Ignostic Morgan

For thorough commentary [while not using the term ignosticism or the other two] which exposes the incoherency of God, read Nicholas Everitt's"The Non-Existence of God" and Michael Martin's "Atheism: a philosophical Justification."
This argument shows that theists cannot just run with God,assuming He is omnimax.They have to show that He has substance!
The Ockham requires that they show that He does not require ad hoc assumptions.
All this leads to the presumption of naturalism that natural causes are effiecient, necessary,primary,sufficient and ultimate causes and explanations.
To require a personal explanation is again like asking for angels in addition to the laws of motion to explain the orbits of the planets.
This presumption neither begs the question nor sandbags theists but is merely the demand for evidence as demands Hume in his analysis of miralcles.It does not prevent theists from adducing evidence to overcome the presumption as Einstein presented evidence to overcome Newton's laws as ubiquitous.
Then again, like the Euthrypo, theists face a real challenge!

Gawen

Due to it's age and lack of recent postings, I'm closing this thread.

Those of you who are interested in the subject matter may begin a new thread leaving a link to this one as reference.

Please do not resurrect a thread more than 3 months old.