>Hick-the faux empiricist


>

   John Hick feels free to beg the question of  of the  future state in ordr to argue for future state empiricism.
   He maintains that in order for us to be morally free to embrace God, that He made  for ambiguity in the evidence for Him. No, ti’s not a matter of differing interpretations of the evidence as none can possibly exist for Him!
       No Evidence exists  that allows for interpreting the world as showing  evidence of design whatsoever as the teleonomic argument notes that the empirical evidence reveals no intent-agency teleology- wanted outcomes-exist, but rather teleonomy- no wanted outcomes. And the atelic one one notes that theists beg the question of those wanted outcomes. This is scientific and philosophical  rather than philosophical as the accommodationists maintain!
          Hick’s argument is called epistemic distance.Besides the previous statement, appears Theodore Drange’s  argument from  unbelief that were there God, He’s have made it clear that He does indeed exist. Why would a rational being use such contradictory books as the Qu’ran and the Tanakh and the Christian Testament that forces people to  evince different accounts of Him such that varying sets evolve? Whey  would He let the evidence rule Him out? Why then would there be so many unbelievers?
         John L.Schellenberg’s has he hiddenness argument that notes that He hides Himself so successfully  that He  doesn’t exist!
           Theists can never adduce evidence for His very existence ,because none can possibly exist!
           Were evidence otherwise, it would pellucidly reveal His  don’t happen, and the environment doesn’t change , then we see living ” fossils.”.  Selection does not in Lamarckian fashion decide that an organism needs a bigger brain, but depends on  mutations and the environment so that the organism must adapt to the environment or perish.
           No, science and God do not complement each other, and to claim that they co contradicts rather then complements  science, besides violating the Ockham with the convoluted, ad hoc assumptions needed to confirm His role in evolution and elsewhere! He is a useless, redundancy, Alister Earl McGrath notwithstanding!
     Some theists maintain that He doesn’t intervene in Nature, as the German journalist   Smoltczyk  does when he state that God is neither a principle, nor an entity, nor a person but rather the explanation for everything, but without  being that entity or person, He cannot implement Himself as that  very  explanation! He just makes a vacuous claim. That is the nature of theology and  religious philosophy of religion!
    Faith doth that to people!
    We full-fledged empriicists perforce have to deny His very existence!
Advertisements

One comment

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s