Abusing the God of the Gaps Fallacy

[@tadm123]

It really is amazing. IP explains that it's a deductive argument, not a gaps argument. Yet almost all the responses form atheists in here insists with presenting the strawman that theists are making a gaps argument. Do they even bother to watch the video? Absolutely astonishing.

[@Kevorama0205]

tadm123 What deductive argument are you referring to?

[@tadm123]

Arguments for God's existence in general.

[@zoltankurti]

The other option is thinking about why everybody who isn't indoctrinated questions this.

[@tadm123]

not an argument

[@zoltankurti]

@@tadm123 I agree.

[@iain5615]

Materialism has been proven false by science.

[@user-tz5uq2bt1s]

"I don't know the answer to this-" Stop there. We don't know. Just admit we don't know.

[@kenandzafic3948]

Arguments for theism arrive at their conclusion by rational deduction, not fallacy.

[@razoredge6130]

Lazy 🦥

[@michaeljordan4665]

Exactly like damn, we don’t know… like why do you continuously try to insert this character that can’t be proven, disproven, and is neither testable, nor observable, that’s why it’s a philosophical argument and can’t actually explain anything objectively? We would also have to explain how god got there and to say something like “he exists outside of space and time and is therefore not bound by the laws of physics” is literally assuming their world view and admitting that there are gaps in their view of reality that cannot be accounted for, I could make up a character in my head right now and use all the same arguments for their existence, but that will not make it true by any means.

[@DistortedEmpath]

​@michaeljordan4665 yeah because you created it and thus it was born thud contingent to you

[@michaeljordan4665]

@@DistortedEmpath sounds good poetically but in reality that statement is nonsensical

[@themdapxe]

"Oh, we don't know but we'll figure it out!"

[@austinlittle5762]

R.J.J- El ganador atheists can’t explain how consciousness isn’t reducible to physical matter.

[@hewhositsuponfroggychair5722]

If I'm in court and say: "Your honor, we have absolutely no idea how this man is guilty, but we will find evidence later, so just send him to prison now." I would be chased out, disbarred and ridiculed in the paper. Yet, when an atheist does the exact same thing, they are called "critical thinkers", or "geniuses."

[@truerealrationalist]

@@hewhositsuponfroggychair5722 Precisely right. "We'll figure it out later" is itself an unfalsifiable claim.

[@sarthasiris]

"the most big enemy of knowledge is not ignorance, it's illusion of knowledge" Sure we look ridiculous because we don't know shit about what is going on around the universe, but look at yourself with your imaginary friend, pathetic.

[@laosi4278]

@@honyarsardar6383 well that's because Islam is wrong religion in the beginning

[@galaxyofreesesking2124]

When an atheist shouts "This is textbook God of the gaps!", they do not understand what you just said.

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

I understood, he used a god of the gap and a complete strawman of the Agnostic an Atheist position. You don't have any verifiable evidence for any god. No one ever said naturalism is the only answer allowed. What is said that every real answer is based on verifiable evidence and if we don't , we don't know. For the supernatural to the answer you need evidence for the supernatural. IP does not have it or he would produce rather than a strawman version of those going on evidence and reason and the flat lie that he was not doing god of the gaps. He was.

[@lordsho8639]

That depends on what you said. Lol

[@galaxyofreesesking2124]

@@lordsho8639 On paper, Christians absolutely agree with that; when a self-proclaimed theist says that when a ball rolls downhill it's because God is pulling it downwards, even though both Christians and atheists understand that gravity exists and causes balls to roll downhill. In practice, Christians believe that reality is generally governed by rules and the creator of these rules will cause something to occur which was not governed or caused by any of these rules -- because that is the definition of the "supernatural" -- and Internet atheists instead compare this belief to pointing at a ball rolling downhill and saying "God did it, not gravity", even when this clearly violates the definition of the 'supernatural'. Thus, abusing the fallacy. The entire point (of the video) is that none of us can totally prove one theory or another, however, the conclusion that something other than the rules that govern reality caused a thing to happen cannot be ruled out, especially when it can certainly be argued that there is sufficient evidence for such being the case. Ergo, when an Internet atheists shouts "God of the gaps!" -- despite that being the case -- they are irrationally concluding that the existence of nature is somehow enough to prove that nature is all that there is, therefore anything outside of it ought to be dismissed.

[@galaxyofreesesking2124]

@@lordsho8639 So, most of the time, I don't really think it depends on what a Christian says, because most Internet atheists seem unwilling or unable to admit/understand that arguing for a supernatural answer is, by definition, philosophical and not entirely scientific. Science allows us to infer the regular, whereas philosophy allows us to postulate and be open to the irregular. Like it says in the video, we are using a philosophical argument to say that our full understanding of science infers a theistic worldview, where the supernatural probably ought to occur. There are absolutely 0 gaps to speak of within this framework, because none of us are actually saying "idk therefore God." Instead, we are saying "the rules explain what usually happens, but sometimes there are exceptions", but for some reason Internet skeptics don't admit that's what is going on.

[@lordsho8639]

@@galaxyofreesesking2124 Some theists understand that there is no phsyical proof for philosophical claims. There are christians, though, who think there is concrete evidence for god and feel they can provide it. Those people exist.

[@stephendianda1543]

I was about to type "God of the gaps fallacy" and just before I do this video pops up on my notifications. Who said miracles are myths?

[@abt1580]

Lol.

[@enriqueirizarry2349]

Lol.

[@sirnicholas9144]

Lol.

[@maxfwhxh]

Lol.

[@leovere]

Lol.

[@APolitical99]

What I find is this: If an argument doesn't mention God: its not even an argument for God If an argument does mention God: it's a God of the gaps argument

[@APolitical99]

Oh, apparently if you edit your comment the heart goes away. Sad.

[@promethium-145]

Good point. The anti theists found this video and spammed it with the "God of the Gaps" accusation. How many of them watched the video?

[@APolitical99]

@@promethium-145 I bet very few

[@2l84me8]

@@promethium-145 I've watched this video. Sorry, but this video is still promoting a logical fallacy, just with extra steps involved to trick the audience.

[@promethium-145]

@@2l84me8 It's not a logical fallacy to use what you know to make inferences.

[@RawGameplay0]

As an atheist, thanks for educating me IP

[@davemoore7808]

Great explanation. Unfortunately, it's impossible to reason with fundamentalists, atheist or otherwise.

[@hosermandeusl2468]

As an agnostic-theist, I am open to discussion. However, there are some fallacies in this series that need to be addressed, namely the source material, which is highly biased against other cultures from the surrounding countries (remember Rome? Egypt? et al?). I have enjoyed the discussions, but as a student of the ever-growing philosophy of science, I am concerned about what I perceive as "cherry-picking" the evidence.

[@superdog797]

What do you mean by an agnostic theist? Agnostics are generally understood to be atheists because they don't make claims or affirm anything about the nature of God. Are you just saying you believe "God, or gods, exists." is a true statement, but that we can't know anything about these "things" called "gods"? What do you mean by your terminology? (Of course in common parlance people will not always use the "agnostic" term appropriately or rigorously, probably because of the social stigma and negative popular connotation in times past of the term "atheist", though that is changing).

[@hosermandeusl2468]

@@superdog797 Like so (too many!) many you do not understand what an agnostic is. I suggest you start by googling the word, then do some real research. Agnostics ARE NOT atheists.

[@hosermandeusl2468]

Hmmm...you copy & paste without any rhyme or reason. An agnostic simply doesn't believe the cow excrement of organized religion - be it the blood soaked gawd of the Hebrews, the hypocratic Catholics, the intolerant Muslims, the multi-pantheonic Hindi traditions (how many are there?) - and let's not forget the "can't-decide-what-flavor-of-the-Jesus-myth" Christians. An agnostic believes in the concept of "gawd" - just not your flavor of it. Now as to the personal insults you've chosen to hurl at moi, am certain your p@nuts are very small. Also, you type lie that idiotic former Iranian "president" who spoke in run-on sentences. I would advise you to take some conversation English courses.

[@Carlos-sy8hz]

@@hosermandeusl2468 dude that's how you respond?

[@ailurophile4341]

What? How do you respond to the actual video?

[@kurooaisu]

Sometimes "God of the gaps" is just a justification for "trust the science". The reality is that even when God shows up right in front of them, the first thing coming into their mind is that this must be an illusion. It's a mindset.

[@Valerio_the_wandering_sprite]

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Despite being atheist, I would change my mind if he gave a unrefutable clue of his existence.

[@kurooaisu]

@@Valerio_the_wandering_sprite I disagree. What is the distinction between ordinary and extraordinary claim, or ordinary and extraordinary evidence? If my argument is: I met God walking around the park (let's assume I, indeed, do, and I take a selfie with Him as a proof), will that be an extraordinary evidence or an ordinary one? Because it seems pretty ordinary for me. Additionally, the claims like 'objects consist of tiny pieces called atoms' was extraordinary thousand of years ago, although in current day it is a general consensus

[@karlwinkler4223]

​@@kurooaisu To expand the phrase; the more unlikely a certain claim is, given your understanding of the world, the greater the standard of proof that is expected of it. Meeting God in a park isn't ordinary unless it is already part of your worldview that God shows up in the world regularly. To prove that it was actually God and not a crazy person or some other natural event would require extraordinary proof for someone who does not expect God to show up in their daily life. Evidence should be predictive, such that it helps us make accurate guesses about the future, and descriptive, such that it aligns with historical events and behaviours. Atoms were a very extraordinary claim but the scientific community has been able to prove their existence with extraordinary amounts of evidence, hence why it is consensus today. The evidence they are able to bring includes predictive and descriptive power of the world around us. This is an ongoing process and it didn't start with a complete picture on day one, rather it was built up over a long time as people experimented and validated/rejected hypotheses about their behaviours so that the model can be as accurate to reality as possible

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

There is not when as no god has ever done that. Making up fiction is evidence that you don't have evidence.

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

@@kurooaisu I have no evidence that you met any god ever. Thanks for making up fiction and pretending it is evidence.

[@jimakisspd]

Nice video. I should note however that an appeal to the supposed ''ancient beliefs that gods cause natural phenomena'' is also a strawman argument. For no ancient people or religion ever denied the natural processes in physical phenomena like thunders for example, but that immaterial invisible entities are the cause that these physical processes are eternally being put into motion!!! You may read pagan philosophers like Aristotle, who though he explains the natural phenomena of thunder in the physical sense, he also puts a divine entity as being the cause of the motion of this physical process, and this divine cause he names it ''zeus''.

[@blahblahblacksheep6347]

@ jimakisspd IP never substantiated a claim with history. He only opened his video with historical context. But his truth claims are rooted in the following presentation. He never said “history, therefore...”.

[@dickersoncharlie4961]

What's a strawman argument?

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@dickersoncharlie4961 Most of the video. Example, realists often simply answer with the truth that we don't the answer to that question. The video flat out lied that it Atheism of the gaps. Strawman.

[@Xgya2000]

I agree that the God of the Gaps fallacy is often misused, especially against presuppositional or ontological arguments. Those arguments fail on their own merit. Saying that the contingency argument can't necessarily justify that the first cause has a mind isn't saying it's a God of the Gaps. It's just saying it's a bad argument.

[@KennyRegan]

Just a quick note: there are many contingency arguments, most of which have at least two stages. First stage contingency arguments generally argue for a first cause or a necessary being. Second stage contingency arguments argue about what that first cause entails-i.e. provide reasons justifying why that first cause "has a mind". As a matter of curiosity, are you familiar with second stage contingency arguments?

[@Xgya2000]

@@KennyRegan I'm more used to arguing against the first stage arguments. The second state never comes into play - I was addressing the point made in the video here. Most contingency argument can't even get around the entailment problem. Something explained by necessity is necessary. If something necessary explains anything else, it explains it by necessity (if it could explain it any other way, the explanation could be different, so it wouldn't be necessary). If a necessary explanation exists, everything it explains is necessary. "If *insert reason* equally explains contradictory facts A and B, why A?" If a necessary reason equally explains both A and B, it explains both by necessity. If both are explained by necessity, they're both necessary. But they're also contradictory.

[@KennyRegan]

@@Xgya2000 Ah okay, thanks for clarifying. I think Michael's video is referring to those who specifically call philosophical arguments a "God of the Gaps fallacy", which happens from time to time. There are some folks who think that the way the arguments work is to reason to some kind of fundamental principle and then say, "Science has no explanation of this principle, therefore God did it." I agree with Michael that this is a fundamental mischaracterization of the arguments. Technically you're right that "Saying that the contingency argument can't necessarily justify that the first cause has a mind isn't saying it's a God of the Gaps" per se. But that doesn't make the statement accurate; contingency arguments *can* show that the first cause is minded, if you follow them to their second stages (which, granted, doesn't happen as often in chatbox debates). So I just don't see it as particularly helpful or relevant to the discussion to make that kind of claim. As for the entailment problem, I'm an oddball in that I actually don't think entailment would undermine contingency arguments. It's more like, how you go about addressing the entailment problem will give you different formulations of theism at the end of your contingency argument. This is because entailment (and/or modal collapse) doesn't really show that contingency arguments are logically contradictory, they just create potential problems for free agency that most Christians want to avoid. With that in mind, here are some ways that contingency arguments might address the entailment problem: 1a) Just plainly grant that it is true. In this case, all modalities collapse and everything becomes necessary. This just means that everything that seems contingent actually occurs by necessity and we exist in the only possible universe; i.e. reason X only explains either fact A or fact B, not both. Some contingency arguments may still proceed to the second stage and demonstrate that the *explanatory terminus of reality* possesses the properties of God, such as mindedness. We would then infer that God doesn't have free agency but rather acts necessarily. This would be something like a strictly deterministic theism. 1b) Alternatively, some contingency arguments would proceed to stage 2 by arguing that *whatever is necessary* has the properties of God (mindedness, goodness, immutability, etc.). Thus, since all modalities have been collapsed to necessity, it is all of reality including the universe that has the properties of God. In this case you are left with something like a Hindu metaphysics, where contingency is eliminated as illusory and the universe is as an illusory aspect or manifestation of God. 2) Or, one could just reject the idea that explanation involves entailment. It seems to me that the way this is done is by denying that free choice requires contrastive explanations. That is, it simply is the nature of a free agent to bring about free acts of the will, and it is sufficient per the principle of sufficient reason to terminate the explanation for a particular fact in an agent’s free choice. Let me explain a bit more, since I actually find this the most plausible. For example, God created world A for reason X. Reason X *explains* God’s creation, but it does not entail it. God also could have created world B for reason Y. Why did God choose to prefer reason X over reason Y? There is no contrastive explanation for this, the explanation simply terminates in God’s free choice. There is nothing above or outside God that explains God’s choice; God as a free agent is able to bring about free acts of the will that are new but really distinct from God’s substance. I actually don’t see any other way to cash it out, actually. If you believe that there is some actual element of contingency in reality, the only way to make sense of that is by explanatory terminus in some kind of non-contrastive explanation, and free agency is the only thing I know that could possibly supply such an explanation. So if you believe that anything is contingent, you’re going to have to land on something like the traditionally theistic God-it’s deeply mysterious, but that’s the bullet anyone has to bite in order to account for contingency and free agency, which I believe to be pretty much epistemologically foundational experiences of reality for us humans. Of course, you could just go the route of denying that free choice or contingency actually exist, but even in that case I think the second stages would still land you as either a hyper-Calvinist (holding to a strictly deterministic theism) or some kind of pantheist. I would probably find myself leaning more toward the pantheist side if I were forced to abandon the reality of free agency, but at this point I can’t imagine entailment leading me to anything like atheism. That just doesn't make sense to me, personally.

[@Xgya2000]

@@KennyRegan I'll specifically quote this part: "There is no contrastive explanation for this, the explanation simply terminates in God’s free choice. There is nothing above or outside God that explains God’s choice" I'd argue there is nothing that explains God's choices. If something explained why those choices are made, it would also explain why the other choices were not. If the choice made was necessary, then the other choices never obtain. If the choice made was contingent, then what explains them is too. There's a few options left. You can start off saying God himself is contingent. That God does not obtain in all possible worlds, because that version of God explains different things that other versions do not. You could still end up with a prime mover argument, just not the same prime mover in all possible worlds. Much like you can logically know one of the many contradictory options will have to be chosen, you could know that one of the many contradictory gods would have to exist. Not all those contradictory gods always obtain - in fact, they logically cannot coexist. This actually preserves God's free will because that's at least part of what is contingent in all possible gods. It might also preserve human free will, but that'd take a longer explanation.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@Xgya2000 Its just spewing out claims about a god that has no verifiable evidence. Got any?

[@sokka_vi]

Show us how to determine how any one specific deity is responsible for any given phenomenon. Then do it again.

[@holy-eradication7058]

Show us how any one kind of animal mutated into another, distinctly seperate, animal of its own kind. Then do it again.

[@deathblade2639]

@Holy-Eradication that's called adaptation, animals naturally adapt to their environment. You dont live in a desert the same way you live in a tundra.

[@colepriceguitar1153]

@@deathblade2639 so that makes a fish become a frog?

[@deathblade2639]

@@colepriceguitar1153 no because adaptation =/= changing species entirely

[@colepriceguitar1153]

@@deathblade2639 tell that to the evolutionists who say that frogs (amphibians) somehow evolved from fish (sarcopterygii). That’s an entire class change, not just a species change.

[@michaelkgrantj]

If I step on your foot by mistake and I hear you say ouch before I apologize, you will have confirmed my understanding that I in fact did step on your foot. Others watching asking if you are alright also confirms my stepping on your foot. Materialism can be demonstrated and God cannot be demonstrated.

[@perseloincorporado4275]

god cannot be demonstrated ... same as "nothing" you cannot demonstrate a power being that is nothing

[@teokeitaanranta658]

I'm here to deliver some critical analysis: "It's abusive how the actual fallacy was supposed to be used". -It doesn't matter. Fallacies are not about who made what and when. Argumentation is not a historical record or the study of archeology, it is a rational inquiry. A fallacy is a fallacy, even if it's not the same exact fallacy that was invented before. Theists often use these historical arguments in a context of rational inquiry, even tho its content might have nothing to do with history. Comes also often with the etymological points. Modus ponens is modus ponens, wether it was invented by Plato or Aristotle. In rational inquiry, it's the rational content that matters, not contingent historical facts. I see no rational reason for forbidding the use of God of gaps in metaphysical argumentation. You say materialism "of the gaps" sounds ridicilous. Well.. materialism can be said to hold Occam's razor better than.. Theism. The aim for materialism is clear and simple: It takes the absolutely minimum to be necessarily true, which satisfies Occam's razor, and it does so to explain reality. Whereas theism travels backwards compared to materialism: It takes God for granted and then it aims to fit it to reality. Matter is something we all can have an instant and clear evidence, so it works as a reasonable basis to try to reduce rest of existence. God is something exotic that some people claim to have some inner indirect and vague experiences about. Make no mistake, materialism isn't entirely successful project, but it is a rational one.(Occam). You seem to assume there was a metaphysical beginning for the natural processes, but you don't give reasons to believe that. You ask: What made the natural processes (or something like that). But realize this: What makes something, is called causality. Causality is a natural phenomenon. You try to apply a natural phenomenon to explain how the natural phenomenons started? One could well argue that the singularity before big bang, didn't come from anywhere and always existed, thus, it was not created by God or other metaphysics. Fine tuning can be argued to misunderstand the order of things. If we, humans, the product of the universe, find the universe fine tuned, does it mean that universe was fine tuned by someone like us (a tuner), or does it mean, that we are fine tuned by the universe, to fit to the universe (if we don't fit, we die), so naturally, we see it as fine tuned. Again, Occam's razor: If we are fine tuned by the universe, no middle man. If universe is fine tuned by.. some.. cosmic entity? -Then there is an unnessary entity postulated. "We (theists) are not arguing from a gap, we are arguing like one would argue from theory of gravity". The reason why the God postulate works so well everywhere, is because it is omnipotent. It can explain anything, and as philosophy of science 101 suggests: Something that can explain everything, explains nothing. Yes this omnipotent postulate can explain anything, but nothing can explain that. So you making a slide of hand with mysteries: You swap one mystery into another mystery, you don't really explain anything. Why? Well, what is an explanation? It has, usually, predictable power. General relativity can predict phenomenas to happen accurately. What has the omnipotent postulate predicted? It can not, by definition, predict a thing, because it could predict its opposite just the same, so it "can't" be informative (well it can, because it can do anything, but all the logic just breaks down here, so we "can't" have substantiated knowledge about it. "Science is not burying theism". That's correct. Neither is science burying pastafarism. "The more science reveals, the more evidence we have for God's existence". This is the opposite of falsificationism. Some great philosophers of science suggested that science don't aim to prove, like pseudoscience, science aims to disprove and when it fails, it takes the belief for the best option on hand. "The more science reveals, the more evidence we have for the existence of omnipotent flying spaghetti monster" -Is equally valid statement. "One assumes their worldview is already correct, and takes it on a blind faith". It's called inductive reasoning. If rational inquiry that holds Occam's razor as a principle, has produced more information every time, one inductively reasons it will keep doing so. Inductivity is not blind faith. "Gaps in naturalistic view of reality". + "They admit theism is the better explanation of reality". Hold the F... Up. 🤣. With "better", I assume you mean more.. complete/coherent/reductionist? The problem is: Coherency does not mean logical following. A fairytale can be totally coherent. Lord of the rings might be coherent. Does it mean it's true? Coherentism is not a very strong position. Is it better to have science where general relativity can not be derived from quantum theory, thus it is not complete and coherent, but it allows us to make quantum computers to solve more problems, and predict where celestial bodies will be in the future, or is it better to have a coherent fantasy book that provides.. a fairytale? I choose the incomplete description of true phenomenas everyday, rather than the complete description or bullcrap. "Any evidence on God, cannot possible mean God exists". -You assume there can in principle be evidence behalf his existence, which I explained, there.. kinda can't. God is omnipotent, and we can't narrow down an omnipotent being to be a conclusion of any single thing, because it could be the conclusion of any other opposite thing as well. For example: If tomorrow rains, God exists. If tomorrow doesn't rain, God exists. -It's a tautology, and can't therefore help us to draw any information about anything. If there was a big bang, God created it, if there wasn't, then everything went like the bible said. All of this applies to omnipotent flying spaghetti monster as well, so I guys it exists as well. In fact, if our standards are this low, there exists and infinite amount of omnipotent beings and any other beings from invisible big foot to dark side of the moon nazis. "Theism" (well omnipotency really) can only explain everything, because omnipotency by definition, can do everything, but it's a tautology that has zero rational value.

[@verhygo4844]

I see no rational reason to forbid the use of the God of the gaps fallacy either, but that's not what I understood him to pledge for in the video either. Rather, it seems to me that he tried to point out that it is applied incorrectly. Like screaming strawman fallacy, when someone isn't making one. The question would then be, are there any concrete examples of gaps in metaphysical or philosophical reasoning that are explained away simply by appealing to God?

[@Youbeentagged]

I am an athiest, and I dislike when people use the god of the gaps argument for everything they cant explain. But when most people do use this argument (without evidence) what they really mean is "we cant use science to explain this event yet, but we are trying to come up with a theory by looking at evidence, that can better help us understand"

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I wish they would just say that instead.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

I definitely think but some people do you think People use the God of gaps argument, but I feel like a lot of atheist don’t even understand what it is they just assert that Christians use it, I don’t think there’s anything wrong with a Christian saying I don’t understand this and we don’t have an explanation so I trust that God has the answer to it and he is responsible for it.

[@a.t.6322]

Arguments for God's existence are philosophical in nature... 1:55 he's right! That's why Stephen Hawking's book, The Grand Design, begins with him ridiculously claiming that philosophy is dead. He had to try to remove an entire branch of human learning to pitch his worldview of a Universe without God. He failed. Philosophy is certainly not dead nor is the God Hypothesis.

[@perseloincorporado4275]

@Suz Cruz its time to stop believing this none sense theistic view and move on to scientific and build a better society. Religion is a poor mans science, that describe reality as fantasy

[@juilianbautista4067]

@@perseloincorporado4275 in the atheistic worldview where there's no objective reference point to any truth claim higher than man, anything that man says is arbitrary and subjective and therefore meaningless, so you can't even begin to differentiate between reality and fantasy, hallucination and real experience, right and wrong, good and evil except for arbitrarily deciding "X is true; Y is fantasy". This also leads to the inevitable conclusion that all of your subjective definitions of reality are enforceable to no one but yourself. Neither can you even begin to define what "real" and "fantasy" are in the absence of an objective, transcendent, unchanging starting point. Atheism is a lazy man's philosophy.

[@TheBlackDogChronicles]

At least do the courtesy of presenting the entire quote, which puts it in its context. "We each exist for but a short time, and in that time explore but a small part of the whole universe. But humans are a curious species. We wonder, we seek answers. Living in this vast world that is by turns kind and cruel, and gazing at the immense heavens above, people have always asked a multitude of questions: How can we understand the world in which we find ourselves? How does the universe behave? What is the nature of reality? Where did all this come from? Did the universe need a creator? Most of us do not spend most of our time worrying about these questions, but almost all of us worry about them some of the time. Traditionally these are questions for philosophy, but philosophy is dead. Philosophy has not kept up with modern developments in science, particularly physics. Scientists have become the bearers of the torch of discovery in our quest for knowledge. The purpose of this book is to give the answers that are suggested by recent discoveries and theoretical advances. They lead us to a new picture of the universe and our place in it that is very different from the traditional one, and different even from the picture we might have painted just a decade or two ago." As can be seen here, he is clearly stating that philosophy at the moment cannot match through building prediction-based systems what physics can in relation to the nature of life and the universe. That statement may upset you but it is, at least for now, empirically true. Philosophy has next to no predictive capacity. Some sciences, such as quantum physics, have such a high level of predictability that it is incredibly daunting. It makes a large number of us want to better understand quantum physics!

[@codygillard]

The claim "philosophy is dead" is itself a philosophical view

[@murderonmarz1647]

​@@perseloincorporado4275 the absence of religion breeds mental illness.... you'd have to be out of your mind to say religion is bad... yes in some ways but the good far outweighs the bad... do more research

[@ThePatriot-jf5wd]

Wait, does this mean I am a god of the gaps argument?

[@baldwinthefourth4098]

99% of atheists use the God of the Gaps themselves. We all know for a fact that 99% of Atheists would believe in God if He wrote in the sky "I am the Lord your God, worship me" in multiple languages. And yet that would be God of the Gaps. They don't know how that text appeared in the sky so they use God to explain it.

[@lau9076]

It would be a god of the gaps for christians,because they would assume that the god that wrote that is their own. Atheist would say, "ok god,you exist,now which of the million religions,if any,is the correct". The fun part is,if god after that god would wrote "also the sufis are right,convert now" the rest of religions would assume is a work of the devil.

[@mingthan7028]

Atheists when they meet blackswan of the gaps: 💀💀💀💀

[@lughheim835]

I think possibly the easiest way to debunk this video is to look at the split layout of Theism vs Non Theism. You seem to have some really bad misconceptions about explanatory power, and I would suggest you look up the Wikipedia definition about what would constitute 'good' explanatory power. Let me explain with an example: Lets say you are eating fries at a restaurant and one of your fries fall off your plate to the floor. You look over the side of your table to try and retrieve the fry, but lo and behold the fry has seemingly vanished! You get up and look around your area and can't find it. The restaurant is empty except for a few employees in the back. You can't think of any conceivable way of how your fry could have vanished so you begin to think of different possible solutions. Eventually you come to the thought, "Of course! It must be some kind of supernatural thief which can appear and disappear at will, is supernaturally fast, and makes no sound whatsoever! That would explain why the second I looked away the fry vanished with no trace! No one else is around who could have stolen it and I have inspected this area quite thoroughly, so this explanation seems to answer every single possible issue of my fry suddenly vanishing!" Just because something can answer a problem, like how theists often answer the question of how the universe started by being due to a 'timeless, spaceless, immaterial and infinitely powerful being', does not mean in any way whatsoever that it could be true or should be taken seriously as a line of thought. In the case of the supernatural thief and the god of theists, the concept is totally unfalsifiable, offers no predictive powers, gives no observable evidence by which one could even make any claim, and takes multiple massive assumptions. The point is, the explanatory power of the claim that a supernatural thief stole your fry is as bad or even worse than the explanatory power of a god creating the universe. Edit: and I should add, your comparison of the theory of gravity to the god of the gaps argument is laughably bad. You really need to look up more science and compile more facts for future vids if you are going to be so lazy.

[@SheepofChristAmen]

The analogy you gave is hypothetical and doens't fits with the explanation of origin of the universe. It's a wrong analogy to start with.

[@yobro-eg3ic]

​@SheepofChristAmen Not hypothetical at all. I've dropped pencils and pieces of food, only to find them seemingly vanishing. Reddit likes to call it a "glitch in the matrix." The analogy absolutely works. A theist would jump to conclusions and claim something supernatural since they can't explain it. It's literally jumping to conclusions. Normally, you'd be honest with yourself and just say, "I don't know." It doesn't imply that it can never be known, and you sure af don't make assumptions off of what you don't know; but that simply, at the moment, you don't know. And that's ok.

[@frederic4844]

You are attacking a straw man. The « god of the gap thing » is only a way to highlight an argument by ignorance : « I don’t know, therefore god », and a false dichotomy, why (a particular god) ? Why not gods ? Why not the simulation hypothesis ? Why not any of the current un proven other hypothesis ? Why not something we don’t know about yet ?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

An argument from ignorance would be saying God exists because no one can prove he does not exist. No one is doing that here, and the arguments for God's existence are not arguing "I don’t know, therefore god." That is a straw man.

[@ubergenie6041]

You apparently didn't watch the video. Cases for God both deductively and abductively are based on premises out of nothing nothing comes, and anything that begins to exist has a cause. Then proceed to necessary conditions to explain the existence of our universe. Why comment if you aren't going engage the video's claims.

[@senorpoopEhead]

Who is arguing that something can come from nothing, @@ubergenie6041?

[@nunyabisnass1141]

Uber Genie because those claims are pure assertion and speculation that intentionally misrepresent the opinions of actual scientists and their research, that insinuate but not prove or establish a higher likelihood for anything.

[@nunyabisnass1141]

Gen Meow he doesn't know. He just thought that because someone claimed that to be the truth elsewhere, then it applies everywhere.

[@pepedestroyer5974]

I find you much better than William Lane Craig, you manage a lot of topics, keep working! God bless you brother

[@kieran296]

I encourage you to check out "Classical Theist" youtube channel, he is great also

[@apacheboeing3737]

>PEPE DESTROYER

[@pepedestroyer5974]

I have already checked, It is really interesting

[@pepedestroyer5974]

?????

[@leabrocksieper247]

Being better than WLC is not that hard tho

[@rty08]

So what's the evidence for god? There's a difference between saying "I don't know, let's work to find out" and "It was god, nuff said."

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Why don’t you check out my channel.

[@Starrboy94]

When you say, God cannot be the explanation for X and that the explanation WILL BE SOMETHING DISCOVERED BY “SCIENCE” in the future, you are literally creating a gap argument. And it’s rich to watch materialists flop when you point that out.

[@willfire0310]

The problem with that is science and religion are two different things. Science is suppose to have gaps because its a process for understanding the natural world. Science is usually starts with a gap. Religion is meant to be the opposite. The idea of religion is to provide answers to fundamental questions and give a ultimate conclusion. Also discovered by science in the future is less of a gap because there is active intend to answer said question in full. With religion, one could simply say “god did that” and consider the point resolved.

[@brendawilliams8062]

@@willfire0310 it’s all bs

[@adambulking406]

I personally think what you're saying here is that all of science and everything leads to the existence of a prime mover, an instigator of the big bang - but why does that mean it is the god spoken about in the bible? Why does it have to be that this instigator of the big bang has to love us, why do we have to worship it? Maybe the designer, the higher conscience instigator of the universe is a scientifically explainable thing that we just havent worked out yet? I can fully get behind the idea of a prime mover that is beyond our understanding starting the big bang, but i certainly cannot get behind why i should have to worship it like some cult member, and i cannot understand why this prime mover should justify the existence of places such as heaven or hell. They say that we were created in gods image; but what if theres far superior beings out there in the universe that are better than us in every way, science would certainly support that being a possibility. My question is: what makes us think we are so special to this designer of the universe, and why do people think we have to worship it and that it loves us like children?

[@mustachemike7482]

The arguments he's bringing up , specifically natural theology, does not aim to prove the God of the bible. You're misunderstanding the argument, it simply states that the universe and the scientific discoveries so far point to an intelligent designer. If you want to get into the arguments as to why Christians and Jews believe the God of the bible is the correct one, then that's a completely different argument. Personally, I believe that God is a God of love because of morality, and because of free will. If God did not create due to love, then that God is deficient. Also if God did not create due to love he would have not created morality, we would be like all other animals, only living on the instinct to survive.

[@deathblade2639]

To explain your question, it is the natural human desire to feel bigger than he is. There's nothing wrong with it. Hence why religion and the idea of being made in a higher beings image is so appealing. The world is cruel and unjust, and so humans sought explanation for their suffering. Also social cohesion, religion is a tool to keep societal cohesio by believing in collective mythology and its rules and laws.

[@voltekthecyborg7898]

That's more of RELIGIOUS questions than a scientific ones, which in and of itself is a different can of worms entirely. To answer the question of why we should worship God, it's really a work of righteousness to many people. But in reality, worship can be kept private. It's a relationship between you and God. You can worship collectively as a congregation. As for the existences of Heaven and Hell. Heaven is the Kingdom of God: that's where all children and believers go when they die. But how does one make it to Heaven? This is the only answer to the question: you don't. To elaborate, you do not make it to Heaven, for that implies you have to do some sort of works to go to Heaven, and heretics and ignorant atheists alike get this wrong: you do not go to Heaven by doing the works of the law (I.E., the 10 Commandments or the Mosaic Law), nor do you get to Heaven by doing works of righteousness (being baptized, helping the poor, etc.). In fact, Heaven is not a reward to earn, it is a gift to accept. Ephesians 2: 8-9 KJV, "For by grace are ye saved through faith: and that not of yourselves: it is the Gift of God: Not of works, least any man should boast." John 3:16 KJV, Jesus speaking to Nicodemus, "For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Begotten Son, so that whosoever believes in Him will not die, but have everlasting life." John 14:6 KJV, Jesus speaking to Thomas, "I am the Way, the Truth and the Life: no man cometh before the Father, but by Me." John 6:39, Jesus speaking, "For this is the Will of Him Who sent Me, that every one that seeth the Son, and believe on Him, may have everlasting life, and I will raise him up on the last day." Acts 16:29-31 KJV, the guard to Paul and Silas "Then he called for a light, and sprang in, and came trembling, and fell down before Paul and Silas, And brought them out and said, 'Sirs, what must I do to be saved?' And they said, "Believe on the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, and thy household." John 6:28-29 KVJ "And they said unto Him, 'What shall we do, that we might work the works of God?' Jesus answered and said unto them, "This is the work of God, that ye believe on Him Who He hath sent.'" BASICALLY, you get to Heaven by believing on the Lord Jesus for Salvation, you put your faith in Him as your Savior. But what if you don't have faith in Him? What if you wanna live separately from God, either because you think He's evil or you're putting faith in yourself? Well, that's where Hell comes into play. Keep in mind, Hell is less about eternal punishment, and more of eternal separation: If you wanna live separated from God, then God will give you what you want: eternal separation from Him, much to His dismay. Keep in mind, He will not force you into Heaven. As for Hell, we all deserve Hell for the sins we commit. I do deserve Hell as much as everyone else. However, because of God's Grace, that undeserving love, He died for our sins, so that whoever believes in Jesus as Savior, will not die, but have everlasting life. This is why we're so special to God: not only were we created in His image, but because, even when we do sin, He does not hate us. He still loves us. And by putting out faith in God, He will not impute future sins on us, and all past and present sins are forgiven. Because He loves us so much, He paid the punishment of sins for us: lived the perfect and sinless life because we can never live that perfect and sinless life. He has shown more mercy than any other deity: by literally giving us an escape from Death, and a gift of eternal life. And that's also why God sees us as children. Anyone with kids will know that kids will get mad, impatient, they can be very much evil, and even shake their fist at their parents for their own screw-ups. That's basically what we're like to God: we get made, we get impatient, we're very much evil, and we shake (or have shaken) our fist at God for the screw-ups we caused ourselves. We're very childish to God, but yet, His patience and love for us is steadfast.

[@matthewoborne1649]

to quote Stephen Hawking. "rubbish"

[@0311catholic]

And ? He went to epsteins Island! That's not an argument but what gives him authority

[@matthewoborne1649]

@@0311catholic the rubbish part came from Hawkings need for brevity as it took him a lot of time to write things into his computer to speak for him. it means Rubbish never meant just one word for him. there is a huge discourse behind the comment that he had no choice but to cut it down to as little words as possible. In other words to use rubbish in the way hawking did was there is a very long explanation but the net result is it is a rubbish claim so that one word suffices.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

Kindling gremlins exist who have all the properties necessary to cause internal combustion in a gas tank. I assert the kindling gremlins have powers more consistent with combustion than the laws of chemistry. Do we all believe in gremlins now?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

No, because we have a better theory on how the combustion engine works, so yours is shaved off by Occam's Razor. Now offer a better theory to overtake theism and explain the data. kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKOaZamZgt2qi80 kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZrIaqCrqKx4p7M

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

God is shaved off too. No peer-reviewed physical journal has concluded God as a testable hypothesis for anything. How do we distinguish between a phenomenon produced by a God, and a phenomenon produced by simpler, natural forces?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

That is not how you argue for a metaphysical worldview. You just trying to solve a puzzle with a hammer. In reality we argue to the best inference: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKOaZamZgt2qi80 kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZrIaqCrqKx4p7M

[@justathought973]

@@InspiringPhilosophy You're trying to solve a puzzle with your non existing god.

[@uncleanunicorn4571]

@Inspiring Philosophy - I get it now, if I were to argue for dark matter spiders, then that would be equally valid, because we don't presently have a physical theory explaining dark matter or energy.

[@Vaporwavelol]

It doesn't matter how the phrase is meant to be used thats how its used now.

[@aethervein]

Exactly. He should really look into what the "etymological fallacy" is, if he has the nerve to put philosophy in his name.

[@usapatriot444]

I understand why God of the Gaps is wrong. But my issue with evolutionary ideas is not based upon what we do not know, but based upon what we do know. Two examples….fruit fly studies only show that mutations will vary a structure, like color of eyes, warp at structure like wing shape, or remove a part like eyeless flies. They have never produced a novel functional structure. So how does nature do it? The second is about energy. Energy sans intelligent guidance is always destructive to ordered complexity. If you want to gain complexity, one needs to have energy guided by intelligence. This point shoots down any hope oh somehow science explaining how life purposely itself together.

[@solesey761]

i’m not super read up on these things so forgive me if I get something wrong. I believe Mitochondria are claimed to be the result of cellular organisms “combining” or merging/becoming symbiotic in some way. Not sure how much proof there is for that specific theory though. If it’s credible, then it’s possible other functional structures work in a similar way. All this said, it comes back to the question of the origin for life, for which there are no “proven” answers yet to my knowledge. As for your second point, i don’t know if I fully understand. You seem to argue that the law of entropy generally opposes functional structures in favor of chaos. I don’t really understand why intelligence is involved at all. This argument seems to presuppose that intelligence is required for higher-ordered structures to exist, but then you use that claim to prove itself. What makes you believe intelligent guidance is required for higher-ordered structures to exist?

[@usapatriot444]

@@solesey761 The first part: The idea or theory is called endosymbiosis. It is claimed that the original "population" of proto-cells accidentally ingested, but did not DIGEST the bacterial type cell which just happened to give off ATP. This is the supposed origin of the mitochondria, which if you study them, look nothing like bacterial cells. By the way, the same miraculous "accident" happened when other proto-cells accidentally ingested but did not DIGEST a photosynthetic bacterial cell to eventually become the chloroplast of today's plant cells. This one just happened to give off glucose, which the mitochondria need to make ATP. See how the other side has their "god" which is Nature doing the miraculous. Second part: You misunderstand the point I am making. If energy is not controlled by intelligence or by an intelligently designed machine, then that energy is destructive to any attempts to use it to organize matter into a more complex entity, like amino acids putting themselves together to make a protein. So everyday experience and lab experiments prove that unguided energy will never put life's macromolecules. Does this help?

[@joeymoffett00]

Gravity is really the Earth spirit pulling us in with its love. Eventually we all will return to the Earth in a cosmic reunion. Giving into the pull of its love.

[@joeymoffett00]

Who ever argues against this is too serious.

[@davecirlclux]

JOEY MOFFETT wow this is so intelligent. You managed to highlight how idiotic it is to be worshipping the cause of the big bang. Because we all agree something caused the big bang. But why worship what you don't know?

[@fingerpasta]

Hahaha

[@cupoftea1630]

what if your plain crashes into the ground, pulled down by gravity? Is that also the earth spirit pulling us in with its love?

[@astrobros4196]

if god is in the gaps, then it doesn't stop being in the gaps when the gaps are slightly better understood.

[@AndrewTheFrank]

All I heard is that when they claim "God of the Gaps Fallacy" they are making a "Begging the Question Fallacy" error. That is that their objection is that 'I know materialism is true, can't prove it yet, but someone will some day" and so they are already assuming the conclusion instead of supporting it.

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

Strawman, no is doing that on the side of evidence and reason. Admitting we don't know is NOT assuming naturalism. It is just that we don't know is the correct answer when there inadequate evidence. There is no verifiable evidence for anything supernatural. So its not using evidence and reason to give the supernatural as a valid answer. Its an assertion and a god of the gaps.

[@Ancient_Man_In_Modern_World]

God of the gaps indeed was more like gods of the gaps; Zeus explaining to the Greeks the unexplainable science of lightning, therefore Zeus did it, same with all the others, they were natural gods because they were casted into the initial void or "darkness was upon the face of the deep, the earth was without form and without void" the prophets speak of what took place in heaven before mankind, Lucifer, a creature of instrumentation was able to acknowledge himself in such a way that it was able to make him believe he could overthrow the Head of it all. God is the God of the whole show, Genesis 1 does not say "in the beginning God created the bits and pieces we can't understand", rather He is the Head of it all. They also are the same prophets that foretold of the rise and fall of Empires, accurate with ancient history. God consistently speaks to mankind in languages we can understand such as agriculture language to the farmer, fishing language to the fishermen. God spoke through the prophets, at times, of deep things in the language of real civilizations and society, history and science, Lucifer as a fallen nation, and the remnants of a nation being that of the fallen angels who attached themselves to the ideology of Lucifer in the realm of infinite. Genesis says that the fallen angels slept with the daughters of men . . Using real and natural things to express the real and eternal realm/dimension that we cannot comprehend. In the midst of all the beauty and bombs in humanity; LOVE remains the possibility. Eternal life remains as something now known to us, as a promise, because of Jesus, the foretold Messiah throughout Tanakh. Forgiveness is now known to us because of Jesus. A great release from the weight on us all. Giving us a new mind, a new paradigm, a whole different outlook. A drive to know more of Him through His creation without ever worshipping the gift. Apparently that is easy for humanity to do. The cross is a message of a perfect God coming into our suffering as well as a natural reminder of a supernatural gift. . Which isn't something earned by merit. The acknowledgment of Jesus gives way to good works without the driving force of "proving good"

[@neolegionar]

When I watch videos like this I really wonder why there is always IP that should come to the rescue (from 7.53 billion in the world). His arguments for me makes so much sense as I think, and everyone should think the same. Its a shame there are too few channels like this.

[@eugeneattaattadjei9403]

There must be more channels like this

[@isidoreaerys8745]

Sounds like idolatry

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

They don't make sense to anyone that goes on evidence and reason. He does not use logic and does not understand fallacies, evidence, reason, the burden of proof. Pretty much anything.

[@NJ-wb1cz]

6:37 The dude outright points to gaps in our proven knowledge and says that "theism" fills it with god, implying it somehow must be true because of that. Of course, forgetting that there are many religions and they all fill those gaps differently, some with gods, some with one god, some with no god, and followers of each of them believe that their own gap filling is correct

[@Captnsouthpaw]

@@ethelredhardrede1838 what a ridiculous claim. His videos present a clear understanding of the philosophical concepts you’ve mentioned. I think it’s more likely that you have presupposed your dislike for him without watching his videos.

[@code_monkey_steve]

Why would anyone waste time on scientific investigation when they can just shout "God did it!" and be done?

[@ethanm.2411]

Why would anyone lazily ignore the evidence for theism when they can just cry "God-of-the-Gaps!" and be done?

[@Keesha_Hardy]

Steve Sloan Why assume that science can give us all the answers to all the questions we ask?

[@ltakethefatlplease.3380]

If they used the Christian God to explain phenomena like lightning or water why ain't he portrayed as someone like zeus ,and say "he is said to throw lightning down from the heavens".

[@marvalice3455]

Because the pursuit of knowledge is a sacred act. The sort of person who "doesn't care why" doesn't have that attitude because they are religious, they use religion as an excuse to justify them not caring about something they already don't care about. The sort of person who wants to know would want to know in detail whether they are religious or not.

[@RSanchez111]

"Materialism of the gaps", that's a good one.

[@NerdyNikoTV]

Yeah it is messianic in nature. It is like they are speaking of prophecies that future humans will verify what philosophical worldview I personally hold and want to be true you just wait.

[@Simon.the.Likeable]

At least once the gap is filled, materialism offers more predictive capability than saying, "It's a miracle."

[@RSanchez111]

@@Simon.the.Likeable it's gaps all the way down

[@Simon.the.Likeable]

@@RSanchez111 Would you have it any other way? Man is the hunter. Like Oddyseus, we find our purpose in the journey and the homecoming. If there were no gaps, no unknown, no striving, there would only be boredom.

[@DEMcouver]

@@Simon.the.Likeable a good sentiment, that I agree with. Of course, many non-theists ask why a god that existed wouldn't set the universe to 'super - easy difficulty' for us. Giving us no challenges to overcome and no problems to solve.

[@perseloincorporado4275]

if god is the cause of everything why universe exist, question , which god are you referring ? Yahwey? Allah? Elohim? Gnesh? and the rest of the 28Million gods invented by different people with culture. This is still a god of the gaps fallacy, meaning it does not supported by any empirical evidence, thats why its called fallacy.

[@voltekthecyborg7898]

that is simply a question that can be refuted just by studying religions. Also, Yahweh and Allah are names referring to God, and yes, even Arabic Christians call God "Allah", simply because "Allah" means "God" in Arabic. Yahweh, or YHWH, is another Hebrew name to refer to God, just like Yehovah. As for Elohim, that's another Hebrew word, but rather to describe supernatural creatures, like angels and demons, which puts God as the Most High Elohim. And as for Ganesha (or Gnesh as you called him), he did not create the universe: Brahma did, according to Hindu religion. Ganesha is simply the most well worshiped god in Hinduism, and his powers are not affiliated with the creation in any way, but rather of new beginnings in accordance with Hinduism. And as for asking which deity we're referring to, you literally just ask them. To assume a Christian is talking about Zeus creating the universe is stupid. If a Christian is talking science and God, he's referring to, guess Who? God. So it's not even a God of the Gaps fallacy, it's willful ignorance and foolishness. Not only that, but if such "gaps" were even explained, it does not disprove God, if anything, it proves God set it to motion with said equations. The three laws of thermodynamics don't disprove God, it proves Him. For instance, energy cannot be created nor destroyed, but can be harnessed. Who said God didn't harness His own energy to create the universe? That's more logical to me. Second law states that the state of entropy of the entire universe, as an isolated system, will always increase overtime, and can never be negative. This basically means that the universe HAD a beginning, and is slowly stretching outward, which also implies that the universe will have an end. When considering the first law, God harnessed His energy into the material plane, and is slowly expanding outward, never going backwards. And finally, the third law of thermodynamics: the entropy of a closed system at thermodynamic equilibrium approaches a constant value when its temperature reaches absolute zero. Again, proving that the universe will have an end when it reaches thermodynamic equilibrium. This still proves an infinite and powerful Creator, as He can still create the Universe at will.

[@kitkatplus1199]

The difference between “god of the gaps” and “gravity of the gaps” is that gravity has been robustly backed by evidence. God of the gaps cannot be used as a way to *argue* that god exists because you have to first prove that God exists to shove him into a gap.

[@mitslev4043]

It's the same. We start with what we do know not what we do not know. We have never observed gravity. We don't even know what it is. We just see its effects. Same with God. We can observe the universe and then logically discern the necessary properties of the thing that caused them. When we do we get god. Same with gravity. We observe its effects and discern the properties of the thing causing those effects. We still don't have enough information on gravity. In fact gravity is just a place holder name for whatever causes those effects. Also there is a ton of evidence for God. Atheist just deny evidence.

[@matthewknight7594]

Fine tuning is one of the most easily refuted arguments of the lot. It basically just stems from the belief that the universe was created *for you specifically*. In that sense its directly on par with Geocentrism. If any of those variables were even slightly different we just would even be able to have this conversation which means you're having the conversation from that however improbable point. The very opposite of design. Such a tired old argument refuted too long ago. Present belief in it is taken on faith alone

[@atticusrex2691]

If the universe was fine tuned, it was fine tuned try to kill us

[@smashexentertainment676]

The easiest way: god is apparently all-powerful, so hypothetically he could create any universe with 'you' in it. And therefore fine-tuning argument is meaningless.

[@artemisiachristodoulaki6305]

(Just want to know ) is this claim connected with the weak anthropic principle ?

[@JSythe]

I can’t wait for someone to debunk this video. In short, this video was a complete straw man. . When an atheist says god of the gaps, it’s to point out that you’re using that fallacy. Atheists don’t say that because we don’t know, therefore you’re wrong and we’re right. What they’re saying is you shouldn’t assume that it’s god. Atheists have a skeptical view when it comes to unknown knowledge and the existence of god which means that no, atheist don’t try to fill the gap with something of there own. Another thing, when atheists talk about intelligence people having an answer, they’re not saying they know for sure. They’re only suggesting a possibility other than god that theists are known for neglecting.

[@WhatsTheTakeaway]

But you truly DON'T know.

[@nagilumx6715]

Atheism is actually the straight, because it commits three fallacies of reason: (1) ad hominem; (2) hasty generalization; (3) fear of the unknown. The expression "God of the gaps" is evidence of the first, saying "No God exists" is evidence of the second, and an unwillingness to search for known and theoretical particles and forces which might constitute "empirical" evidence for the existence of the supernatural is evidence of the third. If you're not guilty of these, we need empirical evidence that you're not. Don't gawk at me. YOU HAVE WORK TO DO!

[@JSythe]

1. You might want to look up the definition of ad hominem. God of the gaps is a variation of the argument from ignorance fallacy. It's something to say in response to a fallacious argument. That's not ad hominem. 2. Most atheists, or at least the ones you see on youtube, don't assert that there is no god. They say that there's no evidence to believe in one. It's simply burden of proof. 3. Admitting we don't know is literally the first step in the scientific method. Because we admit we don't know, it motivates us to find out the truth. I don't fully understand what you mean by "forces which might constitute "empirical" evidence for the existence of the supernatural is evidence of the third" but to the best of my understanding, and rephrase that point if i'm wrong, it sounds like you're accusing scientists of covering up proof of the super natural or at least having some bias against the super natural. If you're going to suggest a conspiracy theory of this magnitude, you should provide substantial evidence for it. Not all scientists, especially early scientists, go into the field with the intent of disproving god. In fact, you can find quotations of famous early scientists that prove that they still believe in god.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Why should we not assume theism, when the evidence points there? kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKOaZamZgt2qi80

[@Stansbrokenhandle]

@@InspiringPhilosophy In no way whatsoever does any evidence point towards a god or gods doing anything ever. I wonder why it is that everything over time, once "figured out", moves from the God bucket to the Science bucket and never the other way...

[@RandomYTubeuser]

I'd say the difference is that something like the theory of gravity is precisely defined and, most importantly, falsifiable. If most people used a theory of god that was precisely defined and falsifiable I would have no problem with it.

[@geras.3813]

RandomYTubeuser But the theory of God IS falsifiable, you could prove the premises of the arguments are false. But in my experience, no atheist has been able to do that, at least not the ones that I have argued with.

[@RandomYTubeuser]

If by premises you mean those of one of the many "Arguments for God's Existence", there's immediately some problems: 1: They all argue for a different definition of God. God is not well defined so it can be understood as many different things. There really is no way to have a falsifiable, respectable theory of something if you can't precisely define it. 2. Even if you were to disprove one of the arguments, the theist would just claim the other arguments prove God anyway. On the other hand, if even 1 experiment out of 1000 disproved something like gravity, we would give up the theory immediately. 3. Many of those premises are themselves unfalsifiable. But you are free to give me an example of a premise that can be falsified by a simple fact we can demonstrate or experiment we can do and I will try to falsify it. 4. All of the theistic arguments have been refuted numerous times. You can look it up on KZbin. 5. The God that most people believe in is not the God whose existence is argued on these Arguments. So most people could retain their belief in an unfalsifiable God even if all these Arguments were proven false. (Again, this is because God is not precisely defined)

[@AutoGamerZ_]

+advocate_Of_Reason I've never seen a logically consistant, falsifiable, precisely defined explanation for why god exists. Would you mind giving me an example I can look at? (as If you couldn't present such an argument, you'd be making a shifting the burden fallacy in asking someone to disproof something which hasn't ben proven.)

[@geras.3813]

@@AutoGamerZ_ Sorry, I did not see your message until now. Mmm I'll pick Aquinas first three ways, look them up. And tell me what you think (:

[@geras.3813]

@@AutoGamerZ_ Hey I got a notification saying you replied, but I can't see the reply for some reason, maybe there's a bug on youtube or something.

[@loveistruth5713]

The very fact that there is an existence proves that there is God. It's impossible to have nothing and it's also impossible to have something. With God all things are possible. And nothing is impossible with God. And without Consciousness there is no existence. I'll stick with love. Since that is the foundation of all creation. Or existence. Praise God from whom all things flow.

[@janwaska521]

Biology research has turned the table and now we see Darwinism of the gaps all around. Most new discoveries are increasingly pointing to complex functionally specified information processing biological systems that empirically we know that could only be the result of rational intentional conception. But the materialists argue that science still can’t explain it but eventually will. However, when new discoveries shed more light on the research, they increasingly reveal more control and regulatory programs, thus removing any possible explanatory power from natural (unguided) processes. That’s why we look forward, with increasing anticipation, to reading the coming research papers about the newest discoveries, which will reaffirm the exclusivity of the rational intentional conception as the origin of the biological systems.

[@hexa1905]

biological system are already explained. evolution, abiogenesis, no god needed. put your god somewhere else or he won't survive like every others.

[@drakoyaboi3344]

My arsenal grows!

[@akosikuyzak]

Thanks again, IP. I have just a couple of clarifications: you made an analogy with God arguments and the theory of gravity. But there's a big difference: as you've said the first sort are philosophical while gravity is scientific. I'd like to know whether the difference matters to your argument. Secondly, since you invoke gravity as an explanation, what do you think about the scientific status of Intelligent Design theory? This theory invokes intelligent agency as the best explanation to certain facts in nature. ID theory would seem more at home with you than theistic evolution. It would help me a lot to know your view on the matter (not the least of which is because I'm currently writing my MA thesis on it!). As always, God bless to your ministry!

[@akosikuyzak]

Jim Merrilees I'd like to delve more deeply if that's fine. First, why do you think ID is an oxymoron? I don't think there's anything contradictory with the idea. Secondly, claiming that ID theory is just creationism in cheap tuxedo, as some would call it (not you obviously but you get the point), would be misleading. Even ID theorists are aware that they are arguing simply from the effects in nature to the cause which they identify as intelligent agency. The motive or identity of the designer is presently beyond empirical science to detect. Lastly, while the context of the discussion is religious, my point of bringing out ID is to verify its scientitic legitimacy not to use it as a support for God's existence because I don't think that such a limited way would be able to show that God as the most perfect being exists. Anyway, thanks for taking the time.

[@matthewmilone9414]

+I am a Crusader -- My problem with the Intelligent Design movement is that, if it really is as general as it claims to be and not simply rebranded creationism (i.e. the belief that the Christian god created the universe and life in accordance with the events described in Genesis), then it's unfalsifiable because all conceivable observations could be taken as evidence for some conceivable designer, whether it be the Christian god, Poseidon, aliens, or a deceptive deity that wants to appear non-existent. You might be able to test for a specific designer and method of design, though (e.g. that the designer is not deceptive and created the Earth within the last 10,000 years).

[@DeathTheKid6778]

You have to provide evidence to actually be right. Literally all you said was, "Nah-ah, theism is right because I don't care for updated term definitions and thinking is hard so God exists."

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

ok, here you go: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZrIaqCrqKx4p7M&app=desktop kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKOaZamZgt2qi80

[@nunyabisnass1141]

It really doesn't matter if it wasn't intended to be used against metaphysics. A hammer was never meant to be used as a pry bar, but sometimes works just as well. It really does sound like youre trying to claim ownership over a term, and dictate its use.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

As well as explain using it against natural theology is just circular reasoning.

[@nunyabisnass1141]

InspiringPhilosophy that's the problem isn't it? When does any extreme logical end not resemble circular reasoning? God is because god is, science is because science is, do as I say not as I do.... fundamentally they're all the same arguments with different nouns. There's no absolute reconciliation that justifies the merited of alternative and competing thoughts.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Sure there is, which can explain all the data with the least amount of assumptions. I say theism. If i am wrong offer a better explanation that makes less assumptions and can explain more.

[@BlazinXile]

​@@nunyabisnass1141 Yea. That's not the only problem though. IP has an interesting way of arguing. The definitions are carefully worded to fit his argument, almost twisted. The definitions aren't wrong, but they're not "right" either. And the only conclusion to any of his arguments is theism. So unless someone at literal concrete counter proof to the argument then, the argument might as well be rendered moot because it wont go anywhere else. I have nothing personal against IP. Its just the way they argue, it seems to be lacking "integrity", in that it is heavily biased towards requiring a conclusion that must end with theism. And the the evidence that the evidence is almost shoehorned to fit the conclusion. That's my personal opinion. But I'm sure there are many people who see where I'm coming from.

[@nunyabisnass1141]

BlazinXile lots of people have problems with ip's reasoning, theres a lot of "if," "then" speculation which i wouldn't expect to find from any notable logitician. But he is legitimatley a good dude out of the numerous frustrating conversations ive had with him over the years, thats remained the same. But you have to understand that these are sermons. Anything can then be shoehorned into position after you wedge in enough doubt in the vocabulary and "interpretation." So then why not Vishnu and the various ways we can interpret chaos, so he can be the foinding deity? I dont know. The whole grand solipsism hypothesis really bugs me because even if true that we are just a simulation observed into existence by a deity, then we still dont actually exist, we're just part of some one elses imagination, how can we say anything with any degree of confidence if we cant even be confident of our own existence? Just more and more questions.

[@fubaralakbar6800]

"Someday God will give us the answers." "Someday science will give us the answers." In what way are these two statements even remotely different?

[@thomaspaine7098]

One has actually provided answers while the other has failed to even provide evidence of its existence

[@TheBlackDogChronicles]

"But all of nature itself, still implies a creator". Does it? Does a creator create flawed designs? If I was to present the huge list of things in nature that are awfully designed, the list would possibly be too long for KZbin, but we will start with the most obvious. The universe is vast in size but, as far as we can ascertain, primarily made up of 'dead matter'' material that did not correctly form into active stars or anything else. You imply that this is the product of a 'creator' is suggesting that someone would design a factory for the purpose of producing a product, and primarily produce broken, useless components of that product. Now, we do not produce factories like that. Does it stand to reason that a creator, clever enough to produce a universe, would make such wasteful blunders? No. What we suffer from in understanding this, is solipsism. We exist in the universe and, because we have evolved to survive, we naturally reason that the universe was created in its entirety for our personal benefit. I feel it is definitely reasonable for primitive humans to have believed this, but they were wholly ignorant of the incomprehensible vastness of a potentially infinite universe (1). It is simply why god of the gaps applies. You are trying to do the bait-and-switch trick to excuse why you want to use god of the gaps when it is convenient with you. In fact, you actually apply it within the statement that I am countering. What would of course be better is coming up with a better argument than god of the gaps, rather than weakly shackling yourself to it. If this personal god exists, there surely must be some good, empirical evidence for it. If not, it is perhaps time to recognise that the myth needs to be reconstructed to come into alignment with what is observably truth. Faiths have had renaissance events before now. Why not again?

[@trevormckey5002]

This is so good and exactly what I was looking to answer. Thank you

[@brandwijkgg]

This is the biggest God of the gaps Argument possible!

[@hawke123]

You make great content, keep it up.

[@justathought973]

It is not, it's dishonest, he still hasn't proven a god exists.

[@Mr_L-oi9re]

@@justathought973 IP has not been intellectually dishonest, and in other videos it has given evidence and arguments to the existence of God. Search and do not be lazy

[@DarkBlade37]

@@justathought973 Ah, the classic BS accusation of dishonesty.

[@pleaseenteraname1103]

@@justathought973 no he’s not dishonest, he’s an incredibly honest guy Who is willing to admit that he’s wrong about something when the oven is this proves it, he’s taken down a few videos because later evidence came out and disprove his video, you’re gonna call that dishonest.

[@YellowScar2014]

@@justathought973 Do you mean in this video or in general? Because he has made *other* videos dedicated to proving god's existence while using *this* one to shoot down a counterargument.

[@buckleysangel7019]

Excellent video. By the way there is a better theory than gravity, it’s dielectricity.

[@hecagamer]

I just love theists. The way they argue is a testament to human creativity. The length they'll go dsto desperately try to reanimate and keep alive a dead idea, beat to the ground, treaded over repeatedly by all fields of science, but will still insist and say "no! It's not dead yet! This tiny bit moved, there, I swear!" Couldn't you guys just be humble enough to just say that you don't know if a god exists? *No one* can pretend they know that god exists, let alone say that it's this or that kind. Pretending anything else is nothing but extreme arogance. The point of the god of the gaps argument is that saying that there are things science can't explain (ie: how the universe began) can't be received as an argument for the existence of a god because we have many precedents of things falsely attributed to god that are now explained otherwise. That's it! It doesn't disprove god, it just takes away from you yet another one of the many arguments theists made up to justify hating homos or putting a veil on women.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

We have evidence to points to theism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKOaZamZgt2qi80

[@hecagamer]

InspiringPhilosophy Yes, it would seem like you have indirect evidence... Only if you leave out what bothers you and overinterpret scientific data. I don't really want to spend 25 minutes to watch something that I've already heard. We aren't even certain wether the universe is based on information or not, and, even if we did, how would it justify of the existence of a God? Can't it just be that the universe is made of information all by itself without any god being involved? Then again, if it was evidence for a god, how would it prove that it's your god and not, say, a kid in a superior dimension who made a universe without giving a fuck about us, supposing they know we exist, for a show and tell class? You couldn't say it's not the case, and that idea or yours are equally likely.

[@hecagamer]

Smidlee We're not claiming that there a god-cell or whatnot. Where'd you even get that? Atheists only say that, since there is no valid reason for them to believe in any god, they don't believe in one.Your god never spoke to me, or enlightened me, or performed a miracle for me, or gave me any reason to believe in him. Why would I bother with a god that requires puny humans to tell others to believe in him when he should be able to give me the evidence I need?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

If you are not willing to actually listen to the evidence then you are just making excuses and don't really want there to be evidence.

[@hecagamer]

Smidlee Actually, abiogenesis makes way more sense to me that the tale of creation, and this Frankencell, as you call it, isn't that hard to picture once you get a good enough understanding of chemistry and is actually very simple. Yes, it did happen by random chance over the course of billions of years. Billions of years is impossible to fathom for our minds, so of course it seems counterintuitive that it happened by random chance, but on a veeeeeery long period with hundreds of thousands, if not more, of the molecules that can form life bumping into each other every second, it's almost inevitable that life happened. I may have been born blind, but even a blind person that lears about optics can accept the idea that rainbows exist because all the facts pointing to it add up. Then again, even if I am blind, all I'm saying is, since I have no way to observe it, that none of my other senses are able to perceive it, and that the explanation we give me of it doesn't sound logical to me, then I'd rather not believe in it, especially when that god of yours, all powerful that he is, should easily be able to work around my blindness.

[@fred_derf]

Using an Equivocation Fallacy to appeal to an earlier God of The Gaps Fallacy in order to claim that theists don't resort to God of The Gaps Fallacies is ridiculous.

[@lysanderofsparta3708]

That makes no sense.

[@jeremyg7261]

@@lysanderofsparta3708 I mean if you are stupid it doesn’t I guess

[@raphaelfeneje486]

Damn!! People don't think 🥱

[@ClarenceThompkins]

So the thing is your argument starts with the presupposition that the bible is true, there for God is the best "evidence" for the existence of reality. And instead of understanding every evidence against it, you pick and choose the ideas that fits with your bible and cast others out that you don't understand, don't want to understand or ignorantly or deliberately misinterpret. If there was no history of the bible, it would be almost impossible to recreate it. If all the science text books and knowledge that we've solved vanished we would get right back to understanding and discovering the truth because science is repeatable, tested and not just based on one source or result.

[@loganpharis6747]

I mean, this video isn't really about the Bible at all

[@ClarenceThompkins]

@@loganpharis6747 Yet you need the bible for a certain god if you are not using the god in the bible then what's the best evidence of that god? As reality stands, no god is needed in this universe.

[@loganpharis6747]

@@ClarenceThompkins Could you rephrase

[@loganpharis6747]

@@ClarenceThompkins Could you rephrase

[@ClarenceThompkins]

@@loganpharis6747 in order to say that a god created everything in that we perceive as reality you must first describe who this good is and what evidence you have for it. Once we are able to get a basis on what this god is then we can start gathering the evidence of this god's interaction towards this universe. If the evidence for this god is the bible, then that's not sufficient evidence for an existence for that god because of the contradictions and errors within it. If it's the Quran then I don't have enough knowledge of it but we would have to go through and see what evidence there is in that to support the facts we know of reality. Same goes for anything else that may come along. Just because we don't know what happened before the big bang doesn't mean "god did it" explains anything because you need to first define god and back it up with evidence and so far the most evidence most believers have are the bible or Quran.

[@Suddha_Bhakti]

Can you please do a video on Eschcatology, the End Times, and The Second Coming? Was Jesus speaking in parables or is the book of revelation meant to be taken literally?

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

How is Insipid Philophan going to answer that? Jesus said he would return, on a cloud, long ago and his parables were always labeled as such. The second coming failed as prophecy as LONG time ago.

[@balanvladut3696]

Everyone wants to prove God or science, or believe in God or science... But none of them wants to find wisdom in everything, only knowledge. Knowledge without wisdom is death, and the same is wisdom without knowledge. Simple as that.

[@MalusTmcraeensis]

I believe that science is just a way of studying and gaining knowledge of God's creations. God created everything, and we can observe the things he has made, and science can not disprove or prove God because he is not a physical being. And saying something like "if it can not be explained by science, it doesn't exist." Is like saying, "My metal detector can not detect plastic. Therefore, plastic doesn't exist."

[@lysanderofsparta3708]

The abuse of "God of the gaps" is itself a gaps fallacy. Suffice to say, it's a bad-faith cop-out and a dodge -- like most lame atheist objections these days.

[@mrsneakattack3531]

Hey IP. What's your opinion on sam harris's argument against free will on that we can't control our thoughts.

[@dmx7329]

he made multiple videos on that go on his channel and scroll down bro :D

[@dmx7329]

no problem

[@thuscomeguerriero]

Go and try to convince a man locked in solitary confinement that he shouldn't feel so bad being the case that his desire for freedom to do as he pleases is based on his faulty perception of reality. That he, in fact, is no more inprisoned behind bars than he would be roaming the countryside. Philosophers man..

[@ąყŋ-o8q]

MR Sneak Attack here’s a thought: If we can’t control our thoughts, and therefore can’t fully trust them, how can Sam Harris trust that you can’t trust his thoughts? How can I trust this thought? lol, just kidding, I’m not a determinist.

[@bassman_0074]

one thus come the fact that there are immaterial aspects of the intellect does not deny there are immaterial aspects of it as well.

[@quanbuttuz8510]

Honestly it really gets annoying I wish that religious people would stop Asserting their beliefs into something that has not been proven yet it really gets on my fucking nerves.

[@petersalucci5444]

Yeees! Thank you so much IP

[@d.j.cassidy1642]

Science= Man's Understanding of The World Creation= God's Understanding of The World What I mean is that Science attempts to define the nature and behavior of the world without God, but this doesn't actually exclude God from the world. Science is simply how we comprehend everything and isn't the only explanation . For Example, Science says a natural force created the universe but God says it was him that created the universe. Atheists try to say that Science doesn't go by God's Bidding but they have to remember that ignoring God doesn't make him go away. Another Example, God uses miracles to cure one's sickness but Science describes that the sickness was cured from a natural phenomenon. All Atheists do is psychologically eliminate God's interference and tell themselves that God was never there. It's like rewriting history or putting important facts aside.

[@hexa1905]

are you serious, god is in 0% of scientific theory. we DO NOT need god to understand the world. it's easier without god since scientists are more likely to not have a god then normal poeple.

[@d.j.cassidy1642]

@@hexa1905 You're wrong. Many scientific theories are just religious theories except they revolve around a natural force instead of a magical force

[@hexa1905]

@@d.j.cassidy1642 what scientific theories are religious theories ? you mean like evolution explain life ? then god is useless to explain life..

[@d.j.cassidy1642]

@@hexa1905 Natural Force created the universe? God created the universe. Natural Force created Evolution? Scientific Explanation of Natural Formation is just Religious Creation without God. If Science isn't Magical then why is Scientific Origin so similar to Godly Creation?

[@hexa1905]

@@d.j.cassidy1642 you make it similar but it is opposite. have you read genesis ? how can science explain better then the "creator" ?

[@Archangel657]

Outstanding video! Although I believe that the atheists will continue to cry "God of the Gaps!" untill the end of time.

[@DManCAWMaster]

They really have nothing else

[@nagilumx6715]

Just like they'll keep saying, "Where's the evidence?" as if there is none.

[@PuhiPureBloOdYT]

@@nagilumx6715 there is NO EVIDENCE idiots

[@DManCAWMaster]

@@salpertia Argument from outrage

[@t-rizzle0509]

@@salpertia - Regardless of your personal vendetta against the existence of God, you simply can't refute any of IP arguments; he destroys your atheism. All you can do is squirm. And just because YOU do not accept the existing evidence for the existence of God doesn't mean that that evidence doesn't exist. It most certainly exists; you are no arbiter of truth.

[@JosueWithContext]

New logo is 100% better 👌🏼

[@9tailjeza]

false. god of the gaps does not only apply to natural processes, it applies whenever there is a shortage in knowledge. if people said gravity solves the data and also claimed gravity wrote ancient books, was sentient and was above space and time and unobservable - that woud be a problem. in the last portion of the video, you literally made a god of the gaps argument. - you don’t know something i.e. there is a gap in established knowledge - therefore (insert made up answer) if you insist, sure i can make up answers to solve all those questions. why does space-time have a beginning? because pixies. why is there fine tuning? there actually isn’t, the pixies were very sloppy. why is space-time emergent? again, pixies. you see, my pixie worldview can answer any and all your questions, yet for whatever reason, it is unsatisfying.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Ok, naturalism is a shortage in knowledge so anytime you infer naturalism you are filling gap in our knowledge with naturalism. The same logic applies because all you are doing is as I said at the end, assuming theism is not true so any evidence that implies theism must just be gap.

[@9tailjeza]

InspiringPhilosophy i’ve never assumed naturalism, naturalism is simply the name that i give to the fact that everything that has ever been observed being natural. i’ve never assumed theism is not true, rather i simply find any and all arguments i’ve heard so far to be unconvincing. particularly “god of the gaps” arguments which simply point to gaps in established understanding of the universe. if whenever we didn’t understand something we said “must be gravity!” then that would be a gravity of the gaps argument. where does life come from? gravity! where does morality come from? gravity! why ...? gravity! that wiuld be gravity of the gaps, but we don’t do that. gravity is the description of one thing only. if god was only a word you ised to describe the origin of the universe, or the origin of life or any of those questions, that might be fine, but you would be unwarranted in assuming they all have the same origin and very unwarranted in also believing this god inspires ancient books or reincarnated into human flesh, or is supernatural.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Why are they gaps? That doesn't make sense. If the evidence points to theism you don't get to call it a gap until you find an explanation you like. None of my arguments are arguing from lack of information, for example: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y

[@9tailjeza]

InspiringPhilosophy what evidence for theism? it’s true. if there was evidence for theism, it wouldn’t be a gap. but the only “evidence” you have presented is “well, naturalists can’t explain this”. anyway, i’ll check out your other video.

[@joesteele3159]

Exept the pixies argument does not have an overwhelming amount of historical ancient manuscripts, archeological, and scientific evidence backing it up. Atheists tend to make non relevant metaphors to make the Bible and Christians look ignorant. It shouldn't be a quest to prove each other wrong. It should be an attempt to better understand why people believe what they believe even if it completely contradicts what you believe.

[@paulgray9558]

Loved it , keep it up.

[@vladd415]

So from your slide/table: Theism: "can explain" - but it doesn't. It just says "god did it" and end of story. No mechanism of HOW he did it. Nothing. Non-theism: "does not know" - exactly. And this is the honest position to be in, until we find evidence that supports . And asking "why" happened/ happens is a philosophical question. Science deals with "how" happens/ happened. I, for one, have little interest in "why" things happen, I'm more interested in "how" things happen. The universe could have been created to be the septic tank of some 4th dimensional being, for all I know. But that would make no difference to the fact that the universe exists, and we have the capabilities to discover how it works.

[@Boris99999]

All the “god of the gaps” fallacy says is that you can’t explain one unknown thing using another unknown thing. No method of deduction or thought experiment will help you make any sensible conclusion about anything unless you have sufficient amount of data. That is why god can not explain other phenomena just as those phenomena can’t explain god. Abusing fallacy is like abusing logic or science - that is something that could never be done!

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I guess you better tell all the theoretical physicists developing M-theory or brane cosmology that those things are unknown and cannot be used to explain the universe. And also, your assessment is false, as natural theology, going back to Aquinas, does offer an account of a theistic God. So the ontology is not unknown. In this case we do have enough data to get to theism: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKOaZamZgt2qi80 kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZrIaqCrqKx4p7M

[@Boris99999]

I am a theoretical physicist myself pal! And even if it is called theoretical - you use a lot of real data to support it! Like let`s look at the Maxwell's equations - Maxwell didn`t write them at random - they were created based on a huge amount of data of how electro-magnetic fields and charged particles actually behave. The same goes to the condensed matter physics and Optical physics. Please don`t mix in actual tested scientific theories and hypotheses (and M-theory and Brane cosmology, while they are intriguing, are just that - hypotheses) that have yet to be proven by real data. Even so these hypotheses are based on theoris that are based on imperical data - no matter how much you deny it - they still use the data that was obtained by previous generations of scientists. And by the way - if tomorrow a new data will appear that disproves these hypotheses - they will either be changed to correspond to the new data or will be completely discarded in favor of better hypotheses. Are you ready to do the same about your beliefs? Where are the measurements for your god? How much does it weigh, what are the coordinates of it`s location? What type of energy is it capable to radiate? What physical atributes does it have? How does it interact with matter? What data do you use? No amount of studding ancient texts unsupported by actual measurements will get you any actual results, and if you think that it is the same as what theoretical physicists do - you clearly have never done any natural science project (physics, chemistry, biology) your entire life...

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

And so do I went I present my arguments. That was my point. Of course you use actual data: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKOaZamZgt2qi80 kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZrIaqCrqKx4p7M M-theory and brane cosmology are purely theoretical. we don't have experimental or testable data for them yet. Just like with relativity, the theory was first presented then we found data for it. M-theory is currently in that stage. Sigh* Assuming measurements have to be made is absurd. As I said in the video all metaphysical theories are based on probability and inference to the best explanation. You don't get to just apply a special standard to theism you don't apply to something like naturalism, physicalism or materialism. In fact, you are assuming something called logical positivism in saying it has to be measured, which itself cannot be measured.

[@Bshwag]

If you can't prove a god exists first. Then you use god as a part of your argument such as "god is the reason natural processes exist". That is a god of the gaps argument. The theory of gravity simply describes what we observe.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

No, we offer arguments and evidence:kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKOaZamZgt2qi80

[@justathought973]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Your links don't prove a god exist, damn! you're just assuming.

[@peterh7575]

@@InspiringPhilosophy where in those videos is the evidence? saying that you have evidence is cute, but you need to show the evidence. so. where? what is it?

[@peterh7575]

@Johan Strydom I did, now, do you know what "evidence" is? what a proof of something is? I don't think you do.

[@topper009]

The unprovable and unknownable multi-verse is the ultimate atheism of the gaps!

[@isfinannaire9877]

Most atheists, though, admit that they don't know how the universe came to be. It might turn out to be a multi-verse. It might be something completely different. We might never find out. But we don't mock other people for not accepting unfounded assertions.

[@NowiGreen]

and who the hell subscribes to that?

[@TheBruces56]

Keep in mind we thought we understood gravity after Newton but then it was reimagined by Einstein

[@AutoGamerZ_]

+TheBruces56 Yep. What we observe gravity to be didn't change, but the first explanation as given by Newton at some point didn't fit what we observed, so there had to be another explanation of how gravity works, which Einstein gives. This is relevant to the video how exactly?

[@isabellegerrie4083]

I am agnostic, and I have been entertaining the idea of divine design. I am however having an issue with the comparison between gravity and god. Gravity has mathmatics equtions and observable phenomena that could only occur if it were true, proving its existence, but god has none of these (to my understanding). This leads me to my question: what do you think are the mathematical equations and observable phenomena that prove god's exitence?

[@englishup1]

The "gap" falls on both sides! Thats why its called "faith"! So a scientist's faith in science is just as equal as a theists' faith in God. Best thing to do is shut up, believe whay u believe, and it will all work out. Very simple

[@UnclePhil73]

I have always believed that if we believe in a loving God, then we have to accept scientific evidence for one simple reason, how could we progress as a race or even live in the first place if there weren’t constants about the universe that we can rely on being true? Such as, if you do x, then food will grow, if you do y, then your house will stand, etc. So I just see science as figuring out those constants God put into place.

[@gtm9212]

Well said

[@Manuel-kl8jc]

Meanwhile every atheist I've seen debating the Kalam (which I don't champion, as an Aristotelian-Thomist) evades the conclusions by adopting an Atheism of the Gaps. Then again, this is the actual modern stance/definition of Atheism in non-academia. We don't know, therefore Atheism.

[@christianalter3305]

I understood the Kalam to be derived from Aristotle's ideas of a being of pure actuality being necessary to avoid infinite contingent beings. Where does the Thomist view disagree with the Kalam? I'm not looking for a debate here. Just wanting to understand where you're coming from.

[@sethtipps7093]

@@christianalter3305 The Kalam does not mention Aristotle's act and potency. It assumes the universe had a beginning as the first premise of the argument. Aristotle thought the universe was eternal, without beginning. Aquinas didn't think a beginning could be demonstrated philosophically and used Aristotle's argument.

[@christianalter3305]

@@sethtipps7093 Alright. Thanks for the reply.

[@Manuel-kl8jc]

@Jim Merrilees Except there is evidence. Logical and Historical, so that's an weak excuse. With available evidence, regardless of whether Theist or Atheist, the Theist had made a decision based on available evidence, aka not a gap, while the atheist has made a decision based on gaps, in spite of evidence. He's saying "we do know, here's the logical argument & evidence". If you deny that, then we can use symbolic logic and completely undermine and destroy your epistemology. Now, onto your "things pulled out of bronze age folk asses." If the greatest philosophers formulating arguments based purely on logic & observation is stupid, then how stupid is it to deny logic and observation and also imply something came out of nothing and became everything? Thought so. So much pathos, not enough logos. As irrational & emotional as Hitchens.

[@Manuel-kl8jc]

@Jim Merrilees That's the problem, sonny. To debunk atheism, you only require Philosophy & Natural Theology. Attacking the Bible wouldn't help you here. If you think we're arguing from authority, then you're mistaken. For atheism to be false, all we need is to show a God exists & there are plenty arguments in this channel doing just that. Your comment was a great laugh!

[@JoeHinkle11]

Incredibly articulate! I love the counter example of “gravity of the gaps.” Keep up the good work IP.

[@josiahtejeros4896]

"My argument against God is that there is nothing in the universe that cannot be explained, in prospect at least, without invoking that complex hypothesis. In other words, there are simpler explanations, or at least the prospect of simpler explanations, for everything. Because there are simpler explanations, or the prospect of them, there is no need to burden our understanding with the assertion that there is something more, namely an incomprehensible God." ~Peter Atkins, Chemistry Professor University of Oxford

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

That is a pretty bad argument since we do not argue God by inserting him in natural processes: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y

[@pedroamaralcouto]

The Ascent of Man, Henry Drummond: «There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the fields of Nature and the books of Science in search of gaps - gaps which they will fill up with God. (…) When things are known, that is to say, we conceive them as natural, on Man's level ; when they are unknown, we call them divine-as if our ignorance of a thing were the stamp of its divinity. If God is only to be left to the gaps in our knowledge, where shall we be when these gaps are filled up? And if they are never to be filled up, is God only to be found in the disorders of the world?»

[@adambulking406]

Face it people, none of us have any clue how the universe came to be, why we're here, or what is actually going on. None of us can prove anything.

[@daintymarie5271]

True. Guess i have the same conclusion too from this video. We as humans while here on earth can never explain the supernatural in a naturalistic view. If there is a god, he/she created our brains with a limit to only see and comprehend whats natural and logical.

[@Nomansland77]

The, only problem, i'm seeing with this Ip, is From my understanding, and still new and discerning. Is that, You're saying that Theistic beliefs, are the best *Current* Model for explaining the universe. This, might be where difference, in theology comes out, or maybe just the wording needs some context. But it implies, That, at the current time and moment, the Theistic model is the best explanation we have. But it also seems to give up ground, implying, that maybe one day, the same could be true, that Materialism is true. Cause our model, is in Flux. In, Orthodoxy, as i understand it. They wouldn't really go down this route, cause they'd say, that's a Philosophical error, in Treating god, in the *Generic* Category, but in Orthodoxy, God's not a Generic being. Maybe some Orthodox can help chime in. But that's what i've understood from their position thus far. And seems to make the most Coherent sense, if you take the christian world view seriously. Is that Orthodox, Philosophy, and Theology gives, it seems at the moment for me, as i understand, the more Coherent worldview. We, want the most full, and adult worldview. Like for instance, i would say, the most full, and Coherent *Adult* Worldview, of Materialism, Atheism, you could get to would be someone like Hume, Or Nietzsche, and that usually means following through with a set of beliefs logically. For instance, there's a talk Nietzsche gives, in i believe it's Genealogies of Morals. Where, he actually does a rebuke against Evangelistic Atheist, and I'm Paraphrasing here. * All you atheist out there, espousing There's no God, There's no God, There's no God. You're just as bad as the Christians, You still believe in Capital T, Truth, You're still out there believing in absolutes, and Truth in the world, and Acting like an Evangelist, But if your Atheism, is True, it really just doesn't matter. You're just as bad, as the Christians Get out of my Face! If your materialism is true, Then there's ultimately no, Truth, there's only *Grand Narritves*, in other words, it's just your opinion vs my opinion* But, you still had some good points. Especially near the end. Really hit the nail on the head, but. There's distinction on the Orthodox worldview, vs Protestantism, and Even Roman Catholicism. Either way, Hope to see more content from ya. And for me, i always remembered what Nietzsche said, in the argument, i just Paraphrased. Cause, i notice you get a lot of people like that, on your vids still living in 2008...

[@thuscomeguerriero]

Hello, please..one question. How would you demonstrate that there are no truths, only opinion? Seems to me your making an Objective statement. Yet I would argue that, by your own admission, your not entitled to make objective statements. Is not your statement about the Nature of truth NOT ITSELF a Grand narrative..the FACT that THERE ARE NO GRAND NARRATIVES ? If not..why bother with any opinion whatsoever? It's pure comedy, if not a not so clever attempt to dodge legitimate debate. What do you think?

[@Nomansland77]

You make a good point Actually. But i brought that up. To show that there's more Coherent positions out there, than just Dawkins, and Sam harris that so many people are idolizing. But you make a good point. In fact, One of the Academic, Philosophers I've been watching actually, brings up similar points that you're making. short vid only 1 min. kzbin.info/www/bejne/jmnShqR9lNBksKc But it's not my argument it's Nietzsche's Argument. And i was saying that there's all types of worldviews out their, and there's more than likely an Adult worldview out there. That's the same for Materialism/Naturalism. Hope my that helps. I just used that as an example of a more Coherent, Atheist position. To say, i think personally from where i'm at in developing a worldview that, Orthodoxy offers the full Adult Christian worldview to IP, And some Disagreements with his points. If that helps to understand. But no, i don't personally believe in what Nietzsche is saying about his Materialism/Relativism. Just that, if i was a Materialist/Relativism. That would be the most Logical Coherent position i could take up. Hope that cleared things up.

[@gornser]

Science works on the basis on methodological naturalism. It's answer to the existence of something beyond materialism is "We don't know". This makes your presentation basically dishonest.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

I didn't attack methodological naturalism.

[@Xenosaurian]

Elephants didn't "evolve from primitive mammals" and fish didn't "evolve into tetrapods", and it's not exactly appropriate to insert your evolutionistic philosophy into this presentation as if they were real phenomena.

[@Bushido1274]

One that supplies inference, evidence, or a syllogism, to conclude and cohere with the premise/s, is not guilty of a gap fallacy.

[@jaybirdjetwings7516]

I'm really happy you made this, god of the gaps arguments makes atheist feel like they can debunk any argument for god. Amen!

[@diabe313]

I’m a Muslim and i love this..❤️👑

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Well, we have common ground on this issue. :)

[@justathought973]

Most deluded minds would.

[@sonnyjim5268]

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. " It doesn't say God only created those bits we don't understand - he created it all! The more we learn from science the more the majesty of God is revealed.

[@lonelyguyofficial8335]

Agreed.

[@phoenixmichaels]

+ Sonny Jim Horse Hockey. This is theism riding the coattails of scientific discovery. Every time we increase our knowledge of the natural state, theists exclaim "See!!! God is even MORE astounding than we thought!". Except none of those exclamations came BEFORE it was revealed by scientific inquiry... indeed many were resisted and even FOUGHT by theists until the evidence became so very overwhelming . This is what is called intellectual dishonesty. There's some small, cowering part of every theist out there, some small dark corner in his/her mind, some dark closet that must never be opened, where all things fearful are shoved out of the light of truth and the scrutiny of reason. This closet contains the boogyman, the monster under your bed, and the concept of your own annihilation, of oblivion... of being alone with no SkyDaddy coming to the rescue. Theists discovered something about themselves rather early: that they cannot bear the weight of their own existence.

[@lonelyguyofficial8335]

@@phoenixmichaels Could you give an example of a theist doing that? :)

[@ft4903]

Lonely GuyOfficial galileo

[@phoenixmichaels]

+Lonely GuyOfficial Could you be more specific? Do you want examples of scientists being censored/punished for "blasphemous" scientific discoveries (Like Galileo) which, as I said, were resisted and fought with threats of violence or death? Or do you want examples of theism finally EMBRACING (switching horses midstream as necessary, from opposition to endorsement, to remain relevant in a more modern world of discovery and knowledge) scientific discovery and claiming it as proof of A god (such as DNA, evolution, cosmology, archaeology)? There are arguments conflating each of these with the god assertion made by theists, and are easily found right here on the 'Tube.

[@jay-ti7kd]

An explanation has been offered for several other gods Hence an explanation will be offered in time for this one too That’s pretty consistent

[@kneo12]

It seems to me that all the atheists responses have been are "but the evidence you use for God is not absolutely certain, thus you don't know, thus God of the gaps"

[@ąყŋ-o8q]

Another great one from IP, love it!

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

"Another great one from IP," Another preposterous load of BS from Inept Philosopher. It is just as pathetic a load of nonsense as ever other video I have seen from this incompetent. There was no Great Flood so HIS god is utterly imaginary. He does not even have a god of the gaps. He has a god that was disproved in the 1800's by CHRISTIANS when they went looking for the evidence that would exist if there had been such a flood. They didn't find it. Because it never happened. Ethelred Hardrede

[@EthelredHardrede-nz8yv]

@Mr Dyntasy "t was a local flood." Not in the Bible. Have you even read Genesis? It was intended to murder all that breathes or crawls and was no on the Big Ass Gopher Wood Boat. There WAS a LOCAL flood, that did NOT kill everyone, even locally. Killed a lot of people but it did not match the Bible. A known purely local flood of the Tigris-Euphrates. en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flood_myth#Claims_of_historicity Claims of historicity[edit] See also: Outburst flood Nanabozho in Ojibwe flood story from an illustration by R.C. Armour, in his book North American Indian Fairy Tales, Folklore and Legends, (1905). In ancient Mesopotamia, the Sumerian King List reads After kingship came down from heaven .... the kingship was taken to Shuruppak. In Shuruppak, Ubara-Tutu became king; he ruled for 5 sars and 1 ner. In 5 cities 8 kings; they ruled for 241,200 years. Then the flood swept over. Excavations in Iraq have revealed evidence of localized flooding at Shuruppak (modern Tell Fara, Iraq) and various other Sumerian cities. A layer of riverine sediments, radiocarbon dated to about 2900 BC, interrupts the continuity of settlement, extending as far north as the city of Kish, which took over hegemony after the flood. Polychrome pottery from the Jemdet Nasr period (3000-2900 BC) was discovered immediately below the Shuruppak flood stratum. Other sites, such as Ur, Kish, Uruk, Lagash, and Ninevah, all present evidence of flooding. However, this evidence comes from different time periods.[12] Geologically, the Shuruppak flood coincides with the 5.9 kiloyear event at the end of the Older Peron. It would seem to have been a localised event caused through the damming of the Kurun through the spread of dunes, flooding into the Tigris, and simultaneous heavy rainfall in the Nineveh region, spilling across into the Euphrates. In Israel, there is no such evidence of a widespread flood.[13] Given the similarities in the Mesopotamian flood story and the Biblical account, it would seem that they have a common origin in the memories of the Shuruppak account.[14] But that does not fit the Flood in the Bible. THAT never happened. There was no Noah nor a world wide flood. Local floods happen nearly every year. So since you don't actually believe in what is really written in the Bible, why do believe in the god of the Bible? Join the few, the rational, the Agnostic Ethelred Hardrede

[@AutoGamerZ_]

Let's try again, I made a comment before but I removed it because I realised I made a mistake; Rather then handling the main issues and we spiralled into a discussion. Let's devide this into subjects (and please respond per subject if you want to respond, as last time we ended up with responding to eachother the same thing multiple times because both of us ended up responding to arguments from eachother we had already answered if we had just read through a little bit further. -- Subject 1: What is god of the gaps and when does it occure: -- God of the Gaps is a fallacy is a form of argument from ignorance. (To simplify: "I don't know, therefore god", or much more commonly in argument "I didn't provide evidence, therefore god." and/or (as most commonly in such rebukes as the one you quoted:) *"Invalid evidence was provided, therefore all that's left is an assumption of god".* Note how for this fallacy to occure: - No alternate theory or argument has to be provided by the person claiming god of the gaps happened, this is not relevant in the first place. Accusing the other party of making a gap fallacy as well; only therefore would result in the conclusion both parties provided a fallatic argument. (meaning that deflection you made in the video implying that noting that someone who accuses another of this fallacy is using circular logic doesn't work, because it's not reliant on that.) - Whether or not an argument for gods existance exist or not is irrelevant, whether or not a functional one is provided in the argument being rebuked is. You kinda moved the goalposts from "This argument" to "Everything ever said in favour of [Subject]". (Resulting in a flawed argument.) It's quite simple, god of the gaps occures when: - We can't establish this with the information we have (or was provided in this argument.)- Therefore god. -- Subject 2: Why can't god be the answer? -- You've told me before: "Why can't god be the answer?" which is answerable simply as: It can be the answer, you just cannot conclude god is the answer solely based on the fact something can't be established with the available information. (Meaning you misrepresented what the result of god of the gaps fallacy is, by claiming it means that god can't be the answer, which isn't the case.) -- Subject 3: Evidence for god --- And as you insisted on me handling your evidence; let me at least handle the argument you provided in this video (And if you want to add more of them; feel free to, but please in paper, rather then video form as that is infinitely easier to respond to when writing in text like I am here): For reference: 1:40 - 2:06 as timestamps in your video. There's 3 arguments on the basis of gods existance here, let's handle all three of them: - 3.1 (Universe Beginning): We don't actually know if the universe had a beginning, Just because a singularity likely existed (given that's the best explanation we have for the insane expansion of the universe) doesn't mean it "began", it could also infer for example (These are not the only options) some form of cycle or loop, or that the concept of time itself we see doesn't work in all circumstances. This entire question is rediculously open ended, but is presented as if it's an establishable fact that the universe had a beginning. As that can't be established in the first place; this can't be evidence for god. - 3.2 (Finely Tuned Universe): We don't know if the universe is tuned, let alone fine-tuned. The assertion the universe could be fine-tuned relies on some entity (God) existing to fine-tune it, which would be the answer to the question, meaning the premise of the question relies on it's answer which relies on it's premise. (Circular Logic). - 3.3 (The universe functions like a quantum computer): Ehr what? The logic here quite literally is: Humans can use [Function A] as existant in the universe in [Way B], [Way B] was created by humans, therefore the Universe works in [Way B] and was created. But wait a minute: [Function A] only exists because of the universe, meaning all you're left with is: The universe functions according to it's own existance therefore god made the universe. How does it follow exactly that god made the universe? (Non Sequitur Fallacy). We can actually simplify this one even further because as far as we know something can't work in any other way then the way it works; so let's remove that part. What are we left with is: The universe exists therefore god made the universe. This is actually a brilliant example of god of the gaps fallacy, the logic provided doesn't work meaning the assertion god as the answer became baseless *(Within this argument, this doesn't mean there are no other possible arguments that can be given!)* meaning all that's left is: "We can't establish this therefore god." Subject 3 conclusion: None of these three arguments work.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

“No alternate theory or argument has to be provided by the person claiming god of the gaps happened, this is not relevant in the first place.” - No that is very relevant. If you argued evolution was true and I said no it isn’t but gave no alternative to how species came about, evolution would be the most likely theory (given the evidence) since there isn’t a better explanation. “Whether or not an argument for gods existance exist or not is irrelevant, whether or not a functional one is provided in the argument being rebuked is.” - What, are you serious? So even if we have evidence and argument it doesn’t matter? “We can't establish this with the information we have (or was provided in this argument.)- Therefore god.” - And no one argues like that. That is a straw man of our arguments: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKOaZamZgt2qi80 kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZrIaqCrqKx4p7M “It can be the answer, you just cannot conclude god is the answer solely based on the fact something can't be established with the available information.” - Again no one is saying that. Crying God of the gaps anytime you want (ad hoc) doesn’t address our arguments or prove this point you made. “We don't actually know if the universe had a beginning” - Yes, we do… The big bang is unavoidable at this point. Space-time came into existence and prior to that, beyond the space-time boundary point, there is no universe. “some form of cycle or loop, or that the concept of time itself we see doesn't work in all circumstances.” - First of all, you atheists always do this. You never give a better inference, you just throughout a bunch of random possibilities and therefore assume possibility is probability. Second, based on the current entropy in the universe, mathematically speaking, the universe could only have gone through 80 previous loops, which still implies an absolute beginning. However, most physicists have abandoned this idea because there is no known physics that can reverse the expansion of the universe. ‘This entire question is rediculously open ended, but is presented as if it's an establishable fact that the universe had a beginning” - Because it is. You cannot avoid the big bang given, the cosmic microwave background radiation, the redshift/expansion of the universe, BGV theorem, etc. The evidence doesn’t support an open ending idea. You know what, you sound like creationists just denying evolution with this appeal to mystery. Just take your arguments yo just made and swap out “the universe had a beginning” with “evolution of humans” and you have the exact argument creationists have tried on me. “We don't know if the universe is tuned, let alone fine-tuned. “ - Yes, we do. Only Victory Stenger argued it was not and he was destroyed by Luke Barnes: arxiv.org/pdf/1112.4647.pdf Have you read this paper? because I have so I would love to go over the physics and mathematics involved. “The assertion the universe could be fine-tuned relies on some entity (God) existing to fine-tune it” - No, it doesn’t. It relies on physics which shows the evidence of fine-tuning. Design is inferred from that evidence. “The universe functions according to it's own existance therefore god made the universe. How does it follow exactly that god made the universe? “ - Because you don’t understand the digital physics argument. Here: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKOaZamZgt2qi80

[@AutoGamerZ_]

multiple small sections to respond where in cases something else I said already answers the issue you give. (1) ME: "“No alternate theory or argument has to be provided by the person claiming god of the gaps happened, this is not relevant in the first place.” YOU: - No that is very relevant. If you argued evolution was true and I said no it isn’t but gave no alternative to how species came about, evolution would be the most likely theory (given the evidence) since there isn’t a better explanation." ANSWER: If I argued Evolution was true and presented no evidence for this; how exactly could you establish in the argument that there isn't a better explanation given the evidence? You just did the same thing here again by moving the goalposts form an argument between two (or more) people to all possibly available knowledge on a subject. (2) ME: "“Whether or not an argument for gods existance exist or not is irrelevant, whether or not a functional one is provided in the argument being rebuked is.” YOU: - What, are you serious? So even if we have evidence and argument it doesn’t matter? " ANSWER: I did not say that. God of the gaps is a logical fallacy; not a statement on what in the end is factual or known outside of a conversation. You as I jut pointed out in (1) moved the goalposts from the conversation or argument two (or more) people are having to all possible available knowledge. If you hold evidence and present it that would not be a fallacy; If you hold evidence but in the argument you don't provide it and it turns out we end up with an unproven factor being used to support another unproven factor we end up with a gap argument, which is what happened in the video Aron Ra (Who you cited) in the end, because the logic used as support in that video didn't work by various logical mistakes. You are falsely equivocating any and all available information on a subject, with what arguments are provided in an argument between people. (3) ME: "“We can't establish this with the information we have (or was provided in this argument.)- Therefore god.” YOU: - And no one argues like that. That is a straw man of our arguments: " YOU (as well): Again no one is saying that. Crying God of the gaps anytime you want (ad hoc) doesn’t address our arguments or prove this point you made. ANSWER: Correct, but that is what the argument in the video Aron Ra was responding to was left with after the argument that where used to support the conclusion "therefore god" was taken away. What you did here is inconsistantly apply the argument between arguments that are left with "we don't know, therefore god" after scrutony and arguments that straight up say "we don't know, therefore god" I can look at the videos you send but it's not going to help me; as those aren't the arguments that where made in the video from Aron Ra you cited as example, meaning *you are retrospectively trying to involve arguments that waren't made in the video you cite as an example of misuse of god of the gaps.*

[@AutoGamerZ_]

Final sidenote: I did not have time at this point to look specifically at the formulations of the digital physics argument you gave, I'll see if I can respond to those videos at some point in the future; I can't really respond to them here and now, because despite what I asked you provided no transcripts, meaning I'd have to write down the entire video to actually be able to formulate a response to it for the purposes of the type of discussion you are having with me here. Something which would cost an insane amount of time.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

“If I argued Evolution was true and presented no evidence for this; how exactly could you establish in the argument that there isn't a better explanation given the evidence?” - Again, this is straw man because we give evidence: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKOaZamZgt2qi80 kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZrIaqCrqKx4p7M There is evidence for evolution and theism and you don’t get to just cry gap argument instead of addressing the evidence. “You as I jut pointed out in (1) moved the goalposts from the conversation or argument two (or more) people are having to all possible available knowledge.” - No, i am giving evidence to refute your claim there is no evidence, see the links above. “If you hold evidence but in the argument you don't provide it and it turns out we end up with an unproven factor being used to support another unproven factor we end up with a gap argument,” - I don’t care about the “if” game, that is absurd. Who cares about “what if”. Again, I gave evidence so comparing it to a case where there is no evidence is a straw man. “I can look at the videos you send but it's not going to help me; as those aren't the arguments that where made in the video “ - Yeah, he was not being specific, so I don’t know what to tell you. I think you reading far too much into that and ignoring the main point of my video.

[@AutoGamerZ_]

Would've apreciated it if you hadn't skipped (Whether intentionally or not) responding to points (4), (5), (6) and (7), in which amongst others I responded to your argument for gods existance as provided in your video, where (1) (2) and (3) where solely about what god of the gaps fallacy is and the ensued claims that it's being abused. (8) YOU: "There is evidence for evolution and theism and you don’t get to just cry gap argument instead of addressing the evidence." ANSWER: I did not even accuse you *here* of making a gap fallacy in the first place. The gap fallacy that Aron Ra (The video you cited) would only apply in the first place if no evidence was provided or if after review the evidence provided wouldn't stand up to reason meaning the argument would be left with "i can't explain this, therefore god" and/or making a fallatic assumption somewhere in the line of questions resulting in "therefore god". (a good example of this, as I pointed out, is (6): Your "fine-tuned" argument, which relies on circular logic, and concludes therefore god, meaning it's a god of the gaps fallacy. *this doesn't mean all of your arguments for god have to be a god of the gaps fallacy, which is something you've been implying towards others and me before when this is pointed out.* ) (9) YOU: "- No, i am giving evidence to refute your claim there is no evidence, see the links above." ANSWER: I didn't make this claim, and neither did I accuse you of doing so. Let's quote myself here as well from my original post: "You've told me before: "Why can't god be the answer?" which is answerable simply as: It can be the answer, *you just cannot conclude god is the answer solely based on the fact something can't be established with the available information.* (Meaning you misrepresented what the result of god of the gaps fallacy is, by claiming it means that god can't be the answer, which isn't the case.)" ("You" as in the third person, thus referring to any individual that would do this. Something which can easily be derived as well from the context in which I put it.) (10) YOU: "I don’t care about the “if” game, that is absurd. Who cares about “what if”. Again, I gave evidence so comparing it to a case where there is no evidence is a straw man." ANSWER: I am sorry, what? I am not playing an "if" game, what I just described is literally the description of when god of the gaps fallacy is made, Neither me, nor Aron Ra in the video you cited said did this here. Would you stop accusing me of doing something I am not? (11) YOU: "- Yeah, he was not being specific, so I don’t know what to tell you. I think you reading far too much into that and ignoring the main point of my video." ANSWER: I don't know how to respond to you, as I've been trying to point out based on my arguments (1) (2) and (3) (Which are the ones you responded to now), that this is exactly what you've been doing with Aron Ra's video getting us here in the first place, trying to explain you how, but instead you just ignored half of it and acted as if I was accusing you of making the god of the gaps fallacy in those arguments (abusing them in the process), which I wasn't doing to begin with. Please refer to arguments (4) (5) (6) and (7) from last time, for my arguments actually relating to the cause of the universe and the claims you made in this video (Which I'd like to first get through before watching any additional videos, which I can see you've been copy pasting to almost everyone critiqueing this video in some way.) *I don't apreciate the fact you just didn't respond to half of what I wrote.* (Please don't take offense to that if it was a mistake.)

[@Ali-yy5lx]

as a muslim i love ur channel GOD bless u bro

[@mariobethell3731]

I've never met a religious person when asked, "How was the universe created?" who was honest enough to admit, "l don't know". For in the absence of evidence, one is left to guess and speculate.

[@Grandmaster_Dragonborn]

There are more ways of being honest than just saying "I don't know". Is it not also honest to reasonably look at the data & come to the conclusion that theism best explains reality? Sometimes, I think those who say "I don't know" are actually the ones being dishonest.

[@mariobethell3731]

@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn You contradicted yourself. In the absence of evidence, there is no data. So if one admits to not knowing something, how can he be dishonest. Each religion has its own creation story that is some-what different than the other religions. They all have no evidence, yet they believe a supernatural being created it. Honesty would demand or dictate that they admit to not knowing who created the universe.

[@mariobethell3731]

@@Grandmaster_Dragonborn The presence of so many religions and their beliefs in various Gods without any evidence would suggest that the word "God" is but a universal euphemism for the truthful admission of "l don't know" among religious believers.

[@Grandmaster_Dragonborn]

@@mariobethell3731 That’s only a contradiction if I agreed that there’s an absence of evidence, but I don’t - I see good evidence we can use to make a conclusion, without falling into the gaps fallacy by thinking our beliefs will be confirmed in the future. So no, it’s not a contradiction.

[@Grandmaster_Dragonborn]

@@mariobethell3731 Furthermore, why don’t you ask a believer what they think before you jump to that conclusion, like I ask non-believers what they mean when by “God doesn’t exist.” Me: I think God exists because I think He’s the best explanation to existence & I came to that conclusion logically, not because I’m unable to say “I don’t know” - That’s just but a strawman.

[@cjalisyas]

Dont believe “Do not believe in anything simply because you have heard it. Do not believe in anything simply because it is spoken and rumored by many. Do not believe in anything simply because it is found written in your religious books. Do not believe in anything merely on the authority of your teachers and elders. Do not believe in traditions because they have been handed down for many generations. But after observation and analysis, when you find that anything agrees with reason and is conducive to the good and benefit of one and all, then accept it and live up to it.” Buddha quotes (Hindu Prince Gautama Siddharta, the founder of Buddhism, 563-483 B.C.)

[@The-End-is-coming]

The way I look at it, arguments for the existence of God don't fill in gaps to begin with anyway: they plant a starting point. Observational and historic science may one day fill-in the gaps between the starting point and now, but the starting point, i.e. GOD, will always be there.

[@The-End-is-coming]

@Jim Merrilees, based on my worldview I'm not headed nowhere - I have accepted Jesus Christ, GOD in flesh, as my Lord and Savior, thus my future is secure. The same can't be said of the atheist. But GOD loves my atheist friends, and I want them to partake of heaven one day too. So seriously, if anyone reading this hasn't accepted Jesus Christ as their Lord and Savior yet, what's holding you back?

[@nagilumx6715]

Actually chancy evolution is the gap for those trying to explain away such a superior Being.

[@The-End-is-coming]

@Jim Merrilees So you do you treat the New Testament as accurate Greco Roman history, or do you treat it as fiction? Because if it is fiction to you, then you have made a big mistake. The NT is a faithful recording of history and has been accurately preserved through the centuries. And in it is detailed how GOD Himself, came to earth and died for our sins, so that we can live with Him in paradise. Re-examine the facts without bias, and you'll see that the NT, based on historical criticism, is more accurate than any other historical text of that time. Jesus is real, and hundreds of people of the time have witnessed His Ressurection. GOD loves you and wants to live with you, but your sin separates you from Him. We all deserve death, but while we were yet sinners, Christ came and died in our place so that we may be reunited with Him. Even if my life in this world be joy or suffering, my future is secure because I confessed my sins and put my trust in Him. Your life may be nice now, but do not be deceived - GOD has appointment a time for man to die, and then the judgment. You do not have to perish, accept Jesus as your Savior and the eternal life He's promised, it's of no expense to you.

[@AveChristusRex]

"You do realize that the NT was written by unknowns many decades after the events were supposed to have happened" How could he know it if it _isn't true._ Who told you the New Testament was written by unknowns? Also, writing decades after the events were supposed to have happened is literally nothing to do with its veracity-and a whole lot better than much of believed and accepted-to-be-reliable history from other authors of the period. We also have 1000x better manuscript data and better and closer copies than any other work in antiquity-probably combined. So if any document in history is more examined, has better more reliable manuscripts, and written by as many authors on the one event that is Jesus, I would like to see it. Oh, and no historian, Christian or anti-Christian, agrees with you: they all say the New Testament is reliable in the points you say will say it is not reliable on. "what part of that can even be remotely described as a faithful recording of history" Have you _read_ the New Testament? Like actually read even one letter from Paul, James, John, Peter, Jude? One Gospel? What drugs were you taking when you decided these were liars? Clearly they are recording historical events they believed happened in their day, around them, and even got to ask eyewitnesses what happened-two of them, at least, being eye-witnesses. Paul, too; if you've read his letters you know what he is about. He earns nothing, only hatred. There is NO motive whatsoever for inventing anything he takes for granted in the letters he writes to the various congregations of Christians. And any time people attempt to glorify them (apostles) or even consider them gods (in the case of working a miracle), they got really mad and told the people to worship God instead. Moreover, they got no money, and left their wives to dedicate themselves to Christ. Give me the motive or get out.

[@AveChristusRex]

Typical cultists. You bring up a Jesus mythicist as 'the historical evidence' that Jesus didn't exist, let alone the accounts of his life reliable? 'Dr Robert Price' thinks an argument against the historicity of Jesus is he has similarities to 'the hero archetype.' Well done Mr. Price. A Jesus figure WOULD fulfill a hero archetype if He exists.. then HOW THE HELL could that be evidence that HE DIDN'T exist???? This is what you're up against. This is the 'best' from the mythicist movement. If you were a Bible historian you'd know there are no liars in the New Testament. If you can't tell the kind of person you are reading, you're not fit to evaluate writings, much less ancient writings and how writers thought, the climate they wrote in, the language they wrote in, the culture, the time, etc. Another thing: on whose lips do you put the words and character of Jesus? No one in fiction even speaks like Jesus. The assumed authority, the humility yet sureness, the simplicity yet profoundness. If they invented Jesus and consistently separately rendered this fictional character into so many and various scenes and occasions this well, on top of creatingHim out of nowhere, Jesus might as well exist if you pretend He didn't, because that itself would be a miracle. And then you have that small issue that they believed what they were writing as you can tell from their Gospels. Which means they didn't 'invent' anybody. If you think Paul got whipped and eventually killed by Romans/under the instigation of those who wouldn't convert to Christianity from among the Jews for teaching a message that only got him imprisoned and poor 'for fun' and he 'loved lying' (for what??? why the other writings the same, too?) and can't simply read the straightforward sanctity and sincerity of the man, I guess that says much about you anyway, and you sort of deserve to believe deception. Be sure of something: no serious historian even gives the time of day to these loons claiming 'Jesus was made up.' So don't call me the one who is 'denying the clear data.' You are the outlier, the conspiracy theorist. I'm holding the mainstream view. You are the flat earther in this argument, not me. I don't know about you but Paul, or any of the New Testament writers-_they_ certainly didn't believe Jesus was made up. Nor is the idea they co-made him up even on the table as the most sinister possibility-it ignores too many fundamental causes of the New Testament, quite simply. Especially when they were talking to his mother and other eyewitnesses to His actions and words-or whose mother fell into the care of one of them when Jesus died. But what do they matter? They were 'mass hallucinating.' Have fun with that.

[@John-lf3xf]

I appreciate you bro.

[@iain5615]

Materialism has been proven false by quantum field theory which has been confirmed by the LHC

[@Kevorama0205]

waterborne How?

[@iain5615]

All of what we think of as fundamental - space, time and matter are just emergent constructs from quantum fields. Quantum mechanics is just just particles and their properties that have emerged from the quantum fields. Vacuums in space are full of quantum fields like anywhere in the universe. Experiments on Liggett Inequality and Bell's Theorem have shown that particles only come into existence from measurement which means that information of some kind is also flowing within these fields to form matter, space and time. This why quantum entanglement shows that particles instantaneously react because fundamentally there is no time, why the quantum eraser experiment allows particles to be affected by future unknown events and collapse their past wave formation into a particle (or atoms and molecules), it also explains how matter can through quantum tunnelling pass right through objects that should block their passage. Materialism (or Realism in Quantum Physics) is only an emergent construct and in itself is not fundamental which current science has founded itself on. It is why scientists in multiple fields are now questioning why the deeper they delve they hit walls which materialism can explain. Epigenetics, now credited for speciation and not Neo-Darwinian mutation selection mechanisms, to the best of our knowledge works from programming that came from past coded information that the Neo-Darwinian model can not satisfactorily explain.

[@sandy_the_hippy]

😂yeah, I don't think you understand the nonsense you're spouting as much as you think/pretend you do. Back to school

[@iain5615]

TheMurderSessions - start off by looking at Quantum Field Theory - try Prof. David Tong he is very lucid in his explanations.

[@sandy_the_hippy]

@@iain5615 that's even funnier comment... You wanna know where I work, and what I do? Give.you a clue, we are currently upgrading ATLAS

[@Rafu-uf8eh]

Pov God of the gaps fallacy: we don’t know what this criminal has done, we are still sentencing him to the death penalty.