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

[Minimalist]

[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]

[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]

[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]

[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.