Atheism, Evidence and the God-of-the-Gaps

[ignoramus]

I dunno Bos, it may work.
God "blinked" man into existence, why can't man blink "god" into existence?

[Randy Carson]

So, can atheism be falsified?

Show me a god and there's no argument. Until then you're full of shit. Is that easy enough for you to understand?

What type of evidence or proof would you accept? Because of your presuppositions, you can’t examine any evidence or proof that I might show you without bias.

Your presupposition is this: there is no God. Therefore, no matter what I might present, you will and must interpret it in a manner consistent with that presupposition.

• If I showed you a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you’d say it was done with special effects.
• If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying that they saw it, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.
• If I showed you Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the new Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly or simply misinterpreted.

So, I don’t think I can show you any evidence of God’s existence that you will accept because your presuppositions will not allow you to consider that evidence objectively.

This actually says more about you than it does about the evidence itself because many people have examined the evidence for God’s existence, and they have become convinced that He really does exist.

So, until you can show me the type of evidence that you would be willing to accept as convincing proof of God’s existence, I doubt I can provide what you need.

And here we come to the point of THIS thread...if there is no evidence that can falsify atheism, then it is not based on science; it is a faith position.

[Randy Carson]

Again, without going into the details of the above:

EXTRAORDINARY CLAIMS REQUIRE EXTRAORDINARY EVIDENCE

Atheists usually don't make absolute claims. The only defining feature of atheism is disbelief because there's no evidence for god, any god [emphasis added]. Obviously there are things we can't explain, but we don't feel the need to explain the unknown.

A few times I brought up that you're still a caveman at heart, looking up at the sun and the moon, not knowing what they are and since you're uncomfortable with their unexplained presence, you call them gods. That's what you're doing.

Not my invention, but it's pretty fitting for the situation at hand: Atheism is a faith in the same way as not collecting stamps is a hobby.

"There's no evidence for God" suggests that Horn is right; atheism cannot be falsified.

When you assert "by fiat" (as I'm routinely accused of doing) that "THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD", you are the poster child for Horn's entire article.

In fact, I started this thread with you in mind.  

Finally, I've never run across a forum in which people spent so much of their free time voluntarily discussing the stamps that they do not collect. Have you?

[Longhorn]

Finally, I've never run across a forum in which people spent so much of their free time voluntarily discussing the stamps that they do not collect. Have you?

Oooooh burrrn, you showed us!!

I just love ad hominems~

[Randy Carson]

The 'god of the gaps' argument refers to any question for which a definitive answer is not known, that is therefore attributed to god(s).  The example of lightning is pretty clear in this regard.  Until we learned how lightning is formed and why it occurs, a person could state that lightning was a supernatural event of some sort.  If doubt was expressed regarding his claim, he could ask if they had any better guesses.  Lacking clear knowledge of the nature and cause of lightning, one could fill that "gap" by claiming it was a sign from god.  Once we learned enough about it to dismiss god as a cause, it is no longer a gap in our knowledge.  God as a potential cause is no longer claimed, lest the claimant be thought mad or an idiot.

Tonus, thank you for your thoughts. It is nice to get responses when folks have something to say and can do so in civil tones.

The problem I have with your paragraph above is that it seems to rely on the inverse of the "God-of-the-Gaps (GotG); namely, the "science-of-the-gaps" (SotG). By this, I mean that in the past, people witnessed lightning, could not explain it, and attributed it to God (GotG). However, the assumption of many is that while we cannot explain everything YET, eventually, given enough time and resources, we will be able to explain most (if not all) of the material universe. This SotG position is that we'll get there; there MUST be a rational, scientific explanation for something that we do not understand today.

Well, that makes sense, doesn't it? Because science is concerned EXCLUSIVELY with material universe. But can science even begin to speak of the immaterial? God is pure spirit. He occupies no space. He is simple (meaning He has no parts). He is timeless (being outside of time). I'm not convinced that science can have anything at all to say about something that is outside the material universe.

It continues to be applied to any event or area where sufficient knowledge is lacking, such as the formation of life or the origins of the universe.  A lack of knowledge allows for people to make claims regarding those events or areas without having to provide evidence, because those who doubt the claims cannot produce a sufficient explanation of their own.  It continues to be unconvincing as an argument, in part because it's a poor argument to make, and in greater part because every time we answer questions about our world or universe, we don't find gods or spirits or the supernatural anywhere in there.  "I don't know" is not reason enough to claim that your hypothesis is valid.  "I don't know, and history shows that your claims never end up being the explanation" makes god claims inexcusable anymore.

I agree that there is a natural explanation for lightning and other phenomena of this type. I agree that epileptic seizures exist and that demonic possession is not the cause of ALL events of that type. However, would you agree that if a God outside of space and time chose to part the Red Sea by means of a strong wind that just happened to blow the water in such manner as to enable the Israelites to cross at precisely the moment they needed to, He could do so? Or that God could choose to use the processes of evolution to create man over the course of millions of years rather than doing so instantaneously?

Restricting God's ability to use His own creation for His own purposes would be like something like telling Henry Ford that after inventing the automobile, he couldn't use it to run to the store for some groceries for Ms. Ford.

You ask "how is the theist supposed to prove that god exists?"  Perhaps a more relevant question is "why isn't god taking care of that particular detail?"  How might god reveal himself so that no one could doubt it was him?  Erm... wouldn't an all-knowing god be able to figure it out?  It can't be that difficult for a fellow who spun a whole universe off of his fingertips.  Yet the best he seems capable of is the occasional cameo (these being so unimpressive that he finally stopped doing them a couple thousand years ago) and these days he's limited himself to bumps in the night and burn marks on toast.  It's just the sort of thing one might expect when you combine a non-existent deity with a comically superstitious species which is still scared by its own collective shadow far too often.

What you have not considered or are simply unwilling to concede is the very real possibility that God HAS figured it all out and this IS the best approach. I posted this in another thread, so forgive me for recycling, but there are only so many ways to say some things (and only so many hours in the day with which to write them):

God doesn’t force himself upon us. In fact, if he did, we would come to resent His constant presence – in our offices, in our bedrooms, in every aspect of our lives. Thus, he has given evidence of Himself which is sufficiently clear for those with an open heart and mind, but sufficiently vague so as to not compel those who are not open to Him. The French mathematician Blaise Pascal, put it this way:

Willing to appear openly to those who seek him with all their heart, and to be hidden from those who flee from him with all their heart, God so regulates the knowledge of himself that he has given indications of himself which are visible to those who seek him and not to those who do not seek him. There is enough light for those to see who only desire to see, and enough obscurity for those who have a contrary disposition.

In other words, the evidence is there for those who have eyes to see, and it is sufficient for rational belief that God exists.

[Cyberman]

What type of evidence or proof would you accept? Because of your presuppositions, you can’t examine any evidence or proof that I might show you without bias.

Your presupposition is this: there is no God. Therefore, no matter what I might present, you will and must interpret it in a manner consistent with that presupposition.

• If I showed you a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you’d say it was done with special effects.
• If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying that they saw it, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.
• If I showed you Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the new Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly or simply misinterpreted.

So, I don’t think I can show you any evidence of God’s existence that you will accept because your presuppositions will not allow you to consider that evidence objectively.

None of that absolves you of the burden of actually presenting evidence. Whether or not anyone finds it compelling is not your call. It's not up to us to make your case for you and then respond to it.

[Randy Carson]

Frequently, members of this forum suggest that theists are guilty of a "god-of-the-gaps" reasoning. But is that true? Or does the God-of-the-Gaps argument actually boomerang back on its proponents?

I'd like to discuss the conclusions of the following article with anyone who cares to read it. Enjoy!

---

Atheism, Evidence, and the God-of-the-Gaps
By Trent Horn
http://www.strangenotions.com/god-of-the-gaps/

Many atheists say that all arguments for the existence of God rely on fallacious “God-of-the-gaps” reasoning.

They claim that any evidence offered for the existence of God, such as the beginning, contingency, and fine-tuning of the universe, are nothing more than appeals to ignorance. These arguments are supposedly on par with primitive explanations of natural events (such as lightning) that erroneously included God as a direct cause. Modern arguments for theism are likewise lampooned as primitive “God did it” explanations that will be usurped by modern science.

The problem with the "God-of-the-gaps" objection is that it can have unintended consequences for atheism. Specifically, it makes atheism impossible to falsify, in the same way that most religious beliefs cannot be falsified. Rather than rely on science, "God-of-the-gaps" pushes atheism far away from being a scientific belief.

Why is that the case?

A claim is falsifiable if evidence can be presented that can disprove it (Karl Popper argued that this was a necessary condition for a claim to be scientific). For example, evolutionary theory could be falsified by the discovery of modern animals that were fossilized in ancient rock layers, or what J.B.S. Haldane called “a Precambrian rabbit.” Likewise, the discovery of manuscript P52 of the Gospel of John, which is dated to the early second century, falsified the theory that the Gospel of John was not written until the year 150 A.D. or even later.

So, can atheism be falsified? An atheist might say, “Of course atheism can be falsified—just prove that God exists!”

But how exactly is the theist supposed to do this? Usually atheists demand some kind of over-the-top display of power to confirm God's existence. The late N.R. Hanson gave one such piece of evidence that would convince him:


If God did this, then surely we would know he existed, right? Well, why wouldn’t this kind of evidence also be subject to the “God-of-the-gaps” objection? Just because we don’t know how a giant man can appear in the sky doesn’t mean there is no natural explanation for him. Maybe aliens or time-travelers are at work, deceiving us?

Even “low-key” evidence is vulnerable to the “God-of-the-gaps” objection. Some atheists say that if Christian preachers could heal amputated limbs, that would convince them God existed. But once again, aren’t we just taking a gap in our knowledge (“I don’t know how these limbs are being healed”) and filling it with, “Therefore, God did it?”

Atheists have two options. First, they could admit that no amount of evidence could satisfy the “God-of-the gaps-objection” and show God exists. This would leave atheism behind the safe veil of protection that cloaks other unfalsifiable beliefs, such as the belief the entire world is a computer simulation.

If atheists say that atheism does not claim "There is no God," only that some people lack a belief in God, then atheism can't be true at all. A belief can only be true (in a non-trivial sense) when it makes a claim about the world and not just about someone's state of mind. Saying "I lack a belief in God" no more informs us about reality than saying "I lack a belief in aliens" informs us about the facts related to extraterrestrial life.

Second, if these options proved unsatisfactory, atheists could instead put forward strict standards of what kind of evidence would falsify atheism and prove God exists. Although, if those standards included extremely improbable events or something coming from nothing (such as perfect prophecy or healing an amputee) then the traditional arguments for God come back into play, since they include similar phenomena about the universe (such as cosmic fine-tuning and the origin of the universe in the finite past) in order to show God exists.

Rather than argue from what we don’t know (or “God-of-the-gaps”), good arguments for theism take what we do know and show how it logically leads to the transcendent creator of the universe.

Seriously.  I don't know how is not proof of any particular how.  That's all there is to the god of the gaps fallacy. 

Atheism really is merely a lack of belief in god.  So is it falsifiable.  All you need do is show god.  Yep, it's a very tall order as sufficiently advanced tech looks like magic.  Ah hah you say, so it is unfalsifiable.  Well no, actually it's just that you defined god as an unprovable hypothesis. It's easy to do.  I posit an invisible purple nothing that no one else can detect that makes me feel good.  Prove me wrong.  The thing is that making such a claim, doesn't make the thing claimed any more likely.

However, if you define god as omnipotent, then you have really tripped up, as by definition an omnipotent being could proof itself, it's definitional.

Post #32, Jenny.

What evidence would you accept?

[Longhorn]

"There's no evidence for God" suggests that Horn is right; atheism cannot be falsified.

When you assert "by fiat" (as I'm routinely accused of doing) that "THERE'S NO EVIDENCE FOR GOD", you are the poster child for Horn's entire article.

The problem with this is that atheists do not PRESUPPOSE there is no proof of gods existence, but after examining the claims made by religion they state they haven't seen sufficient evidence

The statement is phrased more definitively that it should be, because no agnostic atheist will ever tell you with absolute certainty that there is no evidence for god, which would be equivalent to claiming there is no god, which is strong (gnostic) atheism

The factual statement that could be made by an agnostic atheist is 'I haven't seen any evidence for god', which does not assume that said evidence doesn't exist

What would constitute sufficient evidence for the existence of god.....? Oh I don't fucking know Randy, maybe his allegedly omnipotent and omnipresent ass could show up for once instead of unconvincing apologetics -_-

[Randy Carson]

The problem with the "God-of-the-gaps" objection is that it can have unintended consequences for atheism. Specifically, it makes atheism impossible to falsify, in the same way that most religious beliefs cannot be falsified.  Rather than rely on science, "God-of-the-gaps" pushes atheism far away from being a scientific belief.

This is only the case if one mischaracterizes 'God of the gaps'.  The argument holds that, as science progresses, there is less and less for God to do, so theists are consequently forced to place God into narrower and narrower roles.  A common example of this is phototropic plants.  Since we now understand the mechanism whereby these plants physically turn to follow the sun, we can dispense with a miraculous or (if you prefer) a God-based explanation.

You mean other than create it all out of nothing? Or holding it all together so that it doesn't simply vanish? No, not much to do there.

But the "role" that God has is not confined these "narrower and narrower" gaps. In fact, a deist might argue that God created the clock, wound it up, and kicked back to watch it run. I believe in a personal God who is more interactive than that, but what necessity is there for even a personal God to be involved in the day to day running of the material universe?

For example, evolutionary theory could be falsified by the discovery of modern animals that were fossilized in ancient rock layers, or what J.B.S. Haldane called “a Precambrian rabbit.” Likewise, the discovery of manuscript P52 of the Gospel of John, which is dated to the early second century, falsified the theory that the Gospel of John was not written until the year 150 A.D. or even later.

You, Popper and Haldane are right as far as it goes.  However - leaving aside the fact that the date of the codex P52 (it isn't a manuscript, by the way) is VERY much an open question, I don't see how this improves your case.  Atheism, like theism, is of course non-falsifiable, but then atheism isn't a scientific theory.  Never has been.  The fact that a lot of scientists also happen to be atheists is neither here nor there.

If atheism is non-falsifiable, then is it non-scientific? And if that is the case, does that mean that atheism is a belief system or world view?

[Randy Carson]

I have said before that making their god omnipotent/present/cient works against their god more than it works for it. Also the idea of perfection, which apparently does not exclude someone from making mistakes. Not sure what the point of perfection is, if it still allows for screw-ups, but that's how it is in the bible.

This is one of the main reasons why I could never believe in the Christian version of god. All those omnis mean that either the biblical god is evil or he can't exist.

If there is an all powerful, all knowing, ever present deity then it knows how to convince me to believe in it. According to the bible, this particular deity had no problem performing very obvious miracles in the past. There is no reason that he can't now...unless he doesn't exist.

See post #35.

And btw, perhaps the reason that God performed all those miracles in the past and formed a people (Israel) and sent his son and built a church and inspired the NT is PRECISELY so that you would have everything you need to be convinced. Maybe it's not that the evidence isn't there; maybe it's that you refuse to look at it objectively. (Which is doubtful given what you write next.)

As far as god appearing in the sky or healing amputees arms , it is true, I would look for a natural explanation [emphasis added] but, if a god is behind the growing of a limb then I might eventually come to the conclusion that such a being exists. Of course, no god has answered an amputee's prayers and spontaneously regrown a limb. Dead people aren't being brought to life. A giant man isn't hovering above the skies so we can all see. None of that is happening so we can't really say how we would react. It sounds more likely that Trent Horn is bothered by the god of the gaps argument and is looking for a way to  retain his faith.

See post #32.