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

[The Grand Nudger]

I think Randy (and apologists in general) waste too much time trying to prove that god exists.  What seems to have eluded the grasp of these great minds.......is that the length of the hem on gods dress isn't a sticking point for many atheists.

[Randy Carson]

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.

EVEN IF through your apologetic bullshit you somehow manage to get to 'a creator' there is still a Grand fucking Canyon sized leap you need to take to magic your pet deity into existence, wooist rituals et all.

I won't hold my breath.

For the atheist, just getting to the possibility that God even exists is a major undertaking. The rest gets easier after that.

[Longhorn]

For the atheist, just getting to the possibility that God even exists is a major undertaking. The rest gets easier after that.

Oh really? Do enlighten me how

It's obvious that if there is a creator-note that I'm not using the word god before we establish a coherent definition-he clearly doesn't give two shits about his creation and is laughably incompetent....but how do you get from that creator to a theistic god?

And how do you get from a theistic god to your pet deity? And from that pet deity to your particular denomination?Could it be....special pleading? -_-

[The Grand Nudger]

No, it doesn't.  I'm an atheist now, If I believed in your god...I would more accurately be called a maltheist, as would many atheists. The trouble with "proving god is real" is that you would, as a byproduct, prove that gods system of redemption is based on gutting the better man.

-Still not interested.

[Thumpalumpacus]

If there was atheistic dogma, and our lack of belief was based heavily on the god-of-the-gaps (science will fill it in eventually) argument, you might have a point.

But there isn't, and we don't.  So this entire article is moot.

I can't speak about atheist dogma, but I can say this with confidence: a lot of folks who post here regularly are convinced that while science has not explained everything yet, eventually, it will. Only Julia L (or Jenny A - I get them confused) has said that no, science cannot answer every question.

I told you in your other thread that it cannot, as well. And I wonder how many others you're paraphrasing wrongly with this clear misstatement.

You've got two ears and one mouth for a reason. Use them in that order.

[Randy Carson]

I think the idea that god's greatest concern is whether or not some life forms on a planet in the middle of nowhere are continually sucking up to him and following a bunch of rules in a book is rather insulting to him. How petty and pathetic is he in that case?

Give the big man some credit. The more powerful people make God out to be, the more ridiculous this idea becomes.

Alternatively, rob, you might consider that God's love is so great that He did all of this, created all of this, specifically for our benefit.

And, btw, for an all-powerful God, it was no trouble at all. He spoke, and it all came into being.

But this is a bit off-topic for this thread.

[The Grand Nudger]

Unrequited love is stalking by another name Randy.  I'm not interested in the love of your god, -particularly- if what you believe about god is true.

[Randy Carson]

What type of evidence or proof would you accept? Because of your presuppositions, you can’t examine any evidence or proof that I might show you without bias.

Your presupposition is this: there is no God. Therefore, no matter what I might present, you will and must interpret it in a manner consistent with that presupposition.

• If I showed you a video tape of God coming down from heaven, you’d say it was done with special effects.
• If I had a thousand eye-witnesses saying that they saw it, you'd say it was mass-hysteria.
• If I showed you Old Testament prophecies fulfilled in the new Testament, you'd say they were forged, dated incorrectly or simply misinterpreted.

So, I don’t think I can show you any evidence of God’s existence that you will accept because your presuppositions will not allow you to consider that evidence objectively.

None of that absolves you of the burden of actually presenting evidence. Whether or not anyone finds it compelling is not your call. It's not up to us to make your case for you and then respond to it.

That's fair, Stimbo. I have other threads for that. Simply let me know what evidence you would be willing to accept as prove of God's existence, and we can go from there.

But that's not what this thread is about, agreed?

[Cato]

I see Randy is still incapable of producing this God he keeps rambling on about.

[The Grand Nudger]

You continue to insist that others do -your work-.  Either you have evidence or you do not.  Present it, or don't. No one...no one, has to have the slightest clue as to what would constitute evidence of god....except yourself. This is the task -you gave yourself-.......and you are having trouble owning it now. Why is that anyone else's responsibility?