• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

God of the Gaps

Trying to discuss particular contingent realities in a general discussion of contingent reality is an attempt at changing the subject.

No, it's not. It's pointing out your logical leap since your postulate 4 does not follow from your postulate 3, as I have demonstrated.

QED
 
No, it's not. It's pointing out your logical leap since your postulate 4 does not follow from your postulate 3, as I have demonstrated.

QED

No, you have not.

Rambling about virtual particles or whatever else doesn't demonstrate anything about metaphysics. So far the only thing you've actually argued metaphysically was our discussion of what a being was.
 
No, you have not.

Rambling about virtual particles or whatever else doesn't demonstrate anything about metaphysics. So far the only thing you've actually argued metaphysically was our discussion of what a being was.

Yes, I have.

Your postulate 4 demands a "being", I have shown that none is necessary. Thus your leap is logic is exposed and we know that your postulate 4 does not follow from your postulate 3

QED

Denial is all that is left to you now.
 
We've all seen this argument before. You've cut and pasted it into quite enough threads by this time. We are all aware of your opinion on the matter. Less you can come up with something a bit more original, perchance it is time to rethink the cut-and-paste strategy of arguments.

You've mentioned before that you want me to post what you want me to post rather than what I want to post.

Get over it.
 
I have shown that none is necessary.

No, you have not.

Rambling about virtual particles or whatever else doesn't demonstrate anything about metaphysics.
 
No, you have not.

Rambling about virtual particles or whatever else doesn't demonstrate anything about metaphysics.

4 doesn't follow from 3, there is no necessity for the cause to require a "being". This has been demonstrated. As I said, all you're left with is deflection. Thanks for proving me correct.
 
This has been demonstrated.

No, it has not been.

Rambling about virtual particles or whatever else doesn't demonstrate anything about metaphysics.

An event can only take place if it has a subject to act upon. So it's simpler to refer to things as causes.
 
No, it has not been.

Rambling about virtual particles or whatever else doesn't demonstrate anything about metaphysics.

An event can only take place if it has a subject to act upon. So it's simpler to refer to things as causes.

Deflection, deflection, deflection.

4 does not logically follow from 3. Deal with it.
 
Deflection, deflection, deflection.

And now we reach the point where the child sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "I can't hear you". This should be instructive for those who aren't man-children.
 
And now we reach the point where the child sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "I can't hear you". This should be instructive for those who aren't man-children.

That has been what you've been doing, yes.

It's been demonstrated that a " being" by your defenition of such is not necessary for something such as the creation of the universe. Thus demonstrating that your 4 does not logically follow from 3. Your only response has been "nuh uh!!!!" So before you start try to accuse others of childish ear plugging (another deflection, I might add. Which is what I said is all you're left with. So thanks for once more demonstrating that I am right), you might want to look at your own posts.

Those in glass houses shouldn't throw stones.

Hahahahahahahahahahahah
 
And now we reach the point where the child sticks his fingers in his ears and goes "I can't hear you". This should be instructive for those who aren't man-children.

Moderator's Warning:
Knock it off, now.
 
This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg bods.
"Well then, how did all this stuff just appear?"
If we can't explain it/explain it yet, it must be 'god.'
The same bogus/failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#Usage_in_referring_to_a_type_of_argument


ie,
If-theres-no-God1.jpg

from the link

'Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge increases, the dominion of God decreases.'
.................................................



who says this ? all scientific findings intentionally or unintentionally prove that the universe has a creator.if I speak for myself ,the more science and technology develop the more I believe in God
 
from the link

'Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge increases, the dominion of God decreases.'
.................................................



who says this ? all scientific findings intentionally or unintentionally prove that the universe has a creator.if I speak for myself ,the more science and technology develop the more I believe in God

Nothing in science "proves" the universe had a "creator".
 
Nothing in science "proves" the universe had a "creator".
it is not the science's business but somehow God shows his own art in every scientific work
 
it is not the science's business but somehow God shows his own art in every scientific work
God does not show his own art in scientific work. Unless you have proof of this?
 
it is not the science's business but somehow God shows his own art in every scientific work

No it doesn't. Nothing in science demands a creator.
 
I ask the same thing
Not having evidence to disprove something is not compelling evidence to believe it.

And you made the claim, therefore it is up to you to provide evidence for that claim.
 
Nothing whatever that shows a god is necessary for this thing we call "the universe" to exist.

Also nothing whatever that shows the existence of a god or of gods is an impossibility.

"The universe" may not be a "creation."

Then again, maybe it is.

"Beats me" seems to be the best way to handle that.
 
The cosmological argument has an infinite number of ways to show it's wrong/absurd...that's the nature of something being wrong. It's old, crafted by the greatest apologist ever, and its been refuted in every meaningful way any number of times. But we're debating it?

The notion that the universe was created is faith-based. Reality is. Its not just that we don't know if it was created....it's worse.
The term "creation" when applied to the universe HAS NO ****ING MEANING. It literally means "created from outside the universe".
Outside the universe...that's outside of reality. That's called NOT REAL. Outside reality = not real.

Real things: check'em out with science!
Not real things: Use faith!

What's so confusing?
 
unless you think science proves his absence ?
The existence of anything supernatural is essentially unfalsifiable. By definition or deliberate construction, the claim is designed to be immune to evidence.

It's like my saying "You are in The Matrix." You cannot prove or disprove that hypothesis, because I can say that if it is true, then every scrap of information you have about the world is generated by The Matrix. You do not have access to anything outside The Matrix, and if you claimed you had any such information, I could easily say it is false, or just generated by The Matrix.

Or, like saying that JFK was killed by the Freemasons, and claiming that any and all evidence (including the Zapruder Film) was fabricated and planted by the Masons to redirect attention elsewhere, and any evidence that points to the Masons is an elaborate plot to obfuscate the real plot. How can you prove such conspiracy theories false? You can't, but that doesn't make it true.

It is not the job of the skeptic to disprove every unfalsifiable assertion. It's the job of the one making the assertion to provide evidence that it's true, and subject said claim to scrutiny and analysis.
 
The cosmological argument has an infinite number of ways to show it's wrong/absurd...that's the nature of something being wrong. It's old, crafted by the greatest apologist ever, and its been refuted in every meaningful way any number of times. But we're debating it?

The notion that the universe was created is faith-based. Reality is. Its not just that we don't know if it was created....it's worse.
The term "creation" when applied to the universe HAS NO ****ING MEANING. It literally means "created from outside the universe".
Outside the universe...that's outside of reality. That's called NOT REAL. Outside reality = not real.

Real things: check'em out with science!
Not real things: Use faith!

What's so confusing?

Mach...you are more intelligent than this.

The "REALITY" may be something that makes the notion of a "creation" and "gods" seem like child's play. It may be something so different from anything we humans can even imagine...that accepting the POSSIBILITY of creation of this thing we humans call "the universe" is mundane.

"Faith" is what are exhibiting in that post above by suggesting something that may be very, very complex...is so simple and easy to see and understand.
 
Back
Top Bottom