skeptic griggsy Posted April 25, 2010 Report Share Posted April 25, 2010 We empiricists demand facts rather than unconfirmed intuition, revelations and pure reasoning. Atheist @ Evolve Blog makes the empirical argument that we have no empirical basis for and we have much against the existence of God. Lamberth's argument for intent [ or atelic or teleonomic argument] notes that the weight of evidence tells against any intent behind natural causes, b e they bangs or natural selection or miracles. Intent would contradict those causes rather than be consistent with them. To argue for intent means putting the event before the cause and the future before the present, negating time as Dr. Weisz notes in " The Science of Biology." Nature operates with out planned outcomes- as it is teleonomic; to posit teleology contradicts that finding.As people see the pareidolia of Marian apparitions, so people see the pareidolia of intent and design when there are only teleonomy and patterns as Lamberth's argument form pareidolia illuminates.Scientists are in effect establishing this argument in studying why people see agency -intent-purpose when there exists none. As He has no referent as any kind of intent and He has incoherent ,contradictory attributes, He perforce cannot exist as the ignostic challenge llustrates, being then as a square circle! No traversing Existence or being omniscient requires itself for that statement, but rather analysis.The Azande know quite well that wind can knock tile of roofs, bit they nevertheless attribute intent to the wind spirit.Theology then is just dressed-up animism!:shrug: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.