leibowde84
Veteran Member
You fell for it. That's what he said you'd do.God is the Cause.
you're welcome
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You fell for it. That's what he said you'd do.God is the Cause.
you're welcome
being predictable ...doesn't mean my stance is incorrect.You fell for it. That's what he said you'd do.
He didn't comment on predictability, he commented on the logical fallacy you enlisted as support, the god of the gaps.being predictable ...doesn't mean my stance is incorrect.
even so.....He didn't comment on predictability, he commented on the logical fallacy you enlisted as support, the god of the gaps.
Can you explain what that means, 'god of the gaps'? It's vague. It looks like it has no meaning.He didn't comment on predictability, he commented on the logical fallacy you enlisted as support, the god of the gaps.
That's bad.even so.....
It means that when you don't know something, instead of trying to find the answer or admit ignorance, you fill in the gap with an explanation of god. It's closely related to an argument from ignorance.Can you explain what that means, 'god of the gaps'? It's vague. It looks like it has no meaning.
Ok, it is vague. Looks like a mess. Thanks for the link.It means that when you don't know something, instead of trying to find the answer or admit ignorance, you fill in the gap with an explanation of god. It's closely related to an argument from ignorance.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
The god of the gaps argument is a logical fallacy where one enlists our limited scientific understanding as reasoning/support for the existence of God or God's interaction with our physical reality. It is an example of the logically flawed "argument from ignorance".Can you explain what that means, 'god of the gaps'? It's vague. It looks like it has no meaning.
See below. I provided an explanation that is very easy to understand. If you still don't, let me know what you don't understand specifically.Ok, it is vague. Looks like a mess. Thanks for the link.
It really is a basic rule of logical discourse. The absence of an alternative explanation to an unfalsifiable claim in no way supports that unfalsifiable claim. When faced with this issue, usually you literally evoke this logical fallacy, demanding that someone disprove your unfalsifiable claim.Ok, it is vague. Looks like a mess. Thanks for the link.
Great, but the subjectivity and variables render it useless or very limited as an practical argument or refutation,The god of the gaps argument is a logical fallacy where one enlists our limited scientific understanding as reasoning/support for the existence of God or God's interaction with our physical reality. It is an example of the logically flawed "argument from ignorance".
The argument from ignorance (orargumentum ad ignorantiam) is alogical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".
'No deity', is a claim. It's a subjective opinion/ declaration, nothing more. It is also essentially unfalsifiable; this makes the 'god of the gaps' nonsense, subjective. It assumes a correct position, a position of knowledge, when there is no position of knowledge; merely a claim.It really is a basic rule of logical discourse. The absence of an alternative explanation to an unfalsifiable claim in no way supports that unfalsifiable claim. When faced with this issue, usually you literally evoke this logical fallacy, demanding that someone disprove your unfalsifiable claim.
The god of the gaps is the one that assumes a correct position, because it fills in the gaps of what is unknown with an explanation of god, which it assumes to be the correct explanation even though the correct explanation is not objectively known. God of the gaps assumes the answer is god, even though the answer is not known.'No deity', is a claim. It's a subjective opinion/ declaration, nothing more. It is also essentially unfalsifiable; this makes the 'god of the gaps' nonsense, subjective. It assumes a correct position, a position of knowledge, when there is no position of knowledge; merely a claim.
How so? There is no subjectivity, and it is not meant to refute any argument. It is just an example of a logical fallacy. The absence of an alternative explanation and/or the fact that something cannot be proved wrong (especially with unfalsifiable claims) in no way supports said argument as bring true. It is a completely objective logical rule.Great, but the subjectivity and variables render it useless or very limited as an practical argument or refutation,
No, you simply don't understand the concept. There is no claim that God does not exist. It is merely a way of pointing out erroneously claimed support. The same exact rule would work against anyone trying to claim that an absence of an alternative theory/explanation to their own somehow validates/supports their claim. The absence of an alternative theory merely points to a lack of scientific understanding and our limited minds. It in no way supports the theory that God must exist.'No deity', is a claim. It's a subjective opinion/ declaration, nothing more. It is also essentially unfalsifiable; this makes the 'god of the gaps' nonsense, subjective. It assumes a correct position, a position of knowledge, when there is no position of knowledge; merely a claim.
"No deity" is an unfalsifiable claim, yes. But, how is that relevant to this logical rule?'No deity', is a claim. It's a subjective opinion/ declaration, nothing more. It is also essentially unfalsifiable; this makes the 'god of the gaps' nonsense, subjective. It assumes a correct position, a position of knowledge, when there is no position of knowledge; merely a claim.
Wrong again, the concept is only useful in that one has objective standard for verifying the truthfulness of the claim,; since this is not the case, if you claim that there is a 'god of the gaps' position in some ones argument, you therefore are claiming /subjectively/, that deity does not fulfill that part of the persons argument. It's completely subjective; in the manner of usage in an argument, it's almost useless.No, you simply don't understand the concept. There is no claim that God does not exist. It is merely a way of pointing out erroneously claimed support. The same exact rule would work against anyone trying to claim that an absence of an alternative theory/explanation to their own somehow validates/supports their claim. The absence of an alternative theory merely points to a lack of scientific understanding and our limited minds. It in no way supports the theory that God must exist.
You still don't understand the concept. One is not making the claim that God doesn't fill the gaps when they point out this fallacy. They are just calling out the illogical nature of an argument. It is clearly an "argument from ignorance" which NEVER (no matter what the argument is) supports a claim in any real way.Wrong again, the concept is only useful in that one has objective standard for verifying the truthfulness of the claim,; since this is not the case, if you claim that there is a 'god of the gaps' position in some ones argument, you therefore are claiming /subjectively/, that deity does not fulfill that part of the persons argument. It's completely subjective; in the manner of usage in an argument, it's almost useless.
The God of the gaps fallacy doesn't say that someone's use of God in an argument is necessarily wrong: it says that it is not necessarily right. That is, pointing out a lack of current scientific understanding of something does not increase the likelihood that God is the correct alternative explanation for it anymore than one's lack of ability to prove that a coin landed on heads increases the chances that it landed on tails.Wrong again, the concept is only useful in that one has objective standard for verifying the truthfulness of the claim,; since this is not the case, if you claim that there is a 'god of the gaps' position in some ones argument, you therefore are claiming /subjectively/, that deity does not fulfill that part of the persons argument. It's completely subjective; in the manner of usage in an argument, it's almost useless.