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

[Minimalist]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frank_Sheed

Francis Joseph "Frank" Sheed (March 20, 1897 in Sydney – November 20, 1982 in Jersey City),[1] an Australian-born lawyer, was a Catholic writer, publisher, and speaker. He and his wife Maisie Ward were famous in their day as the names behind the imprint Sheed & Ward and as forceful public lecturers in the Catholic Evidence Guild, though their fame dimmed somewhat in subsequent decades.

What is it with you?  You have this little circle jerk of bullshitters who keep reinforcing your fucking stupid catholic shit and that is all you know?  How did this particular asswipe feel about priests sodomizing little boys?  My guess is he didn't go near that one!

[Randy Carson]

How does that relate, in your mind, to the post you quoted?  Was this belgian scrutinizing something?  Or did you ctrl-f until you saw the word "catholic" and thought.."oh, what the hell, this works".

Catholics have often been in the forefront of scientific discovery.

The Catholic Church has nothing to fear from the advancement of science.

[Thumpalumpacus]

You've got two hands and two sets of strings and frets on your guitar. What order do you use them in?

I've also got about 85 billion neurons, and that's where I start. You would be wise to do the same.

By the way, that's not me in my avatar, it's Alex Lifeson, the guitarist for Rush.

You apparently have no idea what kind of God I worship. What you've written above reveals your ignorance. If you want to learn, however, here's a great book:

http://g.christianbook.com/dg/product/cb...831243.jpg

You've made it clear that you worship the god of the Bible. The crimes I've listed are drawn from that.

Or are you now going to disavow the Bible wholly or in part?

Be specific. Do not shilly-shally, because I will be hammering you with the above quote every single time you cite the Bible in any argument, otherwise.

Hitler was a big fan of Nietzsche. That was the influence that led to the Holocaust.

You're wrong about this, as well. Hitler's anti-Semitism was drawn largely from Wagner and Hitler's friendship with his widow, as well as the anti-Semitism that had percolated throughout Central Europe since before the time of Luther -- an anti-Semitism that your sect happily supported for centuries -- imbibed during his homeless years in Vienna. The influence Nietzsche had on Hitler was not regarding anti-Semitism, but rather, the idea of the Hero, one who did what was best for his people without regard to other populations.

Close, but no cigar, kid.

[Randy Carson]

You're speaking of YOUR position. Great. In a one-on-one conversation, I would tailor my remarks to what you believe just as I would when speaking of infant baptism with a Baptist or a Methodist (since they come down on different sides of that doctrinal dispute).

I posted the OP because a few members of this forum ROUTINELY cite the GotG objection to virtually anything I post.

If this is not you, then you can ignore this thread.

The GotG objection is valid so long as you practice it, and it doesn't matter what the position is of the person objecting to it.

The name of that fallacy is tu quoque.  You need to stop practicing that one, too.

[insert smiley-as-nonreply here]

(obligatory smilie)

Thank you, Parkers. I'm familiar with the tu quoque.

Also, if someone objects based on their own position, perhaps you should give thought to not treating all atheists as a lump of people who march in lockstep? Because when you post in broad generalities, that is what you're doing, just as when an atheist posts shit like "Xians r teh stoopidz!!1!"

Are atheists in this forum just as stooopid when they lump me in with the fundamentalists idiots they have known in the past?

I see glimmers of real intelligence behind some of your posts. Maybe if you took that chip off your shoulder and dialed your anger way, way down, you and I could have a decent conversation?

[Randy Carson]

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/

[Randy Carson]

All of this "when does coincidence become miraculous" stuff is nonsense.  It's a psychological thing where people try to layer meaning on top of the meaningless.  It's called Apophenia.  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia

It's caveman style. Oh, we don't understand what we're seeing. Must be a god.

In the old days, it ranged from the sun and the moon, down to thunderstorms and fire. Today, hopefully, only hardcore idiots would argue the sun to be a god. But it's still the same procedure as usual. Only now it's astrophysics instead of lightning.

God of the gaps.

Do you know any other tricks, abaris?

Can you roll over? Fetch a stick?

[Mudhammam]

Nature is what mortals call God.

Which is why I am an atheist, and also why you are a theist.

[Randy Carson]

Post #32, Jenny.

What evidence would you accept?

I've answered this one a couple times now.  You need to start by defining god.  What is it exactly that you are trying to prove? 

If you are merely trying to show that there is a very powerful being, so powerful that it's actions appear outside the laws of nature, then you need to produce some verifiable miracles that appear outside of the laws of nature.  And to make a miracle more likely than not you'll need more than eyewitness testimony.  A few amputees (verified by medical examination) and healed overnight by prayer, and once again verified by medical examination would fit the bill.  And it is important that the miracle be associated with the powerful being either by only working in connection with prayer to him or some other means.  Otherwise you have proven the miraculous event but not the agency thereof.

Jenny, I'm not familiar with this website, but the owner states that the Catholic Church has validated 67 miracles which have occurred at Lourdes. Make of them what you will.

If you are trying to prove the gods of the Bible, add few returnees from heaven recently enough dead to be verified as their former selves describing heaven and meeting their maker would do just fine provided they all agree and they aren't given a chance collude in telling their stories.  But visions of them by believers won't do it.  You'll need to actually produce them for skeptics.

Hmmm...a little more dicey, but okay...I'll give this a shot. Consider the experience of Colton Burpo (the little boy in Heaven is For Real) and this is key cross-reference his experience of seeing Jesus with that of Akiane Kramarik, who painted the picture that Colton latter recognized as being the Jesus that he saw in heaven.

If you are actually trying to prove an omnipotent being, then you need more than just regrowing limbs and returnees from the dead, you need a variety of miracles on demand.  Creating a few planets in our neighborhood overnight, repairing the ozone layer with a snap of his fingers and so on.   A few explanations for how the world does work, not yet discovered by man and far out of our range of knowledge that test out would be helpful. So would a series of really unambiguous prophecies about specific unlikely events that can be shown unambiguously to come true and no prophecies that do not come true (if the Bible is Yahweh's word, he's already failed this last).  Do enough of those things and an omnipotent being becomes more likely than not.  But really, I repeat, by definition an omnipotent being would know exactly what evidence I would accept even if I don't know.  Apparently he either doesn't know or he's not interested in providing proof.

All of those things are a very tall order.  But not nearly as tall an order as the claim that there is an all powerful being operating outside the laws of nature.

Gee, most people are willing to settle for gas money mysteriously found in their seat cushions.     

What I find funny, is the evidence that is actually offered:  inner certainty on the part of the believer; we don't know how the universe or life began, therefore god; the Bible says so; I was once in a really tight spot and I survived; I feel better believing; and the ever popular, you believe you just won't admit it.  It's so far from convincing evidence of an all powerful being as to be ludicrous.  It's as if a three year old boy with a pea gun approaches a nuclear armed destroyer and asks it to surrender and after the laughter dies down, says, "so what can I do that would scare you into surrender?"

It's almost exactly like that.

[Randy Carson]

The only thing wrong with Yahweh using natural means to do what he wants, is that it doesn't prove he exists and is no reason to start worshiping him. Or any other god. This would be fine if he wasn't portrayed as being obsessed with worship, but he is, so using natural means to do things isn't going to get what he wants most.

Chad, I see your point to a certain degree, but I also think that apart from the initial grace of God, it really isn't possible for someone to "see" God's presence in anything. Conversely, with that grace, the believer has eyes to see.

Even stating it like that will appear as foolishness to those who cannot hear.

[Randy Carson]

More seriously, what prevents God from using the natural explainable phenomena of this world in ways that are inexplicable for their timing and efficacy?

How can timing and efficacy be inexplicable? Having a helicopter performing rescue patrols during a flood is not "inexplicable" -- it is expected.  Citing that as evidence of God's hand at work is silly, because you have no way of knowing that it is God's work and not man's -- aside from assuming what you wish to demonstrate.

By the way, that's called begging the question, and -- you guessed it! -- it is also fallacious thinking.

My, you're on a roll today!

It was cited as a joke.

Other "coincidences" may be less easily explained away as having natural causes.