This is Morgan-Lynn Griggs Lamberth's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following Morgan-Lynn Griggs Lamberth's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
Morgan-Lynn Griggs Lamberth
Recent Activity
Morgan-Lynn Griggs Lamberth is now following Kristin Espinasse
Sep 22, 2011
Caarneades's argument notes that supernaturalists beg the question of directed outcome with all teleological arguments- from reason-the self-refutation of naturalism, to design, probablity and fine-tuning. The puddle arguments answers the fine-tuning one by querying did the puddle have reason to think that Nature wanted it instead of natural causes making it? People win lotteries all the time: so much for the probabiliity argument! How would you answer the one from reason? Continue reading
Posted Sep 22, 2011 at Morgan-Lynn Griggs Lamberth's blog
People want a Supreme Intelligence so that it would give them happiness and purpose per the argument from happiness-purpose and relief from angst per the argument from angst, but no evidence comes forth for either. All people react from their own feelings rather than from their religion per either argument. Thus, they are predisposed to see the pareidolias of intent and design when only teleonomy - no directed, wanted outcomes exist. Scientists are investigating how and why people see the pareidolias of patterns not there and patterns as designs, and intent instead of teleonomy. Yet Nature evinces no teleology- intent- directed, wanted outcomes but rather teleonomy- causalism- mechanism so that per Lamberth's teleonomic argument,people see those pareidolias as people see the one of the man in the moon! Now, this is no genetic fallacy at play, but rather what argumentation suggests that they overlook in wanting that Intelligence- the lack of divine intent. The predisposition reveals why they seek to reinforce their belief in divine intent. That intent merely is animism behind one cosmic spirit rather than the many others see in Nature.Yet, it manifests itself the same! Now, that lack of intent means no intent for the Big Bang and not even the deist God who just starts the Cosmos, no Grand Miracle Monger, no Prime Mover and so forth and thus no referents for Him and thus He cannot exist! And since his purported attributes are contradictory and incoherent, again per the ignostic-Ockham, He cannot exist! Per the argument from physical mind, since only physical minds manifest themselves, supernaturalists have to use the theological it may be or it must for God as disembodied mind.Lacking a body and thus no brain, He'd have no mind. To argue for such a mind stems from the argument from ignorance. Supernaturalists ever use the arguments from personal incredulity and from ignorance to affirm Him! That it is nonsensical to think that non-existence is possible makes for Lebniiz's colossal blunder! Per Reichenbach's argument from Existence, as Existence is all, no transcendental God can exist, and one just in the Cosmos is just like the ancient ones. Then as transcendence prevents omnipresence,He could not be omnipresent were He able to be transcendent! And were He transcendent and timeless, He coudn't operate in the Cosmos! Were He omnipresent, He'd be no kind of person that we'd recognize. People beg the question of outcomes in finding His intent. Natural selection reveals no intent for new species, but rather the sequential permission of one factor leading to another and so on. Were that otherwise, scientists could never vary experiments! Then,too, the present would be before the present, the event before the cause, negating time, making for backwards causation! Our own human loves and purposes and this one life suffice. People betray themselves wailing for that divine intent for love and purpose and the future state! That that lack of intent and purpose exist doesn't lead to the non sequitur that we are forelorn! Again, as John Paul Sartre observes, we carry the responsiblity for ourselves. Those few atheists who bemoan this lack of divine intent betray themselves also. We need no Cosmic Cop to make us be moral! And we need none to ground morality which grounds itself in consequences to humans, other animals and the environment. We inherit the moral sense that we have to extent to all humanity as Paul Kurtz so admonishes us. The interplay of the subjective and the objective make for morality. The presumption of naturalism calls on us to disregard the supernatural being behind those natural cause as they themselves suffice without any divine intent, and indeed such intent would depend on them and order and regularity and morality,too so he couldn't be that Supreme Cause! Yet ,people can realize natural causes at work but will see those pareidolias at work,too! That's the rationale for directed- theistic- evolution! That oxymoron not only violates the Ockham with His convoluted, ad hoc assumptions that make Him very much less simple that just Nature itself but also contradicts science rather than complement it! Alister Earl McGrath notwithstanding, He'd just be a useless redundancy!
Morgan-Lynn Griggs Lamberth is now following The Typepad Team
Jan 17, 2011