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

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

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.

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.

The rest of your cut-and-post is simply more of the same.

Boru