How does God do anything?

[Elixir]

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....

Lol. Quite so.

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.

When notes on the credibility scores of theists are convertible to legal tender, I'll concede that correcting theists has some value outside of entertainment.

 

[Keith&Co.]

some value outside of entertainment.

What... What else IS there?

 

[Elixir]

What... What else IS there?

 

[abaddon]

I get to exercise my own wits by arguing. It's like a puzzle-solving game to figure out what their argument WOULD look like if it were better. And when I strongman their arguments past what they can do themselves, I devise better attacks on naturalism than they've managed. In effect it's "if they can't manage to land a blow, then what would a real blow look like?" Ironically their efforts to knock the godless worldview down helps me explore its possibilities more, and find how even more complete it is than I knew.

To me the best reason to post here is to learn. If I'm wrong about something I want to know it.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But all we are watching are repeats at his point. And it would be one thing if someone were discussing in good faith. That isn't happening here.

 

[Elixir]

But all we are watching are repeats at his point. And it would be one thing if someone were discussing in good faith. That isn't happening here.

So often, when the subject of bad faith discussion comes up in threads about faith, it is the “faithful” who are found to be lacking good faith.

 

[James Brown]

People were patient with me and my arguments made in bad faith.

A year or so later, I deconverted.

 

[T.G.G. Moogly]

People were patient with me and my arguments made in bad faith.

A year or so later, I deconverted.

How old were you?

I wouldn't be too critical of someone in middle school or really anyone under 18. I wouldn't tell a toddler the truth about Santa either. But if a young person wanted to discuss in good faith I'd certainly have that discussion.

If they were using the present subject I'd ask them how things start to be real, how something goes from not even existing to suddenly being real. That's the question that hasn't been answered here yet.

 

[bilby]

People were patient with me and my arguments made in bad faith.

A year or so later, I deconverted.

How old were you?

I wouldn't be too critical of someone in middle school or really anyone under 18. I wouldn't tell a toddler the truth about Santa either. But if a young person wanted to discuss in good faith I'd certainly have that discussion.

If they were using the present subject I'd ask them how things start to be real, how something goes from not even existing to suddenly being real. That's the question that hasn't been answered here yet.

"I wouldn't tell a toddler the truth about Santa either"

But would you tell them the lies about Santa?

Because it's the whole telling children lies thing that's the basis of religion. Children believe what they are told by the adults who are central in their lives.

It's therefore a moral imperative never to tell them lies, and never to tell them that something is true unless you have a better reason for thinking it is true than "someone told me this when I was a child".

Telling children that Santa (or God) are real is child abuse. That both are very widespread does not excuse them.

 

[James Brown]

People were patient with me and my arguments made in bad faith.

A year or so later, I deconverted.

How old were you?

Early 30s.

My religious parents didn't try to convince me that Santa Claus was real because they saw it as spreading lies, just as bilby said. They were specifically worried about the trust issue when it came to teaching me about God. "If we lie about this thing, he might question the truth about the other thing, and the other thing is far more important."

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

*snip*

 

[Learner]

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.

I brought up OTHER terms used by theists. You (plural) tried to find an argument there. The post was to Drew2008... and quite simply...very simply, I mentioned Craig because he used one of the terms.

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.

You asked me quite a few questions, and I still have to explain a little further, regarding other posters too, which I will.

You created the false illusion, that I used Tigers post to explain goddit, IOW you were speaking for me. Rhea does this too. Making the false claim, as you so called, try to put it, by saying, "you didn't answer." Answer what? That I claim goddit, quoting a mismatched response (Like atheist I require evidence not just someone's word for it.) with a different context? A noticeable mismatched response - my post #204 responding to your post # 203. You edited your post #203, replacing it with the line "you didn't answer," as I've mentioned.

I'm wondering, why you didn't think to "answer that question for me, as well?" Similar to ventriloquism, which unfortunately doesn't quite work here, especially when we are both speaking for me, but not in quite the same way, so to speak. Saw your lips move btw .

Yes, you are not a mind reader but you do seem to act as if you do. Like our other friends, relating to the Craig discussion, you told me that he was wrong, being in disagreement with his use of the term.

I asked you (plural) which video or debate did you see, so we can get to see why you make these assertions - which is so logically at odds, WHEN you're asking me for links, which you yourselves should have provided, as YOUR source, being of a great advantage to your Craig "argument" - highlighting WHERE a bout's in the video or debate, I didn't understand Craig's use of the "science of the gaps" term, or why Craig used it.

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?

I've explained in the above.

I should have just said ... Can you quote the actual argument I was making regarding Craig?

 

[Learner]

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.

Well, despite what one understands of any of the "... of the gaps" terms. Did you respond back to my post with irony as my post was? Those little posts are quite common here, and requires no summarizing, which obviously wouldn't be quite so ironic, not having that effect, if you did.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

People were patient with me and my arguments made in bad faith.

A year or so later, I deconverted.

How old were you?

I wouldn't be too critical of someone in middle school or really anyone under 18. I wouldn't tell a toddler the truth about Santa either. But if a young person wanted to discuss in good faith I'd certainly have that discussion.

If they were using the present subject I'd ask them how things start to be real, how something goes from not even existing to suddenly being real. That's the question that hasn't been answered here yet.

"I wouldn't tell a toddler the truth about Santa either"

But would you tell them the lies about Santa?

Because it's the whole telling children lies thing that's the basis of religion. Children believe what they are told by the adults who are central in their lives.

It's therefore a moral imperative never to tell them lies, and never to tell them that something is true unless you have a better reason for thinking it is true than "someone told me this when I was a child".

Telling children that Santa (or God) are real is child abuse. That both are very widespread does not excuse them.

Of course, Santa being all over the place does kind of make it hard to shield the concept of Santa, even if one isn't actively pushing it on their child. The parallel of Santa and God, during the holiday season, when Santas are around, seems quite level. In fact, there is substantially more evidence there is a Santa than a God. Let me make an argument.

F1: December exists.

 

[Elixir]

F1: December exists.

There's more evidence for Saturnalia.

 

[bilby]

F1: December exists.

There's more evidence for Saturnalia.

F1: Saturn exists.

With rings on.

 

[Learner]

Ok, I see the logic....

Bethlehem and Jerusalem exists.

 

[Rhea]

Ok, I see the logic....

Bethlehem and Jerusalem exists.

Exactly. Making Jesus exactly as probable as Santa and Saturnalia.

 

[Elixir]

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

The OP question "How does God do anything?" presupposes that God does anything. God doing things like creating universes is probably not something that anyone is going witness, and cannot be falsified.

Some other concrete, repeatably observable examples of what God did would be needed before productive investigation of "how" could begin.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The OP question "How does God do anything?" presupposes that God does anything.

Well, yeah. It shares this quality with many speculations.
How does Superman fly?
How does Batman choose what NOT to put on the utility belt?
Where is the Great A'Tuin going?
What does Bantu eat before farting out a universe?

Questions within the ficton must assume the ficton.
It's only when members of the fandom insist they're fanboying reality that the assumptions must be addressed.