arguments about God and the presumption of naturalism and the ignostic-Ockham

Since Augustine, theists bray that we are restless unless we are in the bosom of God. Indefatigable foe of creationist, Catholic theist evolutionist proclaims that we must go to his bosom in order to get over dread and have ultimate purpose. Now Albert Ellis would have stated that one should not bray at Existence [ "The Myth of Self-Esteem]! One should, as I did, get counseling to overcome any dread. There is no evidence that without God, we must have it. Paul Tillich also gets into the act as well as countless preachers.
This is the argument from angst.
Our one lifetimes, human love and our own purposes suffice.The future state, divine love and purpose are will o’ the lisp.
Theists allege that were it not for Him,Jewry would have long disappeared[ Shoah!]. History finds the matter so otherwise.
Theists use pareidolia[ like seeing Yeshua in a tortilla] to see design in nature when there are only patterns. They have the mere feeling for that in that they want to see a caring,super mind behind Existence. All teleological arguments beg the question in seeing purpose- design, fine-tuning,probability and from reason.
As Existence is all there is Lee Smolin], there can be no transcendent
God. Gottfried Wilhelm Leibniz blunders grandly in asking why is there something rather than nothing when how could there be nothin? This is a pseudo-question with the pseudo-answer that is God, as he either means nothing as the ignostic challenge shows or redundant as the Ockham so shows[ See the thread the ignostic-Ockham.]
The presumption of naturlism that Antony Garrard Newton Flew noted [ before his dotage] is that all causes and explanations are not only efficient but also necessary,pirmary and sufficient. This neither begs the question nor sandbags theists but is just the demand for evidence as Einstein overcame Newton.Contrary to Leibniz, they are the sufficient reason.
German journalist Alxander Smotczyk maintais that God in neither a being, nor a principle nor an entity but the answer to Leibniz’s question. Without being a person or being an entity, how could He act as an explanation? That affirms the ignostic challenge that God is fatuous, nebulous, otiose and vacuous.
Haughty John Haught slams us naturalsts for not accepting other than naturalistic venues of knowledge but he begs the question of other venues without showing any.In the end even the most fervent of defender os natural theology rely on faith, the we just say so of credulity. Faith begs the question of its subject in order to obviate giving evidence as is the burden of theists to do so. Science is acquired knowledge while as Sydney Hook notes, faith begs the question of being knowledge.
We rationalists prefer not to accept that scam !
Blaise Pascal and others would have us undertake spiritual matters in order to come to Him , but we prefer not to self-brainwash. His Wager is so wrong. Which god? Would God accept people who make it rather than coming to Him otherwise?
So, one should show that God has meaning and show that one overcomes the presumption of naturalism.
Why do you believe in God or not?

Very good post, it raises a few good questions for theists. To answer your question, the way I see it is that we naturalists/rationalists accept our gaps in our collective knowledge of the world whereas the woo-woos (of all kinds) are restless until any answer fills the gaps. They need answers, we need questions. I am personally very excited about questions. I remember that some time ago I asked a relatively simple-sounding question to a very intelligent friend of mine and he was not able to answer it but that’s not what is memorable about the occasion, rather it was that he praised the question. He said that he had never heard of anyone asking that type of revealing question, a question which lead us to exciting investigation (in fields neither of us were familiar with, revealing unexpected and fascinating new information) and finally an answer that was satisfactory. Woo-woos would have filled-in the gap immediately (goddidit or conspiracy or supernatural).

To me the magical worldview can be contrasted rather simply with the naturalist worldview as the difference between being uncomfortable with unanswered questions or excited by unanswered questions.

Your discussion about Blaise Pascal’s famous wager leads rather nicely to a funny article I was reading today.

Over at Pharyngula, PZ is on the road and basically opened a generic “pollute here” blog entry where visitors could discuss anything at all.

What I found hilarious was in the comment posted by Reginald Selkirk (comment 4) who directs us to the Kenyan newspaper columnist O.J. Oswango’s op-ed piece in the Daily Nation. With a rather childish view of the subject (where he repeatedly restates “God exists” as a non-sequitur), he comments on the theory presented by the eminent scientist “Pascal Wager” (I kid you not) as further proof of the supernatural creator.

Then he states …

… which sounds like theologians invented Stephen J. Gould’s concept.

Wow, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing. He goes on to talk about the need for people to ignore the supersitions and rituals of religion and have a more one-on-one relationship with their god. At least here I think its a step in the right direction, away from the bad leadership of religious fundamentalists.

Perhaps it is careening out of control, but nobody behind the wheel appears to want to apply the brakes. Should the passengers be jumping out the windows or trying to arrest the bus?

Back to PZ’s blog, which was also almost careening out of control, where there is a brilliant play on words …

Argumentum, thanks! I’ll use your comment about our wanting questions… as that complements that we use provisional knowledge-- truth- whilst they embrace the Truth. Even the most advanced theologian,granting the truths of science, still embraces the woo-woo of obscurantism.
If there be as apothatic theology insists - no knowledge of describing Him [ agnostic theism ],then that affirms ignosticism as that is nebulous obfuscation.
All teleological arguments- from reason,probability, fine-tuning and design- assume what they should first affirm that some being had us in mind. Nay, natural selection, the non-planning, anti-chance agency of Nature, has no plan for what it produces, and adding a designer contradicts that finding.
The teleonomic/atelic argument notes that as the weight of evidence presents itself, there is no cosmic teleology, no pre-conceived plans for what happens. Again, that contradicts any divine input.So there is no compatibility betwixt God and science from the side of science as Victor Stenger in his many books attests, but from the side of religion, there can be compatibility. To aver otherwise, one makes the new Omphalos argument that He deludes us into thinking that selection is as descrbed. Nay, that relies on the argument from ignorance.
As my friend , Jerry Coyne in his article " Seeing and Believing " he keehauls theistic evolutionists for inserting God into Nature, taking on Kenneth Miller and Karl Giberson for claiming that God used the evolutionary process to have us arrive and poked into sub-atomic events to cause matters to happen. Nay, no using the process for that that he and a writer in Skeptic magazine observe that had we not arrived , no comparable species would have arrived. Also see Amiel Rossow’s essay on the yin and yang of Miller. So creationist evolution is an oxymoron.
Thus affirm that theists beg that question.
There are so many more arguments to consider on teleological arguments and many other arguments. What are yours for or against Him?

Argumentum, note how theism is basically animism- just one one or three gods ,in the case of Christianity, behind Naaature but still the superstitious notion that some purpose has to be behind events. The Azande know that natural causes make for disarsters,yet should a tile hit someone, there has to be some Personality behind it as the primary cause.
Yes, that is the summation of theism!
As Jerry Coyne in ’ Seeing and Believing’ and Ammeil Rossow in his essay on Kenneth Miller @ Talk Reason, respond to theistic sophistry, had matters been different [ I note the coming of flowering plants and the cooling-off spurred primate evolution,], had we not evolved, no other comparable species would have evolved to worship any god. The two writers note in so many words, that teleonomy rules rather than any kind of teleology, which would not be compatible with science or any of our conservation - background- of knowledge.
There lies no evidence that God operates through sub-atomic events, but just the ever theistic it must be and guesswork. Theists can ever b;eat that He operates but without evidence, they engage in wishful thinking.
Such teleology contradicts science, and thus creationistic evolution obfuscates and cannot thus be compatible with science.Yes, due to cognitive dissonance, people can find, from the side of religions, the two are compatible for them.
Argumentum, what else do you maintain?
Why, others here, do you worship or not the Ground of Being or Sky Pappy? I see no need whatever for God! And how can He exist as that married bachelor we ignostics find Him to be?