Hume of Ga.: [Hume of Ga.] [Hume of Ga.] [Hume of Ga.] Teleology- no magic!

108AAAA9-F41D-401B-BCC2-7F22B2F57BC7 4.000000 Letter Letter\envelopes.imf Business Stationery Envelopes SU1CTDEsNDYsgUmBSYWBwSQkJCTFTTiJhShNiYGFME0wNDSRTZ04kZEwkTiNnTA0nUmBSYFJgSxJTUJMMiwwLCxJTUJMMywwLCw= repeat #ffffff X-ASN,X-ASH,X-AN,X-AP,X-AD ;

Someone @ Quolibet prattles that there is telos -intent, agency- behind natural events in general, though not in the particular. No, no directions behind them exists as science so notes. Supernaturalists ever beg that question of divinely planned outcomes. That would as Weisz notes, put the effect before the cause and the future before the past, resulting in backwards causation. As Jerry Coyne6 objects to Karl Giberson and Kenneth Miller, neither convergence nor any other means would have led to a species comparable to us. So science itself affirms that they beg the question of intent! Miller without evidence speculates that perhaps He involves Himself in sub-atomic events. What obfuscation!

That then is what evolutionary creationism and creation evolution do. Whilst as Amiel Rossow notes* Miller takes God as ID out through the front door,only to bring Him as Grand Designer through the back one!

What all teleological and cosmological arguments amount to, the Occasionalists themselves, in effect, make into a reductio and absurdum, and no straw man on naturalists' part, that as their most famous one, Nicolas Malebranche avers that God is that force behind the movement when we strike the eight ball! So much then for His being that Primary Cause, Grand Designer and Grand Miracle Monger!

The original Democritus finds that everything happens for a reason and by necessity, and no randomness happens. That reason and that necessity are the inherent powers of natural causes. But randomness does happen.

Supernaturalists with sophistry ever are trying to override that fact with fallacious argumentation. Alvin Plantinga tries in the argument from reason- the self-refutation of naturalism to discount the causes of evolution as responsible for our obtaining truth with our faculties if no intent exists for them to find it. Again that begs the question of intent. No animals would ever survive if they couldn't overcome obstacles. That is what the misleading survival of the species means.Would he allege that perhaps the Devil then accounts for malfunctioning faculties as He does with natural evils? Adaptation is not for perfection but for what suffices. We have evidence and thus no begged question for that.

Against the fact of those imperfections- Hume's dysteological argument, he alleges that omnipotent God can make flourishes that result in imperfections whilst limited God has fewer resources and thus has to make perfection! What logicide! We naturalists contend the opposite!

He prattles that believers have a warrant for God as basic. He contends that should any read the Scriptures, having then an epiphany that He exists, then they have that warrant. No, as that anthology rests on no real matters and contradicts itself and reality, then how could one then have a veridical epiphany?

He finds trivial the argument from physical mind that God cannot exist. No, that is a key argument against his existence as only embodied minds can think and act; he has no evidence but the it must be or it may be that He has to be disembodied,. To avoid having a physical mind. Some atheists, on the other hand, have erred in contending that He must have a body that one could find.

And in order to create, He'd be under the laws of Nature so that He cannot be that Primary Cause, even had He a mind!

People underrate Plantinga as making solecistic, sophisticated sophistry- ignorant, complicated speciousness and overrate him as a philosopher. My intent is to demonstrate otherwise!

I, Democritus, find my reasoning as always needs input from serious inquirers as why should others or- I accept this analysis as definitive?

\ " Fr. Griggs rests in his Socratic ignorance and humble naturalism."

^Coyne " Seeing and Believing "

* Rossow the essay on the yin and yang of Miller both@ Talk Reason