God is merely a series of guesses, surrounded by other mysteries, without meaning whatsoever.This is the ignostic argument. God did it is mere magic. It is just the unimformative tautology to aver that God wills what He wills. God " hides our ignorance behind a theological fig leaf," and to further quote athologian Keith Parsons:'Occult power wielded by a transcendent being in an inscrutable way for unfathomable purposes does not seem to be any kind of a good explanation." Indeed, it is a pseudo-explanation for the pseudo-question why is there something rather than nothing: there has to be something as nothing is unstable[ See Bede Rundle’s book of that name.].One gains nothing with the God-notion. However, for the sake of discussion , to assume meaning, then with the application of Ockham’s razor, we find that God requires ad hoc assumptions that aren’t forthcoming. We are left with natural causes as primary and effficient causes rather than with God as a personal explanatoion as Richard Swinburen avers. So, we need God no more as an explanation than we do gremlins, demons or Thor as personal explanations!
Foundational simplicity and coherence have never been among the defining features of the religiously inclined mind. It aches to fathom pattern and intent in everything everywhere and where it finds none, it is happy to contrive some from nothing.
It’s amusing to see in the same sort of way that slapstick can be vaguely amusing.
'Luthon64
Luthon64, that is so true. They live on the mere feeling that there must be super mind behind and beyond the cosmos.This mere feeling has no object as we atheists show.These two arguments show that we need no god for explanations. Natural causes[ causalism] are the efficient, necessary, primary and ultimate causes and explanations.We no more beg the question or sandbag theists with asking for evidence and theory than Hume does in asking for evidence to show miralcles.
I think one of the MAJOR problems in South Africa, is the way in which God of the bible is defined. Especially during our growing years, we are taught a certain image of God or shifted into a certain mindset of what God is. As I grew older, I experienced a different God altogether. I am sure that most of the Christians, if confronted will explain God in many different ways… I believe in God, as evolution has barely any answers. I do not advocate the bible to have all the answers, as little as I advocate getting up a tree and waiting to evolve wings to fly…
Can I infer from this statement that your belief in God provides you with more answers than a belief in evolution would?
Which god of the bible? There are, after all, so many different ones that, given the multiplicity of his/her personalities, one would be forgiven for thinking of him/her as a sort of celestial Norman Bates. And what makes one conception of god any more accurate than any other? And who decides? By what criteria? And, finally, how is this indoctrination of the youthful mind with fairytales any less subtly abusive than, say, bombarding them with The Barney Song 24/7?
Indeed, but I repeat: why should anyone consider your explanation better than anyone else’s? And what’s to prevent this difference from becoming a serious point of friction, even a war being fought, over just this issue?
Evolution has barely any answers? Well, let’s abandon the single greatest unifying principle of manifold branches of biology then, shall we? Of course, the fact that the answers are very uncomfortable for some doesn’t make them wrong, and that final little quip about sitting in a tree, waiting to sprout wings, shows a total absence of even the most basic aspects of evolution. Perhaps you should take the trouble to make an earnest and sincere effort of informing yourself before setting up straw men that you then proceed to burn with righteous indignation.
'Luthon64