What can the supernatural add to the natural? Does it clarify it? Does it bring forth knowledge? Is it in accord with our conservation -background- of knowledge? Does it simplify matters or does it add useless mysteries? Do people actually have supernatural experiences and can they have a relationship with any supernatural subject?
Are the saints, including the Virgin Mary, affect the natural world?
Leucippus inquires in order to examine the supernatural world.
He sees no addition to the natural or any simplification but rather the obfuscation of matters with a sleight of hand- theological double talk. The supernatural explanation redounds to God did it, which is so uninformative! It ranks with demons and gremlins as explanations. We have Nature, but how can the supernatural comport with it when as Lamberth's atelic or teleonomic arguments explains that as the weight of evidence presents only teleonomy- no planned outcomes, so that to add the supernatural as the intent behind natural causes, that cannot perforce add to knowledge but rather contradict it with the new Omphalos argument which bases itself on Hick's epistemic distance one that He has to hide Himself ambiguously from us in order to not override our free will. Do public announcements then try to override our free will unjustly and do parents try erroneously to override their children's free wills with punishment.Why then would He prefer then to allow all the evils when He could have caused our free wills to be free but with a guarantee not to do wrong as David Steele Ramsay observes in " Atheism Explained: from Folly to Philosophy?"
John l.Schellenberg, a fellow skeptic, notes with his hiddenness argument that that redounds to in effect no God at all!
We skeptics find that all religious experience merely add a needless explanation -the supernatural- to our own mental states. In "God, Freedom and Immortality," fellow naturalist Jonathon Harrison maintains that to deny the power of say Mary as to her apparitions begs the question but no, the inverse is true. How could Mary effectuate any natural phenomenon to render her present in that form? By magic? No, the supernaturalist begs the question by denying the presumption of naturalism that all natural causes and explanations themselves not only are necessary and efficient but also primary and sufficient. And that begs no questions but is our starting point, which the supernaturalists with evidence must override. That presumption is the key to our conservation of knowledge.
How can the supernatural with all its convoluted,ad hoc assumptions be more simple than just the natural as Richard Swinburne, advanced theologian alleges? It is no,t as he fathom, how many parts to a theory that matters but for what can it account without itself be more complicated as the supernatural then is.
Naturals causes and explanations don't themselves require the mysteries of the supernatural to validate them! Those convoluted, ad hoc assumptions of His referents as the Grand Miracle Monger and so forth and His incoherent, contradictory attributes are those convoluted, ad hoc assumptions!
The supernatural, as cause and explanation violates Ockham's razor, then plus also contradicting them! That's a double whammy!
Do supernatural entities communicate telepathically to us so that we can have a two-way relationship with it? This relationship then again is our mental states at work.It is our ignoring that we can rely on our inner resources without this placebo as our motivator!That morality requires no supernatural foundation but religion requires it to effect people's lives goes back to Plato's Euthyphro that morality is indeed independent of religion,albeit Plato himself was a theist. The supernatural adds no explanation then to morality but a needless series of convoluted, ad hoc assumptions.
How then could the supernatural be any more an explanation than demons and gremlins as the underlying cause? No psychiatrist or mechanic or scientist needs any of these three for the primary and sufficient causes and explanations!
Answered prayer is merely post hoc- coincidental, and miracles,including faith healing, merely follow natural causes and explanations. Alister Earl McGrath, Dawkins's nemesis, this needless redundancy adds then nothing to explaining matters but is no more that the vacuous rantings of Richard Swinburne and William Lame Craig's obscurantism of the personal explanation as adding not natural ones. We require no such personal explanation as teleonomic evolution explains the patterns of life that people see as designs, the quantum fields explain how the Metaverse exists eternally and none for miracles. This obscurantism with with its mysteries adds only solecistic, sophisticated sophistry- ignorant, complicated nonsense!
It scope and predictive value exists only as parasitic on the natural causes and explanations then!In itself it has no scope as it goes nowhere and can predict nothing.
Therefore, it has no simplicity,lacks coherence with our conservation of knowledge and lacks scope and predicts nothing that it can be no theory and part of knowledge
We ignostics go further that the atelic-itself alone- and other arguments show that lack of referents and that His attributes are indeed incoherent and contradictory that He cannot exist so that we naturalist need no traversing averse to find that or be omniscient but merely be analytically.
Leucippus and the other ancient philosophers are ahead still most of humankind!
As Sydney Hook observes science is acquired knowledge whilst faith begs the question of being knowledge. As Fr. Griggs notes," Logic is the bane of theists."
And as an Englishman notes, " Religion is mythinformation.'
http:// Ignostic Morgan's blog.wordpress.com
http:// Socrates of the South.posterous.com