, but we can then take his notion of Heaven to hoist him on his own petard- that boomerang! I find that theists ever beg questions:' Logic is the bane of theists." noen, why defend His indifference to us animals,sir? The problem is one of consistency. Then the same should be in Heaven! So, you prefer this silly free will to ensure evil! So, you are boomeranging! Another case of theistic prattle! You and Plantinga need to study our arguments rather than commit your fallacies. Carneades, eons ago demolished theism as I find from "The Encyclopedia of Philosophy." Carneades [ Morgan-LynnGriggs Lamberth ] Wed, 27 Jan 2010 02:09:30 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/philosophy/the-anthropic-argument-against-the-existence-of-god/#IDComment54018154 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=444#IDComment54008405 Sorry for the typos. LeBlanc, this is... ... without realizing its overwhelming import! Oh, some find me baroque for good or bad! Thank you for this most excellent site , which I'm now recommending @ other sites. Wed, 27 Jan 2010 01:00:27 +0000 http://urbanphilosophy.net/?p=444#IDComment54008405 http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/god-is-a-nonsensical-concept-1c/#IDComment32820920 contention Google the ignostic- Ockham argument. Tue, 1 Sep 2009 23:07:22 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/god-is-a-nonsensical-concept-1c/#IDComment32820920 http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/god-is-a-nonsensical-concept-1a/#IDComment32820149 Your contentin is the ignostic one [aa,s, the igtheistic or the theological non-cognitive one. The problem of Heaven and the evidential problem from evil both render all theistic rebuttals as nonsensical. Tue, 1 Sep 2009 22:56:19 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2009/08/god-is-a-nonsensical-concept-1a/#IDComment32820149 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/what-is-the-bible-and-where-did-it-come-from/#IDComment14951346 See my blog for more on this. My photo won't upload here! Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:15:11 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/what-is-the-bible-and-where-did-it-come-from/#IDComment14951346 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/what-is-the-bible-and-where-did-it-come-from/#IDComment14951283 See my blog for further comments on this. Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:11:31 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/what-is-the-bible-and-where-did-it-come-from/#IDComment14951283 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/what-is-the-bible-and-where-did-it-come-from/#IDComment14951201 Some err in maintaing that people can memorize as not to make errors of memeory, but the evidence shows otherwise with the differentt versions of that exercrable book. Those writers were no more qualified to speak of salvation, the divine protection racket, no more than the false history and execrable morals they wanted people to obey. Tue, 10 Feb 2009 23:07:17 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/what-is-the-bible-and-where-did-it-come-from/#IDComment14951201 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/what-is-the-bible-and-where-did-it-come-from/#IDComment14951000 Some aver that those people can memorize quite well but as you note, nay. What rational person cares for the empty notion of salvation, the divine protection racket! Ward avers that one finds God directing us to aid the opor; he looks askance at seeing the evil passages as fundamental atheism. Faith does that to people! Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:57:09 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/what-is-the-bible-and-where-did-it-come-from/#IDComment14951000 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/what-is-the-bible-and-where-did-it-come-from/#IDComment14950682 Some aver that people memorize so well that they cannot err, but that is quite wrong. Why should the higher theologians find that tihe message of salvation there is worth anyting? They know of the absurd morality and false history but like keith Ward they find that message and the one that God wants us to aid the poor but why didn't the writers declaim against slavery. He acknoweldges cherrry picking: tha t would be rational but what of value there one can find elsewhere. Ward, haughty Haught, McGrath and Tillich know how to bray! Yea, what quallitifications have those ancient writers ? None. They just made up most of that history and the hellacious morality that approves of slavery and Hell, with the diivine protection plan. Robetrt Price and Albert Ellis can show one how to live better. Arthur Caplan and Paul Kurtz know morality.skeptic griggsy /griggs1947 Tue, 10 Feb 2009 22:40:58 +0000 http://www.anatheist.net/2008/09/what-is-the-bible-and-where-did-it-come-from/#IDComment14950682