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

[KevinM1]

Too bad your god didn't save Fr. Thomas Byles or Fr. Joseph Peruschitz.  Guess they weren't holy enough.

Alternatively, maybe they were holy enough to send on the voyage. Weren't they the priests who were hearing confessions as the ship went down? Probably saved a lot of souls that.

There were three priests aboard, btw.

Here's a good article: http://the-american-catholic.com/2012/04...e-titanic/

And yet, your god saved one and not the others.  Why?  Mysterious ways, of course.

Nothing you have presented, in any way, shape, or form, is a convincing argument for the existence of your god.  You claim that the resurrection story is convincing.  The only conclusion I can draw from that  admission is that you have very little intellectual curiosity outside of regurgitating old, tired apologist drivel we've all heard before.

And, yes, most of us would likely dismiss a supposed meeting with god as something more mundane.  Why?  Occam's Razor.  Theists like to pretend that god is the simplest answer, but logically the opposite is true.  That kind of thinking also falls into God of the Gaps territory (see what I did there?).  That's why, as I've said repeatedly, that you first need to define god (and let's not pretend that the Christian god is well defined), then you need to establish that any purported evidence for it actually isn't evidence of something else.

Good luck with that.

And even if we did meet the real deal god (assuming, for argument's sake that it's your flavor and not, say, Vishnu), that certainly doesn't mean we'd become worshipers.  That assumption that if your god is real that we'd naturally fall in line and become good little sheep in Jesus' flock always gets me.  There's a huge gulf between potential acknowledgement and worship.