This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg bods. "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?" If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.' The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.' 1. http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know YET" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1] The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy... 2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument The term God-of-the-gaps FALLACY can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form: *There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. *Therefore the cause must be supernatural. One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15] God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17] `
This is part of the problem/advantage of human thinking. Our perceptions of reality are necessarily shaped by the structure of our mind. The human mind is incapable of considering a subject without also considering its cause and effect. This is fine for giving us an advantage when it comes to hunting. We can see that the footprints in the dirt were caused by an animal that we can eat and we can understand that a particular food can cause healing or other positive effect. When it comes to things we are unable to explain we have a difficult time saying "I'm not sure". We are not capable of following a chain of causal events back in time to an unmoved mover who caused all effects; it creates a paradox in our mind that we cannot resolve. Conversely we are incapable of conceiving of an infinite universe that has no beginning. Here is another paradox our minds cannot resolve. Even when the cause of an effect is obvious we find a need to uncover a profound why that gives us meaning. A person dies in a car accident. The loved one left behind knows that the cause of the accident was because the driver of the other vehicle was impaired but the need to know "why" continues and a more profound cause is sought and in many cases found. It is often this quest to find a greater cause after a tragedy that gives a person a the ability to heal and continue to grow. You often hear people say things like "the death of my loved one helped me to learn how important it is to... [X].”
When you get around to taking Philosophy 102, pay attention to how the Aquinas "Five Ways" were torn to shreds by later philosophers and get some laughs at the theist apologetics that ignore the refutations.
No doubt ol tommie was a smart dude, but his lack of knowledge of "natural philosophy" at the time is rather self evident in his arguments.
I can replace this argument using Energy and Matter Defined by Natural Laws for the end part and these arguments also work and no need for a deity. And modern physics demonstrated in theory that something can come from a cosmic void of "nothing" so it has the backing of scientists models. So this line of argument would make better sense my way.
Science is NOT Philosophy nor Religion. You need to learn the difference between the 3 of them and not make Science your Religion nor your Philosophy.
God of the Gaps is a logical fallacy, therefore the topic is about logic and logic is the corner stone of science. And if you think science is just data collection, you know very little about science.
Your argument itself is circular and ad hoc (you better look up "ad hoc") - a claim that "God did it" is false because it claims God did it. Not very scientific.
How is it 'circular' to point out 'Goddidit' has NO proof, nor even Evidence, and has, of course, failed in every case on which we have a verdict? `
You do not understand what a circular argument means. When you simply restate your premise as your conclusion, your argument is circular. For example, only a psychotic person would kill someone, so anyone who kills someone is psychotic. Your links present no evidence, they simply assert (in a very wordy manner) the premise as the conclusion.
I was pointing the original arguments at the end has there must be a .... whatever ... so we all know that to be God. You can replace God with Of Course we know that is Energy and Matter Defined by Natural Laws and its just as valid. And that its more valid since I can provide evidence to back up my claim so its more proper than a made-up term for the Sky Being called God he has no evidence he is even necessary now. Philosophically using the argument I have the superior position using the original arguments mine is backed up that's the point at least by some very well regarded and brilliant theoretical physicists so you want to be me prove through a similar means that God could exist then you can plug in God and it would be fine. But your assuming god is needed as a first cause, first mover, creator of behavior and all that and I can say no science has this alternative and no deity is needed. In truth the whole point is BS your arguing for a being without there being actual evidence and that for me trumps philosophical debate every time so can you prove there is a god so he can fill the gaps or not, if not then its as plausible gaps are areas science has yet to explain and is working on, and will clarify at a later time. EDIT: And this is a Science Forum philosophy has no place here I'll rely on science and god is not science issue at this time, magic isn't science either which is all miracles are magic, so my position is more proper being in a science thread. Want to debate philosophy go to that forum.
I understand 1000% what Circular reasoning means. You do Not. One Doesn't need "evidence" (Yikes!/extraplanetary), to point out faulty logic! One only needs point out the fault of logic. Hark! Ironically, your "example" above IS faulty. One need Not be psychotic to kill someone. Oh No, Not again! (ie, an execution) That's an 'example'. The SAME as I gave above with Goddidit being Wrong in the case of Fire/Lightning/Fertility/All other gods on which we have a verdict. You have NO idea what 'circular reasoning' is, while pointing out logical fallacies is an expertise of mine. ie a Link I oft cite on this topic. (because gods/god-ists have NO "evidence" at all) https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/67/Circular_Reasoning CIRCULAR REASONING circulus in demonstrando ...... Description: A type of reasoning in which the proposition is supported by the premises, which is supported by the proposition, creating a Circle in reasoning where NO Useful information is being shared. This Fallacy is often quite Humorous. ...... Example #2: The Bible is the Word of God because God tells us it is... in the Bible. Explanation: This is a very serious circular argument on which many people base their entire lives. This is like getting an e-mail from a Nigerian prince, offering to give you his billion dollar fortune -- but only after you wire him a “good will” offering of $50,000. Of course, you are skeptical until you read the final line in the e-mail that reads “I, prince Nubadola, assure you that this is my message, and it is legitimate. You can trust this e-mail and any others that come from me.” Now you know it is legitimate... because it says so in the e-mail. `
You are not an expert at pointing out logical fallacies. You do not even recognize that my example "only a psychotic person would kill someone, so anyone who kills someone is psychotic" is the classic textbook example of a circular argument. Obviously you don't know what a circular argument is.
LOL You thought I needed "evidence" to show something was fallacious! It's simple logic, and my OP Common knowledge to those versed in the Topic.. or even simple debate. But thanks for the bump!
And this String is ChemEngineers #1 Fallacy attempt. A Variant of 'Argument from Incredulity', itself a variant of Argument from Ignorance.
'It must be God' is no more or less logical than 'It couldn't be God.' We dont know either way. 'It might or might not be God' is the only scientifically honest position.
Wrong. "we don't know" or "We don't know yet" are far better, and would have saved BS and false inference for Tens of Thousands of 'gods' that are now on the junk heap of history. See the OP. +
No. But they do often default to 'God didn't do it' when they cant actually prove it, which is just as fallacious and unscientific.
If indeed scientists did as you suggest then they would not be scientists which is part of the reason they do not. Science simply does not care about, deal with, or generally even have an opinion on God or any other hypothesis that cannot be addressed scientifically. Theists seem to often state things about science and scientists that simply make no sense in an attempt to degrade the actual to the level of religion.
