Why make stupid unsustainable arguments?

[Mr.wizard]

@ SteveII:


Not in the mood to deal with this God of the gaps and question begging bullshit.

I already addressed what you're reiterating.

The old "god of the gaps" deflection to cover up the increasingly large gaps in the naturalist worldview. Damn science for uncovering the mind-boggling complexities of life, the origins of the universe, or the fine tuning. Don't you wish for the days before we knew of the big bang, the universe's constants, or when evolution was thought to be able to explain everything.

So if you come across something you don't have an answer for you think its logical to just make one up? We could know absolutely nothing about the origins of life or the universe and it still doesn't make your god any more likely than universe creating fairies.

[SteveII]

That is not true. I would only have to consider God in the pool of explanatory options. Then you examine each topic and see what the argument or evidence indicates as a more probably explanation. I am not saying they will be conclusive. I am saying that in most cases, the preponderance of the evidence at the very lease indicates that belief in God is rational. It is only the atheist who has limited the pool of explanatory options to one thing: naturalism.

No the logical approach is to follow the evidence, your making up the answers you want to choose from, how is that not presuppositional?

Thank you for a reasonable discussion. 

Putting God in the pool of explanatory options is not presupposing anything. You are free to debate the premises all you want. If you want to see them properly formatted and discussed with quotes from Dawkins etc., you can see several of them here .

[Edwardo Piet]

The old "god of the gaps" deflection to cover up the increasingly large gaps in the naturalist worldview. Damn science for uncovering the mind-boggling complexities of life, the origins of the universe, or the fine tuning. Don't you wish for the days before we knew of the big bang, the universe's constants, or when evolution was thought to be able to explain everything.

So if you come across something you don't have an answer for you think its logical to just make one up? We could know absolutely nothing about the origins of life or the universe and it still doesn't make your god any more likely than universe creating fairies.

Exactly it. The burden of proof is what it's all about. No one but strong atheists are claiming that God doesn't exist. When addressing weak atheists such as myself, the burden of proof is on the theist.

[Reforged]

Delusion, desperation, existential terror.
Come on. Lets not act like we don't know why they're so insistent on their beliefs.
Not a single person here right now would turn down the offer to live forever if it were legitimate. Don't give me anything about how you would miss blah blah too much. Anyone who says they wouldn't either doesn't understand that concept of immortality or is lying. Immortality is a game changer. It means even the most serious of matters become trivial because suddenly its all in a blink of an eye. You have forever to resolve whatever you need to, nothing need ever be left undone. No unfinished business. The knowledge of eons, the ability to correct any mistake no matter how big over ice ages. The ability to endlessly pursue perfection in whatever you see fit.

We all know even that is not on the table however. You know that one day you will find yourselves halfway through the most enthralling book to discover the rest of the pages are missing. Then the lights will go out. Then nothing. You will never know what came next, you will never know what was on the very last sentence of the very last page. For you its over... mid-way through a sentence. That day is coming. It will arrive for all of us here. There is nothing you will ever say that can make it something that is ok.
Oblivion is a hound that is *constantly* on your heels and noone wants to live on the run. Noone wants to see its handiwork either.
Thats why. If we can't stop pretending we don't know this issue is unsettling then good luck convincing them to stop pretending it isn't real.

[Mr.wizard]

No the logical approach is to follow the evidence, your making up the answers you want to choose from, how is that not presuppositional?

Thank you for a reasonable discussion. 

Putting God in the pool of explanatory options is not presupposing anything. You are free to debate the premises all you want. If you want to see them properly formatted and discussed with quotes from Dawkins etc., you can see several of them here .

Yes it is because you haven't established that god exists yet, that is what your premises are supposed to prove. Kalam doesn't prove god it builds an argument around the assumption that god already exists and assumes his capabilities. You can not make an argument for god being a cause for anything until you establish that he actually exists.

[SteveII]

Actually the gaps are shrinking of course, because more and more fossils are being found.

But the strongest evidence comes from DNA anyway!

"Oh look, we've found a gap because science isn't perfect, let's stick God's nonexistent butt in there."

Sorry, the gaps have gotten wider and wider over the past 50 years or so. Since we looked back to the beginning of the universe and looked into the cell.

The current evidence shows that these "gaps" are defects in naturalistic theories. However, that is not the important  point. Design is inferred by examining the subject and is not simply an appeal based on ignorance.

[Edwardo Piet]

Any absence of evidence of evolution is not evidence of absence of evolution. And what about all the evidence that isn't absent, that does exist? The evidence for evolution is growing, and the fact scientists don't always find evidence all the time just shows that they're making the effort to look for evidence.

Why not try looking for evidence of God? Oh wait, pointless exercise.

[GoHalos1993]

I think there's BOTH atheists and Christians out there can make some pretty idiotic arguments and or statements regarding their beliefs or lack of

[Angrboda]

Actually the gaps are shrinking of course, because more and more fossils are being found.

But the strongest evidence comes from DNA anyway!

"Oh look, we've found a gap because science isn't perfect, let's stick God's nonexistent butt in there."

Sorry, the gaps have gotten wider and wider over the past 50 years or so. Since we looked back to the beginning of the universe and looked into the cell.

The current evidence shows that these "gaps" are defects in naturalistic theories. However, that is not the important  point. Design is inferred by examining the subject and is not simply an appeal based on ignorance.

What would we be examining the subject looking for? AFAICT it's just an appeal to ignorance.

[Edwardo Piet]

True. But still - those who claim God exists, the onus is on them. And no matter how idiotic an atheist is: Unless they are a strong atheist that claims that God definitely doesn't exist, the onus is not on atheists the same way as on the theists who believe there's a God.