my fundy brethren, You accuse theists of appealing to the Gaps when asked to explain our origins. This is circular logic which is based on presumption of atheism being true. Atheists could be accused of appealing to the Gaps,if there's God, over time our knowledge of Him will increase, and so theism will be once proven to be true. In this scenario all the attempts to disprove, or show that God is not needed, would be labeled as appealing to the Gaps in your knowledge of God. Ofcourse atheists will appeal to the trend,reality is increasingly explained by natural mechanisms. But is it? And which trend we will choose, life is much more complex than it was thought,what if this complexity is machine-like, not just any complexity? Sure science is great tool to explain reality, but only when it empirical. Historical sciences are much more ambigious. If God was once used to explain all gaps in knowledge, it it was obviously a mistake.
2007-05-31 07:35:46 · 22 answers · asked by LIVINGmylife 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
DEPRESSED- no you're wrong, i'm actually very interested in comments and yes the general statement is there but a question surrounds it...
2007-05-31 07:43:46 · update #1
Beta fishy- i know...but its not fun that way!!
2007-05-31 07:47:15 · update #2
Wow..you are wordier than Paula Poundstone and Camille Paglia combined!!!!
2007-05-31 07:38:51 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 7⤊ 1⤋
Kinda incoherent, so it's tough to follow what you said. I'm tempted think it was deliberate.
You also need to understand what circular logic really is. Nothing in all of that was circular.
Now, it isn't that gaps in knowledge are used to "prove" Atheism. The issue is a little less complicated than that:
-The content of human knowledge does not infer, nor show, the existence of a deity.
-The gaps in human knowledge do not, ipso facto, infer or show the existence of a deity.
So, there is no reason to believe. Atheists therefore choose not to believe, for the same reason that nobody really believes in Russell's teacup or the Flying Spaghetti Monster.
Theists either disagree with the two points above, or believe that, because the disproof can't be found, it's fine to believe. Arguing the first two points is futile, in itself. Whether or not it's fine to believe is a little less controversial. I don't really have a problem with that, though I believe logical skills to be lacking.
This is primarily the reason why most Theists are not empiricists. So, they must try to use logical reasoning to show the existence of god. Most "fair" and "knowledgeable" Theists will readily do this, and I find them to be fine and pleasant people (for the most part). However, all such arguments have failed.
So, there is still no reason to believe. It takes faith to think that there is non-empircal part of reality. That would be part of the nature of non-empirical things. God would be one such entity. To believe is not a choice, nor is it about understand the world. It's all about having faith.
2007-05-31 14:54:31 · answer #2 · answered by jtrusnik 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
You're still not saying anything new. Theists keep saying that there's this possibility that they're right, and then equate mere possibilty with reality. Saying, "Well, it could be true, couldn't it," to them = it is true.
I'm not an atheist. I don't think you can absolutely say whether or not there's a God. By the same tolken, the theists who insist that they know that there is a God are full of it.
Making appeals to the unknown doesn't prove anything. An argument that rests on the fact that there is no absolute proof that a hypothetical proposition is not true is not a valid argument.
2007-05-31 14:39:54 · answer #3 · answered by Underground Man 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
That was kind of incoherent...think I get what you're trying to say, though. Any attempts to prove that God does or does not exist will be founded on circular logic, assuming the suggested conclusion is true. This is because God's existence currently cannot be proven or disproven.
2007-05-31 14:42:43 · answer #4 · answered by Master Maverick 6 · 4⤊ 0⤋
I hope you're considering taking home-school English classes. If that had been any more incoherent I would have thought you were an American making fun of a Pakistani. You and the comma need to take a break from each other. Not a real break-up, just a cooling-off period. Ok?
2007-05-31 15:01:49 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
The burden of proof is on the believer, whether he believes in god or he believes in the non existence of god. The believer has to prove his belief! A scientist bases his statements on facts not assumptions! He may work on a theory but only to prove or disprove it! That is the very basis of his scientific aptitude!
2007-05-31 14:47:52 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 3⤊ 0⤋
What if the God of the gasps is a machine designed by alien scientists who evolved billions and billions of years before man ...Gasp Gasp!
Yours is a God of the what-ifs.
2007-05-31 14:47:08 · answer #7 · answered by CHEESUS GROYST 5 · 2⤊ 0⤋
The "God of the Gaps" theory is ridiculous, but so are the atheists' claims of omniscience.
Perhaps we should all just take a deep breath and tolerate one anothers' different viewpoints instead of ridiculing and attacking.
2007-05-31 14:46:21 · answer #8 · answered by Open Heart Searchery 7 · 1⤊ 2⤋
It's arrogant to think we could ever prove the existence of God.
2007-05-31 14:48:37 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
There is no gap in our knowledge of the proof of God, silly.
A gap, by definition, has a beginning and an end. The 'proof' of God doesn't even have a beginning yet. There is nothing.
2007-05-31 14:40:30 · answer #10 · answered by ? 6 · 5⤊ 3⤋