>What do you opine about her article? The empirical argument is that no evidence exists for His very existence. Lamberth's teleonomic argument presupposes the efficacy of science that no wanted outcomes exist so that to posit God not only violates the Ockham by requiring convoluted, ad hoc assumptions but also by contradicting teleonomy,divine teleology-wanted outcomes contradicts science rather than adds to it, aming for obfuscation rather than enlightment. And the atelic argument notes that theists beg that very question of those wanted outcomes. What do you think?
Lord Russell of Ga. 
>What do you opine about her article? The empirical argument is that no evidence exists for His very existence. Lamberth's teleonomic argument presupposes the efficacy of science that no wanted outcomes exist so that to posit God not only violates the Ockham by requiring convoluted, ad hoc assumptions but also by contradicting teleonomy,divine teleology-wanted outcomes contradicts science rather than adds to it, aming for obfuscation rather than enlightment. And the atelic argument notes that theists beg that very question of those wanted outcomes. What do you think?