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.
pisswordprotected,
You come here & break my thread & then accuse me of watchtower tactics? Touche dude. Oh & by the way, if faith is such a bad thing, as you seem to be implying, then why are you such a man of faith?
And no, like i've said, i'd love to debate WLC, far from being afraid of his words, i'd love to take him on personally & call him out on them. I do not however like being completely bogwashed with endless paragraphs of his writings in such a tasteless & thoughtless way.
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.
wobble,
Thank you
I'm only a lay person when it comes to cosmological phsyics & thus my opinion on the origins of the universe will be no more informed than yours. I think that the idea that energy has always existed in some form is pleasing though, it certainly fits with the first law of thermodynamics. But the rest is for those who have put the time (& energy lol) into investigating these matters to figure out.
People like pisswordprotected who break threads & post insane ramblings of people like WLC bring nothing to the table. And how that idiot could possibly think that my first post was pasted from somewhere is beyond me, it was such a poorly written post that i hesitated to click Submit when i finished writing it
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.
Deputy Dog,
What you're doing here is admitting that God of the gaps reasoning is a fallacy & i applaud you for it. God may or may not exist, & i assume that like me, you are an agnostic atheist? Because that's what you seem to be advocating here.
I agree that science hasn't figured it all out yet, i'm not advocating any theory, i'm merely laying them on the table. Scientists are at least trying to figure it out, the God squad would have us believe that they already have.
To say that God absolutely does exist or that he absolutely does not exist are faith based positions, the only reasonable position is to admit that the answer is currently unknown, & that is my position.
Oh & i wasn't speaking for the 'people' who make the cosmological argument, i was simply talking about the claims within the argument. You know, the claims that those 'people' make.
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.
pisswordprotected,
I wrote it myself actually, prick.
I know that thinking & articulating words of your own isn't your strong point, but don't project your own shortcomings on to me.
Oh & William Lane Craig is an absolute buffoon, i'd love to debate him, i'd demolish him i think. The first thing i'd do is call him out on the stupid burden shift that he always begins debates with, wherein the opponent must "prove atheism" LOL! He is the worst kind of creationist quack.
And you are the worst kind of poster for swamping my thread with that shit, thanks a lot.
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.
tec,
It's not about dismissing the supernatural, it is simply about accepting that it's existence is not proven. You are free to believe it if you wish, but i urge you to look into some of the alternative naturalist explanations for the origin of spirituality, they are out there, you just need google & some fingers, i presume you have those.
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.
The Scotsman,
Did you even bother to read my first post? What you just demonstrated there was the cosmological argument, & it's a God of the gaps fallacy argument, nothing more. If it really is enough to convince you then you're to be intellectually pitied.
You also said a number of things there which are downright wrong.
Firstly, you presented a false dichotamy, by saying that nothing producing everything is the ONLY alternative to God, this is just WRONG WRONG WRONG. It is one of MANY MANY MANY alternatives! Now please go & learn about them pronto! (I listed some of them in my first post which you obviously didn't read).
Secondly, you stated that nothing cannot produce everything, & that this is a scientifc fact. Wrong again i'm afraid, please google 'vacuum state'.
Thirdly, you implied that the last episode of Lost was aired some time ago, it was not, it was aired 2-3 days ago.
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.
Only online
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.
Great, well thanks for the white noise JWoods, please do feel free to drop by & leave some more some time.
Cheers!
the answer to the above question hinges on when the gospel was actually written.
many scholars feel it was written some time after the destruction of the temple in 70 c.e.
if this is so, it is a clever fake, pretending to have been written earlier by an eye-witness to the events, or someone close to an eye-witness.
I can't be bothered to read everything that JB is writing, life is too short, but am i right in thinking that he is honestly making the argument that the possible capitalist motivations of biblical scholars (& only the ones who don't agree with the bible at that) proves that the bible is accurate & divinely inspired?
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 don't know of ANY argument that can prove the existence of God unless a baseline for proof is stated and even then, it is subjective.
I mean, for some proof is irrelevant, for others proof is all around them.
One man's proof is another man's psychosis.
That's fair enough. Unfortunately for many people these proofs are irrefutable (& that includes many of the posters on this message board) & thus, they require refutation from time to time.
