Argument for God's existence.

[createdtoworship]

God of the Gaps is one specific application of an already well established fallacy, Appeal to Ignorance. It wasn't specially created to argue against theists, the theistic tactic of constantly using the Appeal to Ignorance was just given a label. If you make any version of the claim, "You don't know X, therefore God" you're appealing to ignorance, and more specifically because your conclusion is God, using the God of the Gaps.

okay so then what is the foul with rejecting a label, since it's only a label?

 

[Moral Orel]

okay so then what is the foul with rejecting a label, since it's only a label?

You're rejecting our using the label "God of the Gaps" for your Appeal to Ignorance fallacy? I guess we could just call it the Appeal to Ignorance that it is. I don't know what the significance is in calling it one thing or another.

 

[Eight Foot Manchild]

But they are both evolution as per their definitions.

Olives and bananas are both fruit, but I dare say most people can still tell them apart.

Not that the distinction helps you any. Your words betray the fact that don't know anything about either the ToE or abiogenesis.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I said he was existence, the universe is not conscious. God has all the positive aspects of the universe, but the universe does not have to have all the positive aspects of God. That is illegitimate totality transfer.

Okay. You're free to believe whatever you want about God, of course, but honestly I'm not sure what you're trying to say here.

so you personally tested the hypothesis and found out they were not lying, nor in it to make money, and you made everyone take lie detector tests to verify that they were not lying? And every test is absolutely falsifiable, and repeatable in a laboratory setting?

Is it necessary for me personally to test everything? I think that, since scientists are doing a good job with science in everything from creating computers to space flight to eradicating diseases I'll refrain from telling them they're all just a massive conspiracy. Perhaps you have some evidence that this is all just a huge conspiracy? If you do, and if you are going to post it, please try to be clear, concise and accurate in presenting creationist arguments.

No, and thus it's not only not proven, it's not to be considered science. As I just quoted they scientific method, and it failed.

Not every scientific finding has to be or can be reproducible in a laboratory. For example, you might find fitting a supernova in the lab tricky. They are, however, soundly based on scientific principles. As Sherlock Holmes put it, not incorrectly, you can deduce an ocean from a drop of water. You don't have to see something happen to work out how it happened.

yes it was like that. They created a fallacy because they could not disprove the theists premise otherwise. Lets put it this way, if it was not for saying I committed the god of the gaps fallacy, what argument would you have against the OP? Nothing. So that proves my point.

That is not correct in the slightest.
What happens is that theists - not just Christians - are wont to say "You can't disprove God, therefore God is real". The illogic of this is apparent, because it can be applied to anything else - the Flying Spaghetti Monster, for example (sauce be upon him). Can you prove that such a creature doesn't exist? No. So now, will you admit that He does exist?
No, because the burden of proof is on the claimant.

uuuhhm. My views haven't been changed by you or anyone here.

Well done. Never change your mind, even if the evidence says you should.

So you took pictures of God at the exact same time those things were happening, and you know God did not do it? After all God is invisible, so even pictures would not work. I just say this to prove that you have no evidence God did not do those things behind the scenes.

No, you just say this to kindly confirm what I said earlier, in post #676: in trying to correct me, you again commit the God of the Gaps fallacy. And it is a very real fallacy, as outlined above: just because there's something science can't explain, that doesn't mean religion wins by default. If you want to tell people that God did something, then you have to prove it.

I pray everyday, and probably 80-90 percent of my prayers are answered positively. I see Him work in every day of my life, from fixing cars, to healing common colds.

First, have you heard of the confirmation bias? It's a common human trait whereby people convince themselves that something is true, basically by counting the hits and ignoring the misses.
Second, this sounds interesting. Do you have evidence that it was actually God who was doing these things? Or is it just that these things "happened" at just the right time? "Fixing cars" doesn't sound very impressive. People get over colds all the time. Perhaps it was also God who helped you find your lost car keys, or you prayed to God for guidance and made the right decision?
Third - does anything about what you just wrote sound a little strange? It reminds me of something I read once:
“Back in the mid-1980s, a man promised God he would give 25 cents for every extra shave he got from his Bic disposable. To his amazement, he began getting 80 and 90 shaves instead of his usual four or five. Other men from his church joined in, with similar results.
At the time, I was an editor for a denominational magazine. We thought the story inspiring and published it. On the cover we featured the participants – all lathered up and holding aloft their razors. What a miracle.
But the readers didn’t all share our enthusiasm. One poignant letter went
something like: Yesterday a young mother of three learned she had terminal cancer. Yesterday a little boy chased a ball into the street and was killed. Yesterday millions went to bed hungry. And where was God during all this? He was busy sharpening Bic razors."

it was your claim, I never made a claim that God was not doing something.

No, you made a claim that God was doing something, and that we should believe your claim because we couldn't prove that He was NOT doing something.
Did you know that Carl Sagan's dragon is in your garage?
"The process is comparable to the God of the gaps argument. In this argument, gods are claimed to be responsible for the creation or day-to-day running of aspects of the universe. As scientific knowledge expands, the gods are not found where theists expect them to be. For example, none of our observations of the sun have revealed the presence of Apollo and his chariot.[note 1] Because of this, believers in Apollo's purported role would either have to abandon the belief that he tows the sun around, or redefine parameters of the belief. For example, one could claim that Apollo is invisible to our eyes and instruments.
It's easy to create your own unfalsifiable belief. Just follow these steps:

1. Express a belief
2. Someone proposes a way in which the belief can be tested
3. Add or change an attribute of the belief to render the proposed test invalid, and simply reiterate step 1."

yes, I do agree, christians make the best scientists. In fact I know hundreds of them, and can post them if you want, as well as dozens of nobel laureates.

You might want to reread what I wrote. I didn't say Christians make the best scientists. I said that it's scientists who believe in the age of the earth, evolution and other findings of science. And they believe this whether they are Christians or atheists.
In other words, most of your fellow Christians disagree with you. Were you not aware of that?

 

[ToddNotTodd]

Well done. Never change your mind, even if the evidence says you should.

I definitely hope he doesn’t change his mind or stop posting here.

 

[createdtoworship]

You're rejecting our using the label "God of the Gaps" for your Appeal to Ignorance fallacy? I guess we could just call it the Appeal to Ignorance that it is. I don't know what the significance is in calling it one thing or another.

Yes I prefer appeal to ignorance. Now please explain how it makes this appeal. As far as I know it goes as follows : X is true because you cannot prove X is false.

But I gave plenty of positive statements regarding the existence of God in the OP, and I debunked the only alternative that atheists gave to it. So because there is no alternative that logically works, my scenario best fits logically as true. An appeal to ignorance is saying that because you have nothing to prove mine wrong it's simply true. but I gave reasons why it's true, and thus there is no ignorance to appeal to.

 

[Moral Orel]

Yes I prefer appeal to ignorance. Now please explain how it makes this appeal. As far as I know it goes as follows : X is true because you cannot prove X is false.

But I gave plenty of positive statements regarding the existence of God in the OP, and I debunked the only alternative that atheists gave to it. So because there is no alternative that logically works, my scenario best fits logically as true. An appeal to ignorance is saying that because you have nothing to prove mine wrong it's simply true. but I gave reasons why it's true, and thus there is no ignorance to appeal to.

No, that's Shifting the Burden of Proof, not an Appeal to Ignorance. To be fair, I saw an atheist explain it the same way, I forget who, but he was wrong too.

Appeal to ignorance goes like this, "You don't know why X, therefore Y". So it's an Appeal to Ignorance to say, "You don't know about the origins of the universe, therefore God created it". An example of you attempting such an argument would be when you asked, "Why is there something instead of nothing?". I don't know why there is something instead of nothing, but my ignorance isn't evidence that God created stuff.

Now personally, I like the multiverse theory. It isn't a full belief I hold, but there's enough evidence for it to be plausible, so I can't reject it, and I find it interesting. Your argument requires disproving multiverse theory, so the burden is yours to prove it impossible. I only need to prove it possible, which is much easier. I'd love to discuss it with you here, but every other post of mine to you that I quote you and ask you questions, you ignore, so our conversations don't go anywhere.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

Yes I prefer appeal to ignorance. Now please explain how it makes this appeal. As far as I know it goes as follows : X is true because you cannot prove X is false.

Yes. Which is exactly what you said:

so you can prove that these things are not done by a God that has control over all dimensions and can appear inside locked rooms, exists in a timeless domain, is everywhere at once, has all power and compassion. You have evidence that that being cannot do all the things in the article (positive actions)?

No, we cannot prove that God is NOT hiding in the shadows, manifesting His power on the edge of mathematical probability, slyly disguising His messages as hunches, and his miracles as coincidences. Nor do we need to. And when you say we do need to, as you did earlier in this thread, we shall explain to you why your demand for us to prove that something does NOT exist (instead of you providing evidence that it does) is as ridiculous as Russell's Teapot or Sagan's Dragon in the Garage.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

@gradyll
"But I gave plenty of positive statements regarding the existence of God in the OP, and I debunked the only alternative that atheists gave to it."
I think some people might have a different view about what how many statements you made, how valid your arguments were, and how well you succeeded in debunking atheist arguments.

"So because there is no alternative that logically works, my scenario best fits logically as true."
You may not have noticed, but what you just did there was appeal to ignorance. You are saying that "because there is no alternative" we should accept your arguments. But that's not true. We will accept your arguments - I promise - if they make sense. And saying "God must have created the universe, because I can think of no other explanation for how we got here," is not a valid argument. It might have been something else. Anything else. It might have been McTuffy the Wizard, with his patented Time-Travel-And-Universe-Creator spell. It might have been Doctor Who (who has rebooted the universe at least once, to my knowledge). It might have been The Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was probably some as-yet-unexplained characteristic of existence that universes appear. I don't know. And nor, really do you. You think you know, but in fact all you have is a myth from an ancient people who would have thought that we were Gods if they could have glimpsed the world we live in - and so are probably not a very reliable source of cosmological information.

Take a look at this: THE BIG MYTH
It's a lovely set of animations of creation myths from around the world. The Bible is in there too. It's just as delightful a story as all of the others - the world being created from a giant egg, or the cow Audumla licking Ymir out of the ice, or making people out of mud. That's what Christianity is based on. You regard every story in there but one as completely devoid of scientific usefulness; and we agree with you, and include your religion with it.

 

[createdtoworship]

@gradyll
"But I gave plenty of positive statements regarding the existence of God in the OP, and I debunked the only alternative that atheists gave to it."
I think some people might have a different view about what how many statements you made, how valid your arguments were, and how well you succeeded in debunking atheist arguments.

"So because there is no alternative that logically works, my scenario best fits logically as true."
You may not have noticed, but what you just did there was appeal to ignorance. You are saying that "because there is no alternative" we should accept your arguments. But that's not true. We will accept your arguments - I promise - if they make sense. And saying "God must have created the universe, because I can think of no other explanation for how we got here," is not a valid argument. It might have been something else. Anything else. It might have been McTuffy the Wizard, with his patented Time-Travel-And-Universe-Creator spell. It might have been Doctor Who (who has rebooted the universe at least once, to my knowledge). It might have been The Flying Spaghetti Monster. It was probably some as-yet-unexplained characteristic of existence that universes appear. I don't know. And nor, really do you. You think you know, but in fact all you have is a myth from an ancient people who would have thought that we were Gods if they could have glimpsed the world we live in - and so are probably not a very reliable source of cosmological information.

Take a look at this: THE BIG MYTH
It's a lovely set of animations of creation myths from around the world. The Bible is in there too. It's just as delightful a story as all of the others - the world being created from a giant egg, or the cow Audumla licking Ymir out of the ice, or making people out of mud. That's what Christianity is based on. You regard every story in there but one as completely devoid of scientific usefulness; and we agree with you, and include your religion with it.

in order to appeal to ignorance, you have to appeal to ignorance, I was appealing to my arguments.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

in order to appeal to ignorance, you have to appeal to ignorance, I was appealing to my arguments.

I've already shown you weren't, when you said there was no alternative, so your argument was true.

 

[createdtoworship]

I've already shown you weren't, when you said there was no alternative, so your argument was true.

so when I prove A is equal to B and use arguments. Then you say, "no A is equal to C." Then I refute that using citations and logic, and then I say, "there are no more valid arguments against A equaling B, therefore A equals B." That is appealing to ignorance? It's not. Because appealing to ignorance is saying, God exists because no other options are valid. That is not true by itself, as it appeals to ignorance. But It becomes a true statement when coupled with evidence for God, which makes the appeal to logic not ignorance. In conclusion the appeal is to logic not ignorance, therefore all those sites you found this stuff on are wrong.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

No, we cannot prove that God is NOT hiding in the shadows, manifesting His power on the edge of mathematical probability, slyly disguising His messages as hunches, and his miracles as coincidences. Nor do we need to. And when you say we do need to, as you did earlier in this thread, we shall explain to you why your demand for us to prove that something does NOT exist (instead of you providing evidence that it does) is as ridiculous as Russell's Teapot or Sagan's Dragon in the Garage.

I still wish that critical thinking classes were required in schools. These discussions tend to endlessly drag out when you have to keep explaining the most basic of logical fallacies.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

I still wish that critical thinking classes were required in schools. These discussions tend to endlessly drag out when you have to keep explaining the most basic of logical fallacies.

The apologists who write books and sell tapes have a lot to answer for. They are surely bright enough to know the mistakes they are peddling, but they don't care. It could be because they believe that a lie doesn't matter if it brings souls to God; or, even less creditably, it could be that all they care about is the money, fame and/or recognition they get, and are not about to let the facts get in the way.

 

[InterestedAtheist]

so when I prove A is equal to B and use arguments. Then you say, "no A is equal to C." Then I refute that using citations and logic, and then I say, "there are no more valid arguments against A equaling B, therefore A equals B." That is appealing to ignorance? It's not. Because appealing to ignorance is saying, God exists because no other options are valid. That is not true by itself, as it appeals to ignorance. But It becomes a true statement when coupled with evidence for God, which makes the appeal to logic not ignorance. In conclusion the appeal is to logic not ignorance, therefore all those sites you found this stuff on are wrong.

You have a highly...individual...view of the manner in which you've been "proving", "refuting", "countering" and "using logic" in this thread.

 

[createdtoworship]

The apologists who write books and sell tapes have a lot to answer for. They are surely bright enough to know the mistakes they are peddling, but they don't care. It could be because they believe that a lie doesn't matter if it brings souls to God; or, even less creditably, it could be that all they care about is the money, fame and/or recognition they get, and are not about to let the facts get in the way.

This entire post revolved around proving facts. Please by all means prove a fact to us. If you can? Or better yet pray to Mother nature, and ask her if she can prove some facts to you. As far as I know, nothing is proven but math. But one of the things you can prove to yourself is that God exists. Just by reading the OP over and over again until it sinks in.

 

[createdtoworship]

You have a highly...individual...view of the manner in which you've been "proving", "refuting", "countering" and "using logic" in this thread.

So I guess you have finally realized that I am not appealing to ignorance. So you were wrong, I assume this is why you didn't question my last post on it. Rather than question it, you simply go back on the solid proof I gave of God in the op. If you don't believe it, reread it. Maybe try some coffee, then reading the OP, and read all your replies. And my rebutals to your replies, and just be honest with yourself.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

So I guess you have finally realized that I am not appealing to ignorance. So you were wrong, I assume this is why you didn't question my last post on it. Rather than question it, you simply go back on the solid proof I gave of God in the op. If you don't believe it, reread it. Maybe try some coffee, then reading the OP, and read all your replies. And my rebutals to your replies, and just be honest with yourself.

I’m not seeing any non theist be anything but logical and honest in this thread.

That’s why I’m hoping this thread stays alive for a long time...

 

[createdtoworship]

I’m not seeing any non theist be anything but logical and honest in this thread.

That’s why I’m hoping this thread stays alive for a long time...

Is it a mean thing if I don't have any atheists on my prayer list? I think God is glorified in these talks, so why pray for change? I pray moreso that someone is affected by these conversations, that people all over the world read our discussions. I know I am not perfect and my thoughts and grammar and spelling are flawed. But the message comes out, so I really agree with you sir, absolutely. Keep the lines of communication open. In fact everyone I blocked in the past months I have unblocked. I am really happy to communicate with you guys. Don't be offended I don't pray for you guys. Its that I have the bigger picture in mind. I see that each thread I create, I don't look at the replies, I look at the views. My two threads I have posted are the second and third most viewed threads in the top page on the apologetics menu. The first most viewed is a slavery thread. Which is ok. Thats an easy one to answer. But anyway, christians see and read all these replies. And while you guys keep saying no Christians are helping me, thats fine. What I also see is that no christians are correcting me. You say that I keep messing up and that I am doing bad things on here, I fail to see that, and you would think in the most populated christian forum in the world that not just one one or two, but hundreds of christians would be correcting me if I was in error. I don't see that.

 

[ToddNotTodd]

You say that I keep messing up and that I am doing bad things on here, I fail to see that...

That’s kind of the point.

I also think that if every Christian that belongs to this site were to tell you you’re doing more harm than good, you wouldn’t change what you’re doing.

That’s also the point...