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

[Randy Carson]

There are many more flaws in the arguments Horn mentions above than just being appeals to ignorance. 

Sure...at least, that's what you claim. But remember, my OP was aimed at those who repeatedly resort to the "GotG" argument over and over and over again in this forum. They know who they are.

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.

Nice way to shift the burden of proof, there, Mr. Horn. 

Damn straight it was. And legitimate.

Atheism does not have tob be falsified. It is not a claim. It is a response to a claim.

Depends on the circumstances. Atheists can make positive claims about their beliefs, too. So, it's a nice little thing you folks have going...all agreeing to deny any burden of proof no matter what and all...but I don't buy it.

So tell me Mr. Horn, do you need to falsify your disbelief in: Bigfoot, alien abductions, various lake monsters, lizard shape shifting aliens and the other 1000's of claims you disbelieve? Or is simply being unconvinced by the lack of evidence enough?

Actually, Horn does address this in his book. Have you read it? If Christians read books by Atheists about atheism, maybe some of you should get off your lazy backsides and read some books written by Christians. But back to Horn: apart from claiming agnosticism with regard to UFO's, Horn points out the bigger truth that absence of evidence does not mean the evidence of absence.

I'll just repeat that phrase forever every time someone says, "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."

Shouldn't be too long before we're no longer talking at all.

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.

Not our problem. 

If a god existed, he would be able to come up with a way to convince the most skeptical among us. 

If he was unable to think of a method to convince us, then he doesn't deserve the title 'god'. 

How would God come up with a way that could not fail to convince the most skeptical without being coercive?

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.

Of course, since theists are unable to provide evidence for their claims, the logical arguments are all you have. 

To bad they are all flawed.

Tell that to Alvin Plantinga.