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,
It may not seem like it from your perspective, but that is simply what the words mean, there's no way around that.
And if you feel the evidence supports your position then you may as well go ahead & claim gnosticism. I'd rather remain open to the possibility that actually, the evidence doesn't particularly point either way at this point.
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.
Actually, the really long post was directly related to each one of the issues raised in your OP.
I didn't ignore the substance of your argument, I provided an article from a philosopher who directly addresses your argument.
Highly unlikely, since my initial post was made in response to & addressed the arguments that were in that very essay you posted (as well as many others like it). Of course i highly doubt you actually read either my initial post or the rubbish which you pasted into the thread.
All you did was re-post the arguments i was addressing. And since i posted in my own words & you just pasted from another source, my point still stands, don't do it in future! It's naughty! Paste all you like but that was too much, you even included the references at the bottom!
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. Yeah, it's easy to fight fire with fire, but fighting substance with holy spirit? No contest i'm afraid
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.
Yeah why don't you do that parsewordprotected, baring in mind that many of those responses were from me. I'd appreciate it if you responded to them in your thread rather than pm'ing me about them behind closed doors.
Oh & in future could you please refrain from trashing threads with really really long & pointless posts that are made just to be spiteful?
Cheers
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,
No it doesn't, because atheism & agnosticism are not mutually exclusive.
--------------------------------------
An agnostic atheist doesn't know on an intellectual whether there is a God or not, & sees no reason to assume there is.
A gnostic atheist knows on an intellectual level that there is no God & thus does not believe in God. I consider this to be an unreasonable position with current scientific knowledge.
An agnostic theist doesn't know on an intellectual level whether there is a God or not, but assumes that there is.
A gnostic theist knows on an intellectual level that there is a God & thus believes in God. I consider this also to be an unreasonable position with current scientific knowledge.
--------------------------------------
By the way pisswordprotected, you're really out of your depth here.
'LMAO' ¬_¬
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 haven't once tried to prove God isn't real, & i've made that clear multiple times now! I've merely stated that the arguments for the existence of God are not particularly compelling & that there are plenty of alternative explanations for the existence of the universe & life. This does not prove that God does not exist, nor is it supposed to. It merely puts the God explanation in it's place as just one possible explanation among many.
Please do not put words in my mouth, because that IS a watchtower tactic if ever there was one.
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.
Cagefighter,
No, this is all aimed at those who think God exists, not God.
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,
There are plenty of atheists out there who are atheist merely by default. Some of us have actually thought about it though. I am an atheist because i have no belief in God. I am an agnostic because i am intellectually neutral on the matter of his existence, are you?
And it's not so much an admission of your point as it is an observation that your point supports mine
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.
Cagefighter,
If i ever have the privilege of debating professional writers i shall indeed try to tone down my anger, i am alas very young & full of hormones & they have been known boil over from time to time, but since there are no professional writers on this board (& very few particularly gifted amateurs either, oh damn there's another one!), i think i can get away with it, i think my arguments contain enough substance to make up for the ad hominem attacks.
Oh & yes, if God does exist, then He is most certainly a jerk!
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.
You wish you could find an atheist who admits to being a theist?
Okay, good luck with that! I'm off to look for an African who can admit to being a European.
