the presumption of naturalism

 
skeptic griggsy
 
Avatar
 
 
skeptic griggsy
Total Posts:  30
Joined  09-12-2007
 
 
 
08 January 2008 03:48
 

Antony Garrard Newton Flew noted the presummption of naturalism which is that natural causes and explanations not only are sufficient but also necessary, primary and sufficient. As with miracles, this neither begs the question nor sandbags theists but is the mere demand for evidence.
Deist Miklos Jako in “Confronting Believers, states:“I don t understand the atheist’s irrational,myopic demand for proof for God.” Such is the mind-set of the con man who does not see the demand for evidence of legitimacy. Jako is here so irrational and myopic! Our demand is the same as the one of juries , crime investigators and such as historian Van A. Harvey notes in the current issue of Free Inquiry.
This presumption contradicts the sensus divinitatis of theologians who maintain one can indeed assume the miraculous deciding matters as the shallow Alvin Platinga does in his warrant that God is like other minds etc., basic.No, we cannot assume miralcles and He is not basic.As an ignostic, I cannot conceive of Him. Platinga once again uses faith which itself begs the question.

[ Edited: 22 January 2008 10:45 by skeptic griggsy]
 
skeptic griggsy
 
Avatar
 
 
skeptic griggsy
Total Posts:  30
Joined  09-12-2007
 
 
 
22 January 2008 10:56
 

Theists cannot overcome this presumption with the meaningless question why is there something rather than nothing as Jonathon Harrison notes in his “God, Freedom and Immortality,” there are no other cases with which to compare Existence. Roy Jackson in his"The God of Philosophy,” notes there is no outside material as there is in other cases out of which soomething comes[ the material cause].Neither scientists nor theologians can answer the question, for it is ” rather like asking ’ how many sides does a circle have,’ or ’ why do humans grow wings.’”
Existence is the repository of all causes and explanations,so it is the ultimate one[ the natural cosmological argument], the greatest and necessary being[the natural ontological one] and through natural selection, the"designer.[ the dsysteological one].

 
skeptic griggsy
 
Avatar
 
 
skeptic griggsy
Total Posts:  30
Joined  09-12-2007
 
 
 
22 January 2008 10:56
 

Theists cannot overcome this presumption with the meaningless question why is there something rather than nothing as Jonathon Harrison notes in his “God, Freedom and Immortality,” there are no other cases with which to compare Existence. Roy Jackson in his"The God of Philosophy,” notes there is no outside material as there is in other cases out of which soomething comes[ the material cause].Neither scientists nor theologians can answer the question, for it is ” rather like asking ’ how many sides does a circle have,’ or ’ why do humans grow wings.’”
Existence is the repository of all causes and explanations,so it is the ultimate one[ the natural cosmological argument], the greatest and necessary being[the natural ontological one] and through natural selection, the"designer”.[ the dsysteological one].