God’s Physical Problem | Atheology

God’s Physical Problem | Atheology

viaGod’s Physical Problem | Atheology.

viaGod’s Physical Problem | Atheology.


Apophatic Theology: the Apologia of Last Resort – Ignostic-Morgan-Today\’s Carneades

Apophatic Theology: the Apologia of Last Resort – Ignostic-Morgan-Today\’s Carneades

viaApophatic Theology: the Apologia of Last Resort – Ignostic-Morgan-Today\’s Carneades.

viaApophatic Theology: the Apologia of Last Resort – Ignostic-Morgan-Today\’s Carneades.

That square circle called God

    How can one have a personal relationship with a square circle? How does that personal relationship save anybody?

    Lamberth’s the atelic and other naturalist arguments deny God any referents as Grand Miracle Monger, Actor in History and so forth such that He cannot exist, and with incoherent, contradictory attributes, again, He cannot exist! So by analysis, not by dogma, we ignostics declare God cannot exist! No one then has to traverse the Cosmos nor have omniscience herself to find no No God! Here we can without the argument from ignorance declare that as Victor Stenger notes where mountains of evidence should exist and none does, and in line with Charles Moore’s auto-epistemic rule, evidence of absence is indeed absence of evidence.

     Yahweh-Yeshua cannot exist,because misanthropes just made Him up! As a real person Yeshua lived, and taking the Gospels as describing him justly, He was a cult leader, perhaps a schizotypal with similar followers, whom rational people would justly reject!

     It, as Aquinas notes, takes faith to believe in the Trinity! That does not resemble how water can be a gas, a liquid and a solid as that’s just one being whilst the Trinity supposedly means three different beings. And the Incarnation affirms further the cause of ignosticism as we ignostics take that as an incompatibility argument. Should one be fully man, then one would not be perfect unlike what the Gospels prattle and should one be perfect God, one would not be perfect, as man is imperfect! Yeshua would know all as God and know little as man. What tortured  reasoning- that like schizophrenia makes one rationalization after another!

     Since Yahweh in the Tanakh is so evil, then He cannot be God! And since Yeshua wants his flock to eschew reason for faith, love him more than others and – sends people to Hell for not eating of his flesh, then  he cannot be God!

     Why would any rational person want a relationship with  either of those two evil beings? Again, how can one have a relationship with a square circle? How can that relationship save anyone?

    And what is the salvation? From Hell- might is right! From ones frailties? Here we ignostics can again pounce upon an incompatibility argument: the one betwixt love and Hell. Augustine, Aquinas, Luther and Calvin would have sent many more to the pyre had they the power in the name of God and- love! They proclaim that the apostate should be killed in order to defeat further rebellion against God. Love is nothing like that! That is barbarism and misanthropy!

     So the Tanakh and the Christian Testament themselves make incompatibility arguments against God’s very existence! This is the Lamberth the Yahweh versus God incompatibility argument.

    It is incompatible that God can act in the Cosmos and that science finds no divine teleology behind natural phenomena! To assume that He can makes implicitly the new Omphalos argument that He deceives us with that apparent ambiguity for which John Hick argues with his epistemic distance argument.No ambiguity can exist, as He doesn’t act at all in the Cosmos as the scientific revelation notes!

   This illuminates were there God, He  could not be fully Himself without the real intent that science never will find!

    The Ockham notes the incompatibility of simplicity with respect to Him, because He has those supposed convoluted, ad hoc attributes and referents. Here Richard Swinburne reveals his misunderstanding of the Ockham, as he takes God to be more simple than naturalism, which has no  convoluted, ad hoc arguments!

     Lamberth’s the ignostic- Ockham arguments notes that either He is a square circle or needlessly redundant, Alister Earl McGrath notwithstanding!

     Use  all this argumentation against Christ-insanity and some of it against theism in general.

    What further evidence  do you have that He is a square circle and explains no more than gremlins and demons as primary cause? Any dissent?

     And so Mose’s Folly and Muhammad’s Fits condemn themselves also with the incompatibility of love and Hell?