Is there the supernatural?


Welcome to all serious inquirers! Try out your arguments about God.

Ignostic Morgan

Ignostic Morgan

Search This Blog


Monday, April 26, 2010


The original Thales advocates the presumption of naturalism by using only natural causes as primary causes, dispensing with the supernatural. He was the first philosohical naturalist and scientist.
As Antony Garrard Newton Flew noted [ before his dementia and death]this presumption is akin to the presumption of innocence, and Aquinas himself notes it in so many words failing to overcome it with his five failed arguments.Thus all natural causes and explanations are not only efficient and necessary but also primary and sufficient: they thus are the sufficient reason, despite Gottfried Wilhelm Leinniz. This neither begs the question nor sandbags supernaturalists, but like its corollary, David Hume on miracles, it demands evidence as Einstein overcame Newton.
Supernaturalsim means animism writ large, not just a form of it! The Azande know full well that winds cause tiles to fall onto people but ascribe a wind spirit as the primary cause. All other supernaturalsts do such even with just one Supreme Spirit.
Why do you disbelieve or believe in the supernatural?
Also, one might consider posting also @ these blogs:
Carneades@ Aimoo and
IgnosticMorgan's Blog@Wordpress.


  1. Thales and Strato led the way for scientists to use teleonomy- no divine wanted causes whilst Aristotle, whatever his value to science otherwise was, harmed its development.

  2. Theology is mere verbiage to uphold what is nothing more than dressed-up animism behind one grand spirit! No more than there any spirits behind natural objects, none exist behind Existence. Natural phenomena take natural causes and explanations. Thales and Strato knew that quite well.
    Answered prayer is post hoc- mere coincidence whilst people rationalize unanswered prayer.
    No God uses faith-healing. Any healings are just natural. And why play favorites anyway!
    Faith-healing can kill or at least harm people when they don't use medical care. Indeed, I favor laws against any faith-healers who command others not to use medical care. And parents need to know that it is just superstitious to rely on faith-healing anyway.
    Doctors err in maintaining that faith can help heal patients when tests demonstrate otherwise.
    We need no conflation of medical care and faith as we find science and religion incompatible. Per the atelic or teleonomic argument the weight of evidences pictures no teleology- no supernatural intent, which perforce would contradict natural causes. No God, but natural selection and other evolutionary matters caused us, with random events at play. No Divinity had us in mind as Jerry Coyne notes in "Seeing and Believing and Amiel Rossow in his essay on Kenneth Miller @ Talk Reason.
    Furthermore, all teleological arguments- probability, fine-tuning, from reason and design beg the question that He wanted us or comparable species to evolve.
    And David Hume's dysteologival argument [ the one from imperfections. keel hauls it.Some supernaturalists have the temerity to allege that omni-God could make flourishes whilst limited God had to make as many perfections as possible1 Furthermore, besides being inane, we could even fault the limited one!
    Supernaturalists as they are so wont to do, just make up rationalizations on the basis of guesswork of the it may be and it must be notions!
    We are autonomous beings who need be clay for any divine potter! No God has the right to condemn us to Hell. And Allah and Yahweh themselves are highly immoral1
    The supernatural and the paranormal are just the twin superstitions that the indefatigable Dr.Paul Kurtz calls " The Transcendental Temptation," both built upon the quicksand of faith.
    Creation evolution and evolutionary creationism just are both oxymorons and obfuscatory, blaspheming reason, morality and - humanity!Magical thinking doesn't lead to that more abundant life whilstthe presumptions of empiricism, humanism, naturalism, rationalism and skepticism do lead to it!

  3. Carneades notes that Chrysippus uses loaded terminology with the term builds in his analogy of the builder of houses and that of the Cosmos when the neutral term is forms.
    Supernaturalist as George H. Smith in his book notes that they conflate a man-made process with a natural one. We could see people making watches, but as David Hume notes, we can have no experience- not even indirect- of this supernatural intent.
    How might supernaturalists overocme these objections, and can they? Viewers, please add your comments whatever their length!
    Evolutionary creationism and creationist evolution both obscure the difference betwixt science and the supernatural, making a disingenuous argument that affirms the new Omphalos argument of His deceit in making it look only apparent that natural causes are without divine direction so as to present the epistemic distance that it takes to prevent His majesty to override our free will to worship and know him, but John L. Schellenberg keel hauls that with his hiddenness argument.

  4. As Existence is all, there can be no external cause or material whence it comes for it, and so God hasn't the referent of Primary Cause.
    As cause, event and time presuppose previous ones, there can be no Primary Cause and thus once again no referent for Him. Peter Adam Angeles makes these two arguments;" The Problem of God: a Short Introduction."
    The Lamberth atelic or teleonomic argument argues that since the weight of evidence illustrates no intent- agency- teleology- preordained outcomes but rather teleonomy- unplanned outcomes,so that not only is religion not compatible with science but it contradicts it!
    Natural selection is no empty vessel with a captain in charge but the unplanned, anti-chance agency of Nature.
    Therefore, evolutionary creationism or creationist evolution are obfuscatory and oxymoronic! Advanced theologian Alister Earl Alister notwithstanding, God is a useless redundancy violating the Razor. A double whammy!
    This lack of intent debunks not only the teleological ones but any argument relying on intent - Primary Cause behind the Big Bang , Grand Miracle Monger and so forth, and this time we find Him lacking many referents, and thereby affirming ignosticism!
    One supernaturalist begs for people to believe that He is deceiving us with teleonomy whilst He does the real work1
    Ah, the new Omphalos argument that He hides Himself per John Hick's epistemic distance argument, which Schellenberg refutes. That in effect, is no more than Nicholas Ma;Malebranche's occasionalism that He is the force that make that strike the eight ball when we strike it1
    Yes, advanced and fundamentalists theologians are both comedians The use of faith,postulation and definition cannot instantiate Him!