The divine square circle

      We ignostics- igtheists find that God has no more significance than a square circle. I  find that the teleonomic argument alone keel hauls His referents as the Grand Miracle Monger and we find that He has contradictory,incoherent attributes such that He is no more than the divine square circle!

    That argument finds that as teleonomy-causalism-mechanism-no directed outcomes rules , then to apply divine intent- teleology- vitalism- behind teleonomic natural causes not only violates the Ockham with convoluted,ad hoc assumptions but also  contradicts science’s finding that teleonomy rules. Therefore, directed – theistic- evolution is just oxymoronic obscurantism!

     Therefore, without actually using His intent, then He cannot be Himself! And how could a disembodied mind have intent anyway? We only know of evolved minds, therefore, to aver that disembodied one is just another theological bit of guesswork! Despite, Alvin Plantinga, this is a key  argument against His existence!

    Ti’s nebulous to speak of divine transcendence when Existence remains all so that nothing lies outside it to rule it or with which to compare with it for fine-tuning and probability arguments per Reichenbach’s argument from Experience. Transcendence anyway, to assume its use, precludes omnipresence. Were He omnipresent, then He’d be no kind of personal being.

   The problem of evil presents the case that His omni-atributes contradict each other so that He is a vacuity. Alvin Plantinga again errs as is his wont, because He relies on the unknown reason defense- that argument from ignorance.

    We  strong atheists as ignostics can proclaim then no God exists without being dogmatic, basing our claim on logic and analysis instead of having to traverse the Cosmos or being omniscient ourselves! Supernaturalists would be guilty of the argument from ignorance to declare that no one can disprove Him but they nevertheless can affirm Him.

   Without giving an empirical basis for Heaven, Hell, the future state and contra-causal [causeless] free will, they aid us ignostics in finding no basis to affirm His existence exists! Those terms are just more mysteries surrounding Him that Supreme Mystery ostensibly the Ultimate Explanation but actually being nebulous. I ask with Roy Jackson in ” The God of Philosophy” what could be that evidence?

    William James could prattle his will to believe but we demand evidence for Him. Nothing makes Him forced, live and  momentous  for us! That  wishful prattle leads to bedlam!