RE: Proving God in 20 statements
April 1, 2016 at 8:31 pm
(This post was last modified: April 1, 2016 at 8:31 pm by RozKek.)
(April 1, 2016 at 5:03 pm)smfortune Wrote:(April 1, 2016 at 8:04 am)RozKek Wrote: God of the gaps everytime. "We don't know the answer, therefore geud". "We don't see another answer, therefore jebus". Like Rob said: arguments aren't evidence for god.
There's no gap here. We know that scientific explanations will be either incomplete or inconsistent and they are in such a way so that an explanation of the Universe must regress to an infinitely great power, i.e. God. This isn't a gap. It's an inescapable fact.
(April 1, 2016 at 7:19 pm)smfortune Wrote:(April 1, 2016 at 7:14 pm)RozKek Wrote: If you'd ask a viking: "What causes thunder"? They'd answer "Thor" (which is merely an assumption just like god). Why? Because they didn't know the real answer. According to your logic at that time Thor really was the cause of thunder since there was no other explanation.I know what god of the gaps is. If I was guilty of that, I would admit it. But there is no gap. I present no gap and say "god". I'm actually demonstrating the absence of a gap. I don't know what your Thor analogy is about but it has nothing to do with what I'm saying.
You do present a gap by claiming that science can't explain the universe and you fill that problem with god without having any evidence for god.
I'll explain the Thor example for you.
The vikings didn't know the cause/explanation/reason of thunder so they said Thor (i.e a god) caused thunder, they used Thor (a god) as the reason and explanation just because they didn't know the real cause of thunder.
You don't know the cause/explanation/reason of the universe, and you claim it cannot be known with a scientific approach (you can't support that claim or at least don't) so you say god caused the universe and is the reason and explanation for the universe, just because you don't know the real cause/answer.
I used the vikings as an example to show your way of thinking (your logic) from another perspective so you see the fault in it.
At the end of the day, all of what I wrote doesn't matter because arguments aren't evidence, and you got no evidence, just arguments. So there is no point in continuing the debate unless you come with evidence.