leibowde84
Veteran Member
You fell for it. That's what he said you'd do.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?
- Thread starter paarsurrey
- Start date
Thief
Rogue Theologian
being predictable ...doesn't mean my stance is incorrect.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
He didn't comment on predictability, he commented on the logical fallacy you enlisted as support, the god of the gaps.
Thief
Rogue Theologian
even so.....
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Can you explain what that means, 'god of the gaps'? It's vague. It looks like it has no meaning.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
That's bad.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
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
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Ok, it is vague. Looks like a mess. Thanks for the link.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
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".
leibowde84
Veteran Member
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.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
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.
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
Great, but the subjectivity and variables render it useless or very limited as an practical argument or refutation,
Last edited:
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
'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.
Shadow Wolf
Certified People sTabber
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.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
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.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
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.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
"No deity" is an unfalsifiable claim, yes. But, how is that relevant to this logical rule?
Desert Snake
Veteran Member
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.
leibowde84
Veteran Member
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.
Do you actually think that the lack of an alternative, natural explanation somehow supports the claim that God exists? If so, that is your problem, as it truly does not. And, I am a theist who believes in God, so I am in no way making any claims about God not existing.
I'm just pointing out that enlisting the God of the gaps argument is logically flawed.
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.