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 GLADIATOR,
Sorry, i'm not sure what you want from me
You seemed to be mostly in agreement with me & thus i saw no reason to take issue with you or address your statements. If you wanted a letter of commendation from me for your efforts then you should have said so.
Sorry
Terry,
I made the mistake of ignoring the other guy, so i guess i ought not to make that mistake with you.
So yeah, thank you for your input
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,
Pisswordprotected's cut & paste rubbish was from William Lane Craig, he is often looked up to quite highly by budding apologists because he usually (though certainly not always) does well in his debates. But he does well because he starts his debates by setting up literally every argument for the existence of God that there is (all of the ones i mentioned in the first post), & then he expects his opponents to go through each of them individually & dismantle them, one by one. There just simply is not enough time to do this in a debate & failure do so constitutes a win in WLC's eyes. That's not to mention the fact that most of his opponents are not scientists who are knowledgeable on the subject anyway.
He also gives his opponents the task of 'proving atheism'. This is simply an impossible task & not one that is even necessary, since no athiest claims to be able to prove that God does not exist. But it just goes to show how little WLC really knows about the subject, he is just a showman, & a very preachy one at that. He is also a closet creationist, except for when he is being interviewed by his own people (other creationists), on those ocassions he comes out of the closet specially for them.
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,
So you say
Oh i see, i'm a liar. I get you now!
It's just that your use of "semantics" hides your real leaning.
My use of "semantics" hides my real leaning? I've made my 'real' leaning quite clear, so how can i be accused of hiding it?
Get real.
We look at the same evidence, and disagree on what it means, because we lean in total opposite directions.
Yes, i admit that it doesn't point in either direction, while you cherry pick aspects of it that point in the direction you prefer. Now you tell me who is being more intellectually honest here?
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.
sir82,
There is a form of atheism which does more strongly assert that God cannot exist, but it is by far a minority viewpoint among those who call themselves atheists.
Indeed, & even so called 'militant atheists' like Richard Dawkins & Christopher Hitchens would not fit into this catagory. Both of them freely admit that we cannot be certain at this stage whether God exists or not.
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.
JWoods,
Well no, you can't be an atheist & believe in a God. But you can be agnostic & believe in a God. In fact, i would argue that most theists are agnostics really. Because they cannot say for certain that they know there is a God, not really, & plenty of them do not.
P.S. This is still all just semantics by the way, we're actually going off topic with all of this.
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 isn't neutral no, i never said it was. I am intellectually neutral (hence i am agnostic) but personally i lean towards non-existence. It is not my intellect which compels me to do so, but my gut, so to speak.
But this thread was not supposed to be about me or my gut instincts. It was supposed to be about the intellectual side of things, & in that sense we should all be agnostics, sitting on the fence, because the evidence does not really point either way at this moment in time.
Whether we choose to be theist, atheist or deist is irrelevent to this thread.
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.
not a captive,
Sorry, could you perhaps elaborate on what you're saying, i'm not quite following you. I am interested in what you're saying.
JWoods,
They are mutually exclusive in the simple idea that you either claim to know there is no God, or, you claim to not know if there is a God.
What does that change? Someone can occupy either of those positions & still claim to believe in a God. The former is a gnostic & the latter is an agnostic, but either of those people can be a theist or an atheist. So i don't see what you're trying to say here, they are not mutually exclusive. But as i've said to Deputy Dog already, this is pure semantics, nothing more.
What? You simply cannot be saying that people like Madaline Murray O'Hair or the anti-pledge of allegiance atheist father in San Francisco are NOT being both activists and evangalists for their cause??? Atheism is as much a religious belief system to them as Jesus is to the Southern Baptists - and they are just as public and in your face about their belief as Billy Graham or the Witnesses ever were.
You know what? I'm going to concede this point to you. However, i don't identify with any of those people, so please don't lump me in with them, we are very different, perhaps not polar opposites, but certainly not the same, & you bringing it up in this thread was a pointless diversionary tactic.
http://www.slhg.adm.freeuk.com/is_there_evil.htm.
do humanists need the concept of evil?.
penelope edwards.
I personally have never really accepted the validity of the concept of good & evil.
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.
Anti-Christ,
Why not argue on Hindu gods or Shinto gods, native american etc.. It is more political then religious.
It is the Abrahamic God that is being forced on people in this day & age & in these parts of the world, if it were the above mentioned Gods who were being forced on people then it would be those Gods that i would be addressing.
Deputy Dog,
All i can is that you seem to be misunderstanding the difference between knowledge & belief, there's little more i can do for you on this one. But i think it's fair to say that while courage is not the issue here, i am certainly the more intellectually honest of the two of us, simply for not assuming that there is a God merely on the basis of gaps in our current scientific understanding of the universe. Those gaps being the 'evidence' that you speak of which points to God.
When you ask "Which is it?", I feel a little embarrassed for you, it can be & indeed IS both. There is a difference between knowledge & belief & the dictionary quotes you posted do not seem to refute that, although i'm a little dubious on those definitions as one of them refers to 'true atheism' which i think is a sign that whoever wrote that definition was a tad ill-informed. I've seen other dictionaries give very different definitions of both of those words. I might have another look around online later on though to back that up as i don't want you to take my word for it.
I am an agnostic atheist, i don't know whether there is a God or not, but i do not believe that there is. That is not to say however that i actively believe that there is not one, that is different.
P.S. Anyway, we're arguing semantics here, it's pointless. None of this refutes anything i've said & you know what, none of this refutes anything you've said either. Both our points still stand & thus we might as well drop this little issue, it's an irrelevent tangent as far as i'm concerned.
JWoods,
Once again, someone brings up this 'anger' that people keep pointing out, this non existent anger which is obviously so easy to talk about & saves everyone the time of addressing the actual arguments. Anyway, my advice to you is to read my posts & not just other people's responses to them, which appears to be what you have done. I have no anger towards those who believe in God, only those who put words in my mouth, which i've already gone into. And you are now one of those people, since this post you just made put several words in my mouth. This thread has simply been for the purposing of showing that the arguments for the existence of God do not prove he exists, as many apologists claim, but merely posit the possiblity of God.
Also, "activist-evangalistic atheism" does indeed sound very ugly, but thankfully, it does not exist, so we can sleep safely in our beds tonight.
BTW - atheism and agnosticism are not the same thing.
That is absolutley correct, they are not the same thing, & i don't believe a single person in this thread has claimed that they are. But thanks anyway for correcting a mistake which no one made. Atheism & agnosticism are indeed two very different things, BUT they are not mutually exclusive, do you understand what i mean by that?
If there is no God, and an atheist is so sure of it, then what is the point of trying to enforce this belief system on others?
Yep, you haven't read a single thing that i've written. And to correct this would be the 4th time this thread i've done so, so i shall not bother. Well done for being such a master of misrepresentation.
A+
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? Did you read the arguments? They are not arguments that i created, they are the most common arguments used for the existence of God, & most of them only apply to a general deity type God, re-read them & i defy you to find more than a couple of references to a loving, personal God in there. The God they refer to is the creator of the universe, which is what the vast majority of ideas of God all over the world are, a creator God. And then there is the onotological argument which deals with an all powerful being.
