How does God do anything?

[Keith&Co.]

There is no time limit and we have witnesses.

But you're still not answering the questions. Responding, but not answering.

I honestly don't know what you want anwsered particuarly.

How does Tiger's post demonstrate Goddidit?

How lovely. So over confident I won't answer. You are going to look a little foolish for your insistent false claims, as per usual.

Maybe, i dunno, give a response to the question "How does Tiger's post demonstrate Goddidit?" Or point to the post where you already provided a statement satisfying this question. Content related to the subject of the question, not the fact of the question existing, or the commentary that followed it.

 

[Learner]

There is no time limit and we have witnesses.

But you're still not answering the questions. Responding, but not answering.

I honestly don't know what you want anwsered particuarly.

How does Tiger's post demonstrate Goddidit?

How lovely. So over confident I won't answer. You are going to look a little foolish for your insistent false claims, as per usual.

Maybe, i dunno, give a response to the question "How does Tiger's post demonstrate Goddidit?" Or point to the post where you already provided a statement satisfying this question. Content related to the subject of the question, not the fact of the question existing, or the commentary that followed it.

Not much detail provided. The response using Tigers post doesn't seem to match the goddit it rethoric.

Tigers post is in a different context, I highlighted the line in bold, NOT as a godddit, how can it be?

Like atheist I require evidence not just someone's word for it.

 

[steve_bank]

An example of ignorance being bliss.

Facts do not matter. What matters is the psychophysical warm fuzzy feeling of being with Jesus. A bromance infatuation like a kid.

A teen becomes infatuated romantically with an adult. The kid imagines the feelings are mutual and feels good, those feel good hoemones in the brain.

One can love a statue of something and feel love in return, which would be called idolatry. The Hebrews forbade idolatry. Visulaizing abd creating images of Jesus to focus on is idolatry.

In the church I went to as a kid over the alter was a large crucifx with a bloody porcelain white Jesus in a crown of thorns and a hole in the side. Feeling empathy and emotion from the statue is idolatry.

extreme admiration, love, or reverence for something or someone.
"we must not allow our idolatry of art to obscure issues of political significance"

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

You must then understand why there have been doubts of surety, as I had.

Are you saying you turned to theistic belief because science left you with doubts?

Is it impossible to simply sit easy with the doubts?

It wasn't direct straight to theistic belief because of those doubts, it was slow gradual process, but having said that, I suppose yes, to some degree, there was less restriction to investigate open mindedly. If you know what I mean.

So doubts about what science could answer led you to theism which posits the existence of a deity in which possesses no observable or discernable difference from nothing.

 

[Keith&Co.]

There is no time limit and we have witnesses.

But you're still not answering the questions. Responding, but not answering.

I honestly don't know what you want anwsered particuarly.

How does Tiger's post demonstrate Goddidit?

How lovely. So over confident I won't answer. You are going to look a little foolish for your insistent false claims, as per usual.

Maybe, i dunno, give a response to the question "How does Tiger's post demonstrate Goddidit?" Or point to the post where you already provided a statement satisfying this question. Content related to the subject of the question, not the fact of the question existing, or the commentary that followed it.

Not much detail provided. The response using Tigers post doesn't seem to match the goddit it rethoric.

Tigers post is in a different context, I highlighted the line in bold, NOT as a godddit, how can it be?

Like atheist I require evidence not just someone's word for it.

In post 201 you bragged that you answered the question. That atrib looked foolish for suggesting you would not.
In 244 you explain that you cannot answer the same question.

Toodles.

 

[Rhea]

The belief that unknown but natural forces caused the natural universe to exist is naturalism in the gaps.

This is where your assertion goes off the rails.

The belief that unknown but natural forces caused the natural universe to expand from a singularity that always existed, is a view that fills the gaps with the same forces and material as the non gaps.. It is perfectly consistent to hypothesize that the things we currently don’t understand will reveal themselves in exactly the same way that they always have, by more of the same.

Your belief, on the other hand, claims that something new and invisible and extraordinary is equally likely.


And you think those are equivalent. Or at least you argue pitifully to sell the idea.

 

[Rhea]

I am saying that in order to have a discussion about Craig's argument, you need to state the argument first.

You both took from my post where I added alternative terms to Drew2008 the 'nature of the gaps' post, which have similar meanings, where they could be interchangeble.

And so I mentioned Craig uses one of them...so what?

I can’t figure out what you’re on about here.

You do realize, don’t you, that Craig is trying to do a playground, “you are, too!” here, right?

The phrase “the god of the gaps” refers to theists who whenever they don’t understand something say that “it’s definitely a god(dess)(es) then!”
So Craig tries to say “nature of the gap! Nyah nyah!” As if that has some negative or even meaningful meaning. It totally doesn’t.

When something in nature is not understood, the idea off assuming the gap will evetually be described by more of the same (nature) represents the actual way all of the gaps have all been answered so far, every time, throughout human history.

And Craig thinks that’s some kind of meta gotcha that validates his god of the gaps?

And people buy that? It’s vacuous. Why are you peddling it?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, they clearly mistake folly for wit.

 

[Learner]

I agree, that would be the case IF that was my intention. But here's the thing. You and Keith made your statements first, wanting that discussion, adding another argument. You both took from my post where I added alternative terms to Drew2008 the 'nature of the gaps' post, which have similar meanings, where they could be interchangeble.

And so I mentioned Craig uses one of them...so what?

...

I won't be asking you for tips in any horse race - fortunately no one took bets on whether I would or not answer.. They would have lost a few dollars.

....

Ok, you don't believe I understand what Craig was arguing about, and, you (plural) asserted that notion, when there WASN'T any summary of Craigs argument, in the first place coming from me - which would have given you that reason for belief (correct term), indicating where abouts I didn't understand.

Your statement sort of resembles an internet phishing scam, or a magicians cold-reading trick. I provide you the details and then you can tell me after... why you thought, beforehand, the reasons I don't understand. Now I know you regard me as of a lesser reasoning individual, but even I would certainly not make that kind of statement.

Learner, posts like this are nothing but you explaining yourself. Can we discuss the ideas here, not discuss you?

Abaddon, that's what I wanted, I have said on a thread, 'It's not ALL about me, before'. The response was not for you, it was to address an intergrity, a comprehension of poor understanding that I was said Ito have. I gave the right response!

 

[Learner]

I am saying that in order to have a discussion about Craig's argument, you need to state the argument first.

You both took from my post where I added alternative terms to Drew2008 the 'nature of the gaps' post, which have similar meanings, where they could be interchangeble.

And so I mentioned Craig uses one of them...so what?

I can’t figure out what you’re on about here.

You do realize, don’t you, that Craig is trying to do a playground, “you are, too!” here, right?

Yeah? Keep trying (looking for something to argue about as you're doing, like Kieth and Atrib). the inital post was not about Craigs argument. It was somehow developing into one,though, if you see some of the previous discussions. I could oblige, but I we would need to see which argument that you and your comrades were on about. It hasn't really devoped much... and I did once or twice ask which video or debate they were refering to, and no wonder.

Adding to that, William Craig Lane has used the term 'science of the gaps' and I have heard someone use the term 'materialism of the gaps..'
Choices choices.

My initial post quoted above, was merely light tongue in cheek , being that these are as some of the terms that theists USE. It's the norm!

Adding to that, William Craig Lane has used the term 'science of the gaps' and I have heard someone use the term 'materialism of the gaps..'
Choices choices.

It's "causes of the gaps" all the way down, don't you agree? Or maybe it's "woo of the gaps." Yep, I'm going with "woo of the gaps."

TGG, seems to understand there's no Craig argument here. He recognises irony, and responded to my post in a similar manner. (gets a like)

The phrase “the god of the gaps” refers to theists who whenever they don’t understand something say that “it’s definitely a god(dess)(es) then!”
So Craig tries to say “nature of the gap! Nyah nyah!” As if that has some negative or even meaningful meaning. It totally doesn’t.

When something in nature is not understood, the idea off assuming the gap will evetually be described by more of the same (nature) represents the actual way all of the gaps have all been answered so far, every time, throughout human history.

You're entitiled to that thought, even if you've not provided the demonstration of the actual argument.

Applying a line from Tigers post again.

Like atheist I require evidence not just someone's word for it.

And Craig thinks that’s some kind of meta gotcha that validates his god of the gaps?

And people buy that? It’s vacuous. Why are you peddling it?

No problems to speak your mind, as you see fit. You have no argument but a personal opinion.

 

[Rhea]

Learner, the actual question is, “will any theist ever describe how their pet theory even works? And ‘because it’s god’ doesn’t count.”

And then you spend all your energy trying to beat down our answers to hide the fact that you have none, leaving us all with concluding that your position is, “I believe this because I want to, I just know it’s really vacuous and barren to say so when people are asking for mechanistic discussion, and that according to the discussion, I have nothing to add and no intention of trying. I’m just going to sit here and throw mud at yours.”

How does your god interact. That’s the question. At long last, do you have an answer, or not?

We have our answers in good faith. You gave none. You’ve spent all your energy trying to erase our answers. As if you think yours ”poofs” into existence if you can question ours. Do you have an answer, or not? Standing on its own, not a claim that you fill the gaps of ours.

 

[atrib]

Great bit or reasoning, some what hypocritical. So Criags not here? Who or which toher authors or scientists that have been quoted, has ever been here? How much was summarized & provided. that came into discussion? Don't look foolish especially from someone who has little understanding, as you often say of me.

I am saying that in order to have a discussion about Craig's argument, you need to state the argument first.

I agree, that would be the case IF that was my intention. But here's the thing. You and Keith made your statements first, wanting that discussion, adding another argument. You both took from my post where I added alternative terms to Drew2008 the 'nature of the gaps' post, which have similar meanings, where they could be interchangeble.

And so I mentioned Craig uses one of them...so what?

You brought up Craig in multiple posts. This is the first post in which you referenced something Craig allegedly said, and you referenced him in several later posts as well.

Adding to that, William Craig Lane has used the term 'science of the gaps' and I have heard someone use the term 'materialism of the gaps..'
Choices choices.

Then I asked you to summarize Craig's argument so I could address it. You didn't do that. You didn't even provide a link to your source. I am not a fucking mind reader, and I have no fucking clue what source you used to find this quote you referenced.

Ok, you don't believe I understand what Craig was arguing about, and, you (plural) asserted that notion, when there WASN'T any summary of Craigs argument, in the first place coming from me - which would have given you that reason for belief (correct term), indicating where abouts I didn't understand.

Your statement sort of resembles an internet phishing scam, or a magicians cold-reading trick. I provide you the details and then you can tell me after... why you thought, beforehand, the reasons I don't understand. Now I know you regard me as of a lesser reasoning individual, but even I would certainly not make that kind of statement.

I asked you summarize Craig's argument because you keep bringing it up, and I don't know what argument of Craig's you are referencing. You still haven't provided this information, and now you are accusing me of trying to scam you. Where is the scam? I am asking you to explain the argument YOU BROUGHT UP so we can discuss it. Why is this so hard to understand?

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

Learner, thanks for the like but you are misunderstanding my statement. When I said "woo of the gaps" that's exactly what I meant. "Woo of the gaps" is the same of "god of the gaps." Those answers answer nothing.

"Causes of the gaps" is more of the same but has a double meaning. Some folks like to use the "first cause" argument, another unevidenced claim that answers nothing. The fact, however, is that the more questions we answer scientifically the more questions we have and therefore we're always looking to explain what caused this or that scientifically. Religion invents answers. Science discovers answers.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

We have our answers in good faith. You gave none. You’ve spent all your energy trying to erase our answers. As if you think yours ”poofs” into existence if you can question ours. Do you have an answer, or not? Standing on its own, not a claim that you fill the gaps of ours.

Still trying to get blood from a rock I see.

 

[atrib]

Maybe a miracle will happen.

 

[Elixir]

I asked you summarize Craig's argument because you keep bringing it up, and I don't know what argument of Craig's you are referencing. You still haven't provided this information, and now you are accusing me of trying to scam you. Where is the scam? I am asking you to explain the argument YOU BROUGHT UP so we can discuss it. Why is this so hard to understand?

Obviously, describing WLC's "argument" would subject it to falsification.
Just as obviously, Learner doesn't want to do that.
Maybe it's best to let theists content themselves with the fantasy that WLC or some other "god's mouthpiece" has vanquished the evil that attempted to overturn scripture? After all, nobody is likely to succeed in using reasoning to persuade a dedicated theist to abandon their superstitious "god delusion", so why frustrate yourself, make the theist miserable and at the end of the day, accomplish nothing?

 

[atrib]

I asked you summarize Craig's argument because you keep bringing it up, and I don't know what argument of Craig's you are referencing. You still haven't provided this information, and now you are accusing me of trying to scam you. Where is the scam? I am asking you to explain the argument YOU BROUGHT UP so we can discuss it. Why is this so hard to understand?

Obviously, describing WLC's "argument" would subject it to falsification.
Just as obviously, Learner doesn't want to do that.
Maybe it's best to let theists content themselves with the fantasy that WLC or some other "god's mouthpiece" has vanquished the evil that attempted to overturn scripture? After all, nobody is likely to succeed in using reasoning to persuade a dedicated theist to abandon their superstitious "god delusion", so why frustrate yourself, make the theist miserable and at the end of the day, accomplish nothing?

I think he doesn't want to engage because he doesn't understand (or cannot be bothered to understand) Craig's argument, assuming he is even familiar with the argument (which is not a given). He is simply parroting a phrase he heard on a Youtube video without any comprehension of the context.

I keep doing it because I think it is important that misinformation be challenged. I am not trying to deconvert him, I am challenging the nonsense he brings up.

 

[Elixir]

I think he doesn't want to engage because he doesn't understand (or cannot be bothered to understand) Craig's argument, assuming he is even familiar with the argument (which is not a given). He is simply parroting a phrase he heard from a Youtube video without any comprehension of the context.

That's lamentably believable. But still, my question applies... is there any point in upsetting a theist's mental applecart (assuming that such level of organization actually exists between their ears) in a futile effort to get them to abandon a set of superstitions that they believe to have served them better than actual learning has throughout their life?

 

[atrib]

There is always hope.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That's lamentably believable. But still, my question applies... is there any point in upsetting a theist's mental applecart (assuming that such level of organization actually exists between their ears) in a futile effort to get them to abandon a set of superstitions that they believe to have served them better than actual learning has throughout their life?

Ideally, pointing out problems with an argument, example, metaphor, or claim, will lead to their abandonment, an improvement in the dialogue, such as when Duane Gish acknowledged one of his points was in error. Or when Comfort admitted that the banana he used to prove God was not actually in the form God provided it. Or when Hovind admitted... Um. Well. Uh....
And if they refuse to admit error, or they come back the next time with the exact same argument, we recognize that they're not arguing in good faith and we can note that on their credibility score.