Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Concedo. But we also concede that it is one of the better gap for god argument that the god -believers (Creationist or not) have.
Of course. I am not talking of BF personally, but of his methods and substance in argument. They are unsound and poor, and far too much backchat and personals. "Noise" rather than substance.
Here's a biblical type conundrum.
If you made a major discovery,
but it proved creationism right.
Would you forego a Nobel prize and keep it under wraps?
I've seen enough philosophical arguments that dispel the notion of God of the gaps to reject the whole idea.
There is no God of the gaps unless you follow zeus, thor, or neptune.
They are God's of natural phenomina.
Today's various monotheistic concepts of god are The God of the whole show.
Saw Neil degree Tyson trying to make the God of the gaps idea, but he couldn't reconcile how Newton was more brilliant than he could hope to be , yet believed in god.
Well, its because Newton didn't believe in a God of the gaps, the more Newton discovered the more it revealed God to him.
De grasse is an example how bright people can be stupid with their own intelligence.
I'll tell you what, this is a great time to be living.
Do you actually know what a God of the gaps argument is? It is what we can't explain is postulated as 'God doing it' all the time there is not good evidence to show how, for example a tree grows.
That the old religions had a lot of gods doing various jobs (and the top God wasn't always the creator, because they at least addressed the question of origins of gods instead of saying 'always there') and the desire of the old Jews to debunk any gods but their own leading to one god doing everything isn't the god of the gaps argument, even if it has its' attractions.
It is indeed an exciting time, as itis being inreasingly exposed how Godfaith apologetics (Creationists or not) make those who might otherwise be wise, talk illogic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg
Here's a biblical type conundrum.
If you made a major discovery,
but it proved creationism right.
Would you forego a Nobel prize and keep it under wraps?
As the Anthony Flew discussion showed, No. We would accept convincing evidence. It is rather the believers repeatedly ignore good evidence and keep recycling old debunked claims.
Do you actually know what a God of the gaps argument is? It is what we can't explain is postulated as 'God doing it' all the time there is not good evidence to show how, for example a tree grows.
That the old religions had a lot of gods doing various jobs (and the top God wasn't always the creator, because they at least addressed the question of origins of gods instead of saying 'always there') and the desire of the old Jews to debunk any gods but their own leading to one god doing everything isn't the god of the gaps argument, even if it has its' attractions.
It is indeed an exciting time, as itis being inreasingly exposed how Godfaith apologetics (Creationists or not) make those who might otherwise be wise, talk illogic.
As the Anthony Flew discussion showed, No. We would accept convincing evidence. It is rather the believers repeatedly ignore good evidence and keep recycling old debunked claims.
No one except atheists hold to a God of the gaps, we believe in a God of everything.
God isn't in the universe.
We are inside God.
The more science can verify, the greater God becomes....because God underlies everything.
No one except atheists hold to a God of the gaps, we believe in a God of everything.
God isn't in the universe.
We are inside God.
The more science can verify, the greater God becomes....because God underlies everything.
Relax, God's in charge.
you may right about the more science finds the more wonderful the universe is.
Trans is anti- god, or more precisely put, heckle and attack all "beliefs" and "deny all beliefs" he deems not helping his little war on religious people. Filter all his answers through that lense and he become quite predictable.
"within god". why, with what we know, is that claim more valid than "universe is god"? I mean I don't use the word god myself, I am just using it for discussion purposes.
Do you actually know what a God of the gaps argument is? It is what we can't explain is postulated as 'God doing it' all the time there is not good evidence to show how, for example a tree grows.
That the old religions had a lot of gods doing various jobs (and the top God wasn't always the creator, because they at least addressed the question of origins of gods instead of saying 'always there') and the desire of the old Jews to debunk any gods but their own leading to one god doing everything isn't the god of the gaps argument, even if it has its' attractions.
It is indeed an exciting time, as itis being inreasingly exposed how Godfaith apologetics (Creationists or not) make those who might otherwise be wise, talk illogic.
As the Anthony Flew discussion showed, No. We would accept convincing evidence. It is rather the believers repeatedly ignore good evidence and keep recycling old debunked claims.
no, you don't accept convincing evidence. That is not true. Your denomination of atheists denies anything that goes against your base belief.
Why don't you tell us your base belief for the new guys? Maybe the one that starts "some of us believe religion is so dangerous ....". or maybe a statement on how the universe is working?
No one except atheists hold to a God of the gaps, we believe in a God of everything.
God isn't in the universe.
We are inside God.
The more science can verify, the greater God becomes....because God underlies everything.
Relax, God's in charge.
Then I'm surprised then that you have to put in such huge amounts of effort to pinch hit for it ("Him" is of course anthropormorphizing a supposed cosmic intelligence).
You still don't understand the god of the gaps argument. But it doesn't matter. Others can and see where your arguments fail. All we need to do is point that out and you fail every time, even if you don't see it. fingers in ears Denial, we call it.
But we can't fall into denial ourselves can we? If we think that once said, people will remember and discount your fallacious arguments every time, we are giving the sortagod - peddler the free Field they are hankering after every time they they ask why atheists are spending time here arguing against the god they don't believe in.
We have to keep deflating the helium balloons of Faith - claims (including the biggest faithblimp of them all "God is everything") every time. It's a tedious job, but somebody's got to do it, and apart from a few scientists, nobody else is.
No one except atheists hold to a God of the gaps, we believe in a God of everything.
God isn't in the universe.
We are inside God.
The more science can verify, the greater God becomes....because God underlies everything.
No one except atheists hold to a God of the gaps, we believe in a God of everything.
God isn't in the universe.
We are inside God. The more science can verify, the greater God becomes....because God underlies everything.
Relax, God's in charge.
can you please post the number one example of science verifying god please and someway I can verify it for myself?
Concedo. But we also concede that it is one of the better gap for god argument that the god -believers (Creationist or not) have.
Of course. I am not talking of BF personally, but of his methods and substance in argument. They are unsound and poor, and far too much backchat and personals. "Noise" rather than substance.
Yet, you haven't actually addressed the question of origins.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Then I'm surprised then that you have to put in such huge amounts of effort to pinch hit for it ("Him" is of course anthropormorphizing a supposed cosmic intelligence). 
If we think that once said, people will remember and discount your fallacious arguments every time, we are giving the sortagod - peddler the free Field they are hankering after every time they they ask why atheists are spending time here arguing against the god they don't believe in.
