"Yes, not everyone thanks a deity for their survival and nobody should thank their god for a vicious tornado that wiped out so much of what people owned and even took lives, especially the lives of innocent children.
Brandi Amari Williams"
 |
The World's Largest Coalition of Nontheists and Nontheist Communities!
God of the Gaps
I realize that the "God of the Gaps" fallacy is based in delusion, but it is hard to argue against. Aside of Occams razor, I really can't come up with a good argument against the existence of an impersonal prime mover for the existence of the Universe. Is it more absurd to believe that matter simply happened or that it was created by something that always existed without a beginning?
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on -
Honestly, "God of the Gaps" is the head game I'd play with myself as a child (without knowing it was an actual philosophy with an actual name that anyone else but me had thought of). The game would go like:
- Once, we thought rainbows were a big mystery.
- So, we figured God created rainbows.
- Now we know what really causes rainbows.
- Once, we didn't know what caused a fetus to develop into a boy instead of a girl.
- So, some cultures came up with rituals or silly hypotheses to say, "If you drink this potion, it will be a boy, or it will be a girl."
- Now we understand the genetics involved in what causes a fetus to develop as one gender or the other.
- We don't understand the origin/mechanics of X.
- Therefore, we say God did it or assume that because we drank this potion or did this dance we somehow affected the outcome of X.
- Unless I am prepared to say we currently know all that is knowable, which I very much am not, then it is reasonable to think X will someday have a mundane, scientific explanation.
Anyway, that's how my 6-year-old brain occupied itself in Sunday School.
-
Permalink Reply by Jared Lardo on -
It's hard to argue against, but arguing at all is optional. It's a stupid argument, and every time I come across it I say "That's a stupid argument." and I go back to whatever I was doing before.
The only winning move is to not play.
-
Permalink Reply by Anette on -
I cannot agree with this.
While you don't play, others do...and they influence those that want to play, but don't have the capacity to play with bullies.
If you can play, then do. Don't leave it up to some-one else. Alway's act, and know how to act.
-
Permalink Reply by Howard S. Dunn on -
A Matrioshka is one of those dolls that you find in RUssia (though it is possible the originated in Japan) You know the ones - a smaller doll is nested inside and a smaller one in that,etc.
Sure, atheists can's answer the question - where did the ordering principles come from? Math, the forces, the laws of motion, thermodynamics, fluid dynamics ... dimensions. But most of don't claim to know while most theists are 'certain' that their version of god is the source.
So, ask them where their god came from. Whatever answer they give - even the eternal god answer - destroys the logic that something complex and ordered had to come from somewhere. That's that with that.
-
Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on
-
But most of don't claim to know while most theists are 'certain' that their version of god is the source.
Exactly. If we accept a given that something had to already/always exist, that something need not be a god.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Howard on -
The entire question is and always has been a mute point as far as creationists are concerned. Science could, without question find the answer to the origin of the universe tomorrow, have it peer reviewed, studied and picked apart, found to be conclusive and someone win a Nobel Prize for the research. Creationists would still disbelieve the proof, call it the work of the devil and call for a ban on its teaching. They just find more gaps.
-
Permalink Reply by Jo Jerome on
-
"Science could, without question find the answer to the origin of the universe tomorrow ... Creationists would still disbelieve the proof, call it the work of the devil"
Too true. Like Holocaust deniers, there will always be nutcases who, despite all rational evidence to the contrary, will believe what they want to believe.
-
Permalink Reply by Michael Howard on
-
"Mute(SP) point"....sometimes even the bright end up looking dim....geez MH!
-
Permalink Reply by mthoreau on -
Don't worry about it, I do that kind of thing all the time. Life's too short for spellcheck!
-
Permalink Reply by Rev Hellbound Alleee on -
And if there were an impersonal prime mover, how would it change our lives?
And what if instead of "something that always existed" you change that to "The Universe?" Then you wouldn't have to fret at all.
- ‹ Previous
- 1
- 2
- 3
- Next ›
CONNECT WITH ATHEIST NEXUS
Latest Activity
- Top News
- Everything
sk8eycat commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends"Tony, I love that clip! "Wolf Gets Blitzed"...tee-hee.
Did anyone read the comments below the You Tube version? they were almost all like, "Yeah, thank the lard for sending a ghastly tornado to kill more than 50…"
The Flying Atheist commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends"Great clip, Tony. People need to realize that not everybody superfluously and automatically thanks god in a time of crisis. Maybe he's learned a lesson and become a smarter man. "
Natalie A Sera commented on Dallas the Phallus's group LINGUAPHILES & SESQUIPEDALIANS"And then, just to confuse things, there's polymath, which is from the Greek poly = much and manthanein = to learn. So, someone who knows a lot. Or at least enough to know that you can get a second crop from that field! Sorry, couldn't…"
Patricia commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends"Yaaaay Joan!!!
Yaaaay here too.....our exterior renos start Wednesday!!!!"
Tony Carroll commented on Ruth Anthony-Gardner's group Hang With Friends"
Wolf Blitzer. Open mouth, insert foot. LOL!!!"
Photos
© 2013 Atheist Nexus. All rights reserved. Admin: Richard Haynes.
