god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
I actually think it's funny when someone ignores the substance of someone's argument & focuses on the ad hominem attacks only.
I didn't ignore the substance of your argument, I provided an article from a philosopher who directly addresses your argument.
god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
Oh & in future could you please refrain from trashing threads with really really long & pointless posts that are made just to be spiteful?
Actually, the really long post was directly related to each one of the issues raised in your OP.
god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
So in my mind faith is one more juicy lil thing like love, music, and playing Xbox that might be a complete waste of time but somehow makes me very happy and enjoy my life.
Well put.
god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
What more was there for me to say?
Why don't you read your abandoned thread again and try to apply your god-given braincell to the responses presented.
___
The answer given was yes. Therefore, the question posed by the thread was answered.
Are you taking ad hominem lessons from the Parrot? If so, I think you're on the right road to extra credits. Peace.
god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
To say that the Bible introduces Jesus as the creator does not answer the question as to how we get to accept that, we may, by using rationalism conclude the need for a creator, but why should that be Jesus ? I know that the other claimants have even less credence, the gods of the Hindu religion for example, but I still do not see what credibility the claim for Jesus has.
This is probably off topic, but what would be credible to make that claim?
You also seem to think we who doubt need everything empirically proven , that is of course impossible, we cannot experience the Big Bang, or black holes and many other things so an element of rationalism has to be used by all of us, creationists or chaositists. (There, a neologism ! )
I wouldn't dispute that.
god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
By the way pisswordprotected, you're really out of your depth here.
If you say so.
god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
Here you go again proving yourself to be a total ignoranimous. Why don't spend your time finishing trashing your own thread, the topic you were unable complete on, instead of polluting another topic
Sorry, the question was "Can you be an atheist and believe in logic and maths?. The unequivocal response I go was "yes". And by receiving that answer it was confirmed to me that atheists have an inconsistant and contradictory worldview. What more was there for me to say?
god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
PP
i have no belief in God
That's fine, if that's your presupposition.
I am an agnostic because i am intellectually neutral on the matter of his existence
That statement seems to contradict the first.
____
LMAO. Brilliant.
god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
I am an atheist because i have no belief in God.
Then why do you keep trying to prove he isn't real?
god of the gaps arguments are simply not convincing, god is no more likely to be the correct gap filler than anything else, in any case where god is squeezed into a gap, we could easily just fill it with (for example) a committee of eternally existing physical lifeforms, god is no more plausible than they are as an explanation.
as for the arguments themselves:.
the cosmological argument = god of the gaps: we think (though we are not certain) that the universe had a beginning, it was probably the big bang, the big bang needed a cause.
I wish I could find an atheist who would admit to being a presuppossitional atheist.
Fantastic point.
