Abusing the God of the Gaps Fallacy

Join us at: www.inspiringph...
To help support this ministry click here: www.patreon.co...
Special thanks to Maximus Confesses for reviewing and helping with the content for this video. To follow Max, and a bunch of other Catholic writers, for their posts and dank memes, subscribe over on medium, and/or like their Facebook group:
/ the-liturgical
/ liturgicallegion

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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?

[@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?

[@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

[@RawGameplay0]

As an atheist, thanks for educating me IP

[@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.

[@astrobros4196]

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

[@ThePatriot-jf5wd]

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

[@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

[@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.

[@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."

[@davemoore7808]

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

[@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).

[@brandwijkgg]

This is the biggest God of the gaps Argument possible!

[@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

[@saintronin7633]

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

[@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" ?

[@cmk5724]

Thanks for this video, brother. You should add it to your playlist on the arguments for the existence of God.

[@edgarmatzinger9742]

Great, except he has no arguments for the existence of god. He starts of with: I know god exists. But gives no proof whatsoever.

[@cmk5724]

@@edgarmatzinger9742 What are you on about?

[@powningatheists7987]

As always, well explained and presented. Well done!

[@kieran296]

I also recommend "Classical Theist" youtube channel, its great.

[@gunnarneumann8321]

These arguments do in fact, argue from gaps in knowledge ex. The moral argument states that since we do not know any other explanation for where morality came from, it must be God.

[@mitslev4043]

That's not a gaps fallacy either. That's inferring to the best explanation. Saying that we only have one explanation that works and going with it is how we normally do things. If we have no idea how something can work any other way and our current explanation is solid we typically go with it. Also that's not how the moral argument works. It's starts with the existence of morality and works from there

[@gunnarneumann8321]

@mitslev4043 The significant argument that creationists are engaging in "God of the Gaps" reasoning boils down to the fact that they attribute unresolved mysteries to divine intervention, without leaving room for the possibility that natural explanations might emerge. In doing so, they are accused of prematurely halting inquiry and relying on supernatural explanations to fill temporary gaps in scientific understanding. This pattern- invoking God wherever current Understanding false short is what defines God of the gaps.

[@mitslev4043]

@@gunnarneumann8321 but it's not God of the gaps. You can't have a naturalistic cause to nature. And the properties of nature are such that nature can not be eternal. Again we don't deny the possibility of natural explanation unless it is logically impossible. We are taking what we know and coming to logical conclusions. It is the naturalists that are denying any other explanation and inserting a possible natural explanation for our gaps even if they don't know what that explanation might be.

[@orthodoxdefender7492]

A great video. And probably the best lesson learned from IP is to show your evidence and show what you can infer from it/what's the most plausible explanation for X, based on the evidence we have.

[@DManCAWMaster]

@Jim Merrilees Aron can only infer as well

[@GODHATESADOPTION]

Orthodox Defender any evidence for logic? ill wait...

[@GODHATESADOPTION]

Jim Merrilees aaron ra is an activist not a philosopher, a loser

[@cindyisa10]

Jim, YOU SAY: "So Theists do not infer...LMFAO......please give any evidence...just a teeny weeny bit...... pretty please....." RESPONSE: LMFAO, Why are you demanding evidence for a cosmic mind (god's mind) when you don't have a single shred of scientific third-party confirmable empirical evidence for ANY self-aware sentient mind beyond your own? Why the double standard? It's rather entertaining when an atheist demands evidence for a cosmic mind when they can't even provide empirical evidence for ANY self-aware mind beyond their own. In other words, where's YOUR empirical evidence or scientific methodology to determine, demonstrate, and confirm that other minds and/or physical systems are in fact self-aware. Why aren't you a Solipsist? ;-)

[@phoenixmichaels]

+ cindyisa 10 To quote YOU:" Why the double standard? Why aren't you a Solipsist?" Elementary my dear Watson. I cannot speak for @Jim Merrilees, but here's my answer to your inquiry: It is NOT a double standard. This is a false premise you are attempting to smuggle in, but unfortunately you got caught at the border in your attempt to cross. Have an MRE and take a bunk over there. You are comparing (and unsuccessfully trying to equate) those oft cited and renowned apples and oranges. Even IF I WERE a solipsist... SURE beyond any reasonable doubt that I was a brain in a vat... I am STILL getting input of at LEAST the implication or simulation of other minds. Could be true, could be false... as a brain in a vat I can never be sure. What I CAN be sure of, even as such a brain, is there is and never HAS been any hint of an implication , a subliminal vapor, or outright simulation of a "cosmic mind". So... in the solipsistic realm, as well as the experiential/"real"/analog world, there is still no evidence of a "cosmic" or god mind. None. Which means you are reduced to asserting "but it could still be out there, you can't know"... to which I answer who cares? There's any NUMBER of unlimited and absolutely absurd assertions which can be made about what is "outside my experience or awareness" LOL... so what? How does THAT promote it beyond yet another arbitrary absurdity? You may as well claim unicorns are circling a distant star and excreting gold bars as they whistle along... and I am just unaware due to my vat status. It gets you, me, or anyone else anywhere nowhere at all. Either we go forward trusting the tools of perception we have, or we postulate any nonsense... without ever being sure of a god figure EITHER: you cannot have it both ways. THAT has not been the methodology which has advanced us this far.Cheers...

[@matthewknight7594]

These are not gaps in a philosophical world view these are known gaps in the whole of the human knowledge base. Although its a clever contortion to try and redesign the problem as one of gaps in materialism, very sneaky!

[@BetterInTheBattle]

What's the name of the background music please? Great video by the way

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Ambient Technology.wav

[@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?»

[@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.)

[@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!

[@Jezpe316]

A lot of people in the comments following the religion of future science of the gaps.

[@MrSpleenface]

Show me the person in the comments using an appeal to phenomena not currently understood as evidence for any scientific theory

[@jedibattlemasterkos]

THANK YOU IP! :)

[@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.

[@ajgibson1307]

God bless

[@SC-zq6cu]

The question of how everything originated falls under the domain of science. So saying that all of nature is God's work or in other words God is the originator of nature pretty much does aim at providing an answer to that very question. However this answer does not provide us with any new useful information. This is an as of yet unanswered question for science. So this does qualify as a gap. Therefore putting God as an answer to this gap IS a God of the gaps argument i.e. trying to explaining the lack of knowledge regarding an aspect of nature by claiming "GOD DID IT". And as for your little bit of drivel on materialism: Anything that we can directly or indirectly interact with is called material. So, everything that we observe, that we can observe is because of interplay among material entities. This conclusion is just the default conclusion that can be reached from the definition of material. Anything more has to be reached based on further information. And there is no materialism of gaps simply because: everything that we can observe is defined to be material. And unlike theists, materialists do not claim to have an answer to a question that has not been explained yet. Of course one can always redefine everything to be some variant of God instead of being material but such a redefinition brings no new useful information and instead introduces an extra entity called God. Therefore it is of course unscientific and only serves emotional needs.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Notice you said, "the question of how everything originated falls under the domain of science," and I agree, but we are asking why everything is, or where it comes from. So you are asking a different question. Also, we are not claiming that, we give evidence and argue to the best explanation: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZrIaqCrqKx4p7M kzbin.info/www/bejne/rGO7pKNqe7eal9U kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKOaZamZgt2qi80 That is equating science and philosophy, which doesn't work. Materialism has not been proven true which is a competing theory with theism, and both theism and materialism agree materials exist. Materialism is also not the default, agnosticism is. Materials are not the same as materialism. Second, I didn't bring up prayer, so that is a straw man. Why not look at our actual arguments

[@SC-zq6cu]

@@InspiringPhilosophy How is "why everything is" or "w here it comes from" different from "how everything originated" ? Both of those essentially asks the question asking for the explanation of origin of everything. And it is true that materialism is not proven. But answers based on materialism have provided useful results 100% of the time. Meanwhile those based on theism have not delivered a single bit of extra information from materialistic ideas anytime. On top of that it brings an extra entity "God". And I have never said or hinted at it being somehow falsified because of that, only said that, it only serves an emotional purpose and nothing else. And furthermore: i never said that materialism is the same as materials nor that it is default. I only stated that it is the default position that can be reached FROM the definition of materials. And what about prayer? I never wrote anything about that.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

How and Why are obviously different questions? Asking how the big bang happened is different than asking why. That should be obvious. No, all you have proven is there is matter, that doesn't tell us the nature of matter or that only matter exists. So that doesn't support materialism as idealism and theism both predict matter will be there. So again, materialism is not the default. You need to mount a metaphysical argument for materialism. We should be agnostic until we have an explanation offered and I responded to your other comments.

[@SC-zq6cu]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Well my point still stands: theism or idealism can't provide any more useful information than matetialism and brings in extra entities that materialism does not. And the reason to "why everything is" can be any phenomenon responsible for the origin and that does fall under the category of answrs for "how everything originated". So it's not as obvious why those are different.

[@SC-zq6cu]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Also existence is the state of an object where it can be interacted with. If something can be interacted with then it is matter by definition. So yes, it does follow from definition that only matter exists.

[@drewm3807]

We accept this "gaps" reasoning all the time in other contexts. A detective can look at an exploded bomb and conclude that it was not a petroleum-based explosive, even if nobody knows what kind of explosive it was. Similarly, we can conclude that certain events do not have natural causes, even if we don't know what supernatural entity casued it, or how.

[@rykehuss3435]

There are no supernatural entities

[@drewm3807]

@@rykehuss3435 Textbook example of begging the question.

[@TB-xr7sp]

@@rykehuss3435 How do you know?

[@rykehuss3435]

@@TB-xr7sp There is no verifiable proof of them existing. And if they did exist, they wouldn't be supernatural anymore, would they. Just natural. So the whole term is an oxymoron.

[@Elioc-ed6wr]

@@rykehuss3435 Wow nice argument. You should write a 80 page thesis on that equivocation.

[@krishyyfan5153]

Atheist Logic.... There is no such thing as EVIL and GOOD..... And then complains about the movie Marvel Infinity War where Evil Thanos killed a lot of Marvel characters....

[@davecirlclux]

Krishyy Fan it appears that you do not know the difference between subjective and objective 🤦‍♀️

[@krishyyfan5153]

LOL....even if you go back in history and see all the novels and fairy tales and legends of the past...THE WHOLE WORLD always tell a story of Good and Evil fighting against each other and the Good always win...It is never subjective... It is in our human nature...Atheists deny it and yet they love watching Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, Marvel... That's the hypocrisy of atheism...

[@Kevorama0205]

Have fun attacking your strawman "no morality" atheists.

[@AutoGamerZ_]

+Krishyy Fan You're confusing moral Subjectivists with Atheists. Those are two seperate things and aren't mutually exclusive nor mutually existant to eachother. You're making an argument against Moral Subjectivists here, not Atheists (Though a portion of Atheists is a Moral Subjectivists, not all Atheists are, and not all Moral subjectivists are Atheists). And no; this is not an argument against moral subjectivism, as moral subjectivism would not make it impossible to depict a *fictional world* where objective good and evil would exist, as in your example.

[@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.

[@christosardjono6016]

You just further emphasize god of the gaps, … you are not explaining the gaps that you slap gos as explanation.

[@TheologyUnleashed]

How do I find the digital physics argument video?

[@doggoslayer5679]

Search “inspiringphylosophy digital physics” it should be the first video

[@JP-rf8rr]

Its more like videos than a single video. It's in his playlist kzbin.info/aero/PL1mr9ZTZb3TViAqtowpvZy5PZpn-MoSK_

[@michaelfjmusic]

1. I don't really see why this argument CAN'T be used to apply to metaphysical theories. It can just as easily be applied to metaphysical theories as biological processes. 2. "...all of this [was done by] a creator who set natural processes into motion". I don't think that there is anything in the Bible that mentions this, but I can use a concrete example of religious thought that is not congruent with reality. People used to think that seizures, mental illnesses, or even common illnesses were caused by divine intervention. But now, we know that seizures are caused by disruptions in brain activity, mental illnesses are caused by wirings of neurons in the brain or imbalances of chemicals, and most sicknesses are caused by bacteria and viruses. 3. Many Christians will disagree on this topic, many deny the big bang theory, while others such as yourself will argue that it coincides with the story of Genesis. Regardless, though, it doesn't. The big bang (if it is true) took place billions of years ago, whereas the dates in the Bible place the age of the Earth and the universe around 6,000-10,000 years of age. The Earth and the Sun are far, far younger than our universe. 4. Materialism is not a theory, simply an idea. I don't think any rational person is trying to pass it off as a hard, proven fact, even if they agree with it. 5. "[We are not trying to fill gaps, rather, trying to explain why there are natural processes...]" This seems to be simply a rationalization, but nevertheless, people HAVE used it to fill gaps, as I have pointed out. Plus, a lot of Christian doctrine is not in accordance with a lot of what we can observe - examples: Noah's flood, the age of the Earth/universe, the story of Genesis, etc. People used to believe that, as per the Bible, that the Earth was flat, that God lived on a certain mountain, that the Earth was the center of the universe, etc. until these things were shown to be untrue. 6. What you mentioned about teleological arguments is an argument from ignorance; science can't explain *WHY* there are physical constants or why Cesium-133 decays with such consistency, but to make assumptions based on no evidence is dishonest. But most importantly of all, we don't know what makes the physical constants what they are, why gravity is such a weak force, why the laws of physics are the way they or, or even whether or not they make any sense. But I don't think that the "best way to explain them" is a religion. I respect your view, and I think you have a very interesting take on the matter (no pun intended). But I still don't think it holds up.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

1. The problem is ( as I point out at the end) that just results in circular reasoning. In that, you just assume your metaphysical worldview is already true. Wouldn't it be better to argue for your worldview than just say god of the gaps? 2. I do not argue that way, I have far different arguments. 3. And I call out those people just as much (see my channel). However, the Bible doesn't say the earth is 6000 years old: kzbin.info/www/bejne/p4nHo52ElL2Bnrs 4. Some do. 5. I think we first need to show Genesis teaches a global flood and a 6000-year-old earth. I am not convinced. 6. That is not how the argument works, instead we argue to the best explanation: kzbin.info/www/bejne/aYrXaJusnKuohMk

[@aundraydawson535]

Mr. IP, I have a question. God is said to be omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent. My question is: if God is omnipotent which designates power over all matter, omniscient which designate knowledge that is the wisdom of all time, and omnipresent which is Him being present everywhere like space, how can He not be physical? (The materials view) Those attributes do not change about Him, because He changeth not. Those attributes: omnipresence, omnipotent and omniscient needs the material world to be. That's why for me time, space and matter are eternal. Is this a good argument? Or is it not. Let me know.

[@jasonwilloughby1372]

This is beyond hilarious.

[@TheFinalChapters]

You do not know what caused the universe, therefore god. You do not know why the universe appears "fine-tuned", therefore god. You do not know why humans have ethics (which they can't even agree on), therefore god. Our "full understanding of science" *has* gaps. And you are trying to fill those gaps with god. Not based on evidence, but because you have no actual explanation.

[@mitslev4043]

No we start with science and conclude God based on the science. If it was just we don't know and then make a theory about it then all science is a gaps fallacy. We don't know what the universe is made of therefore atoms. We don't know how life got here therefore evolution. We don't know what gravity is therefore gravatons. That's not how these things work. We start with what we do k ow and not what we don't. We are not saying we don't know therefore B. We are saying we know A therefore B. A gaps fallacy is when not knowing is a premise of a argument. The beginning of knowing anything is starting with I don't know and then using what you do know to solve the problem.

[@TheFinalChapters]

@@mitslev4043 Considering B doesn't follow from A, it doesn't really matter what fallacy you want to call it.

[@mitslev4043]

@@TheFinalChapters that would be a non sequitur. So why does one not follow the other?

[@TheFinalChapters]

@@mitslev4043 I made the comment months ago, and don't care rewatch the video to see the exact arguments made. Feel free to bring forth one, though, if you wish.

[@mitslev4043]

@@TheFinalChapters if you don't know why did you call it a fallacy? Could have just not responded. Regardless how about the kalam cosmological argument. Anything that begins to exist must have a cause. From science we have good evidence that time space and matter begin at the big bang. The motion of matter logically negate the option of a eternal universe model. Therefore we conclude that the cause of the universe must be all powerful to be able to cause the universe, timeless spaceless and non material as they are what is being caused. And decisive in nature to prevent the fallacy of an infinite regression. These properties are in line with our definition of God. Therefore say this is evidence that supports the case for God.

[@unicornslayer3144]

TLDW: It's not that I don't know therefore god, it's that I DO know BECAUSE god...see how when I reword the argument from ignorance all of a sudden it's not a fallacy? SMH --- See kids, that's the kind of dishonesty and/or philosophical illiteracy one has to have to still believe in bronze age magic in 2020. If you bought that nonsense you either misunderstand epistemology even more than this ironically named fool or you clearly had a bias and are grasping at straws.

[@ds19771]

No. It’s just basic god of the gaps.

[@pollypockets508]

There are women atheists too.

[@JiovanniCintron]

That’s such an excuse. It’s hypocritical.

[@mybizzz1738]

want to see a real gap belief? Go dig up one of those trees of life depicting common ancestors. All those lines and arrows pointing at this and that. Super gaps belief.

[@SC-zq6cu]

Except putting two words side by side does not actually make you clever and definitely does not make what you believe to be true.

[@mybizzz1738]

super gaps

[@andrebrown8969]

This does not work for me or anyone who thinks rationally.

[@milfhunter9865]

this analogy doesn’t rlly work because one is accused of using gods of the gap fallacy because they use it to explain an unknown, to fill in the “gap”. but in using laws of conservation to explain meterialism, there is no unknown or “gap” to fill.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

That is a total straw man and you just made the point for me. You just assume any evidence that implies theism is really unknown because you presuppose non-theism is already true, so the evidence can't possibly lead to theism.

[@milfhunter9865]

InspiringPhilosophy it’s not about my pre existing notion that theism is false. the gods of the gap fallacy argument is used because people use gods to explain the inexplicable using gods. i wouldn’t use the gods of the gaps fallacy as a proof for nontheism but rather to show the what is wrong with claiming everything unknown as a proof of god. just because something can not be proven or understood using science, or atleast science as of today, is not proof that a god/ gods exist. that is the gods gap fallacy. and just because the gods gap is such a poor argument and has faults, it doesn’t disprove theism

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Well, I never said the unexplainable is proof of God and actual arguments for God's existence are inferences based on data, like: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y

[@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.

[@iain5615]

Materialism has been proven false by science.

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

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

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

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?

[@CedanyTheAlaskan]

@@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.

[@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.

[@skidelrymar]

IP says that god created the universe and fine-tuned it, how this is not a god-of-the-gap argument? side note: god is never the best explanation for anything philosophical or not

[@christianwhite8877]

If we use the bible as a theory to explain the existence of The universe, then it is actually among the best explanations we have available (while god isn't inherently the best explanation for everything (especially from indirect means or an indirect argument). there are certain circumstances where god is directly the best explanation, though it's unwise to claim random everyday things can only be explained by god unless you have evidence that can back such claims)

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@sammesingson7584]

this is full-on god of the gaps only!!! sorry...when your spiritual experience(which i know exist) and need for a comfort or hope, led you to believe in all sort of bullshits... thats when the problems arises

[@maksimbolonkin]

@Jonathan Dolan Sweetie, you came to comments under the video about god of the gaps to leave your god of the gaps comment? How ironic.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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

[@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 ?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@IronFreee]

You guys love your fallacies so much... :D The "god of the gap" fallacy has nothing to do with science and is not specific to gods conversations. It also have the very appropriate names of "argument from ignorance" or "appeal to ignorance". It's a fallacy because saying that the absence of evidence for anything is not evidence for something else. If you put it in a judicial context: Not having any suspect doesn't make the majordome guilty. You have to demonstrate his guilt before saying he is. Same thing with gods, you need to demonstrate it... Pointing it is not a last resort argument, using it makes your claims invalid whatever the context. Even if what you say turns out to be correct later, basing your claim on a fallacy is wrong. Like if I say "the majordome did it because I don't like the way he looks". Even if we later find proof that he did it, my argument is still be wrong. It's like believing things when there's no good reasons to do so... Or any other fallacies. Just don't use them if you don't want to sound like an absolute idiot. And don't try to plead for using them, that's even worst ! Like it or not, logic works the same about gods as for the other subjects, there's no special divine logic rules :D

[@idahogie]

You don't get to pretend your made-up hypothesis is purely philosophical/metaphysical and therefore not a perfect god-of-the-gaps example. You have nothing to back up your proposed explanation other than gap, buddy.

[@samjebaraj24]

I guess his evidence were these: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKOaZamZgt2qi80 kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZrIaqCrqKx4p7M kzbin.info/www/bejne/rGO7pKNqe7eal9U kzbin.info/www/bejne/qWO4fXlrjM6rg68

[@idahogie]

@@samjebaraj24 Holy hell, that first video was garbage. Quantum woo-peddling and leaps of logic, combined with cherry-picking. Most of the scientists featured in that first video don't think there is any need for a god. That's more telling than any wild speculation done by whoever was narrating. If you think there's some deity that demands worship from us, you're going to need more than that nonsense to convince a rational person. Why is your god so hidden? Why do believers have to stretch to such ludicrous lengths?

[@x-popone6817]

@@idahogie just because scientists don't mention the same conclusions, that doesnt mean they arent valid. They are philosophical conclusions, so, of course, a scientists isn't going to mention that. They deal with science.

[@idahogie]

@@x-popone6817 Science used to be called "natural philosophy." Scientists are *very* interested in philosophy. So it's absurd to say what you said.

[@x-popone6817]

​@@idahogie So are you saying that scientists are supposed to write in their papers that their conclusion supports God and explain it philosophically? I mean, that's not what they do. That's for philosophers. To say that because the scientists don't agree with the conclusions, it's not supported by their data, is absurd because, 1. scientists are very materialistic and anti-God, and 2. that's not what they do.

[@Shudda_Bhakti_Advaita]

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.

[@mingthan7028]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@buckleysangel7019]

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

[@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.

[@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.

[@LucivarDiablo]

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. This entire video is just an obfuscation for this current usage of the term. It really doesn't matter the original use of a word that matters, it's the current use. Just like "atheist" was originally a term to describe Christians it has changed. Sorry but this video was dishonest tripe.

[@LucivarDiablo]

+Saint Leviathan Look up what an ad hominem is... ...and where was I dishonest? Specifics or GTFO.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

And just crying god the gaps doesn't really address our arguments kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKOaZamZgt2qi80 kzbin.info/www/bejne/lZrIaqCrqKx4p7M It is just assuming naturalism and avoiding the evidence.

[@jamesstaggs4160]

I think it's a futile endeavor to try and fit a concept like God or soul or spirit or anything else like that into the box which science provides. We can't reason or logic our way into an explanation for these things because they're inherently unreasonable and illogical, or to put it a different way, we can't explain the supernatural from a natural perspective. I would guess that these brains of ours, while being pretty amazing and complex, serve to limit us while we are here. Our ability to conceptualize and communicate is more our less "governed" like a car's engine being governed so it doesn't go too fast. Were we unlimited while here it would ruin the experience. I've caught little glimpses into the "beyond" throughout my life and there's just not really any words to describe them. Any attempt results in me saying as much. Go read some DMT reports or watch some videos and you'll get the idea (I've never done the stuff and probably never will but it's amazing how similar some of my experiences line up with DMT trips).

[@jeremyg7261]

And yet you don’t realize your delusions are also altered brain states, that do not in fact, prove of any god. Just that the brain likes to play tricks

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

Got any evidence for anything supernatural, be the first.

[@fredriksvard2603]

@@ethelredhardrede1838 Sure. The observable universe is evidence for something probably existing beyond it. Similarly, the universe and causation is also evidence for causation extending back in time indefinitely, or to a point where there was a first cause.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@fredriksvard2603 Thanks for the evidence free assertions. EVIDENCE not assertions please. Even if a first cause was needed, no god is needed for that. We live in a non classical universe, a quantum universe. Anything that can happen will happen given enough time. No first cause is needed due to the Uncertainty principle.

[@ethelredhardrede1838]

@@fredriksvard2603 Neither is the existence of the universe evidence of anything of any kind beyond it. That was a just a fact free assertion. Now go learn something real like physics, not philophan nonsense. This video is just plain nonsense.

[@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.

[@JwalinBhatt]

lol what a joke!

[@Dah_J]

Did you even watch the video😂 this is the most logically sound video I’ve watched ever

[@JwalinBhatt]

@@Dah_J I had but it's been a while. Can you please tell it to me in your own words? I'm happy to discuss.

[@Dah_J]

@@JwalinBhatt I mean I don’t even know where to start because if you watched the video, there’s no way you could ever say “what a joke” and if you did watch the video and actually thought it was a joke, then you’ve already made up in your mind what you believe to be true and there’s nothing I could say to change it

[@JwalinBhatt]

@@Dah_J ok I'll watch it again and get back to you. Hope you haven't made up your mind about me 😅

[@JwalinBhatt]

@@Dah_J would it be correct to say that he says theists believe god is responsible for the universe as a whole but not for specific processes within it? English is not my native language so it can probably be phrased better. What would you say?

[@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

[@History_MadeMe_Catholic]

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"

[@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...

[@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?

[@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.

[@PaulTheSkeptic]

You want there to be good arguments for God so bad don't you.

[@thomasecker9405]

And this isn't?

[@PaulTheSkeptic]

@@thomasecker9405 No. And it's not from lack of trying or the lack of cleverness. Apologetic arguments are very clever. They're just not good reasons to believe in something. It's because of the nature of the claim. It's trying to prove something that by all accounts, doesn't exist. Which seems to be true even if he does exist. Does that make sense?

[@thomasecker9405]

@@PaulTheSkeptic It seems to on the surface... however, there are some contextual problems with the claim. First, what do you mean by all accounts? This terminology is rather vague and broad, and could either mean all of the ways you yourself (the one making the claim) can think of, all of the minds in one particular field, or practically every field of research known to man. Elaborating on this particular matter can better help others see your reasoning, as well as reveal what presuppositions you yourself are making, so that you can better your intellect by correcting them. Secondly (and feel free to correct me if I'm misunderstanding this), the conclusion of your statement is little more than a non sequitur, as well as self-contradictory. How can something exist and not exist at the same time? The logic of this doesn't follow, and therefore, makes no sense. Thirdly, philosophical and metaphysical arguments about God's existence are not the same as empirical demonstrations of something natural existing, such as a new breed of animal, or the discovery of more of a species once thought to be extremely endangered (the Trumpeter Swan is a good example of this phenomenon actually happening in real life). The error you seem to be making here is inferring that both the philosophical/metaphysical arguments of God's existence and empirical demonstrations of natural life existing are one and the same, when both tackle completely different fields.

[@PaulTheSkeptic]

@@thomasecker9405 Well, yeah. It is kind of vague but I wanted you to understand that I wasn't saying that god definitely does not exist. Just by all accounts. This is usually how I explain it. I've heard apologists say "Atheists say they can't see god but you can't see the wind. Electricity, your own brain. But you believe in those things." But in a way, you can see those things. You can see the wind blow things over or bubble under water. You can see that electricity powers devices or you can see it arch. You can see that people all have brains by studying anatomy. You can see an electroencephalograph readout or a CAT scan. Is there ANY way that I can see god? No. What I was trying to communicate was the difference between "Does not exist" and "By all accounts does not exist". I wasn't saying he doesn't exist. I was saying that even if he does exist, by all accounts he doesn't. There is nothing I've experienced that conclusively points to the existence of such a thing and this seems to be true even for most religious people too. Or at least many I've heard from. It's become a more and more popular apologetic to say "There isn't any scientific evidence for god." They go on to rationalize but to me that seems quite a concession. Sure but whether they're science based of philosophical, every argument I've heard seems like a desperate stretch by someone who wants there to be good reasons to believe. And that fits so well with what I understand about the psychology of belief. But I should think it obvious that it would be irrational to actively believe in the Trumpeter swan until its discovery. I can't say I know god's existence is impossible. But what I know is that the natural exists. Everyone understands that. I don't know the supernatural exists. I'm not opposed to the idea but I see no evidence currently. Once it's conclusively demonstrated, I'll reconsider.

[@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

[@SpaceDin0]

Isn’t there a Science of the gaps.

[@trevormckey5002]

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

[@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.

[@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

[@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

[@itsJPhere]

InspiringPhilosophy At the end of this video you argue that because non-theism cannot explain some things therefore theism is the better worldview. But it doesn't work like that. If something has no explanation it doesn't follow that your explanation for it is necessarily the right one. You're essentially saying: The universe cannot be explained without God. Therefore God created the universe. I could also use the same argument: My painting cannot be explained without Leonardo Da Vinci. Therefore Leonardo Da Vinci painted my painting. If you want to convince anybody, you need to have the evidence to demonstrate that the universe was really created by a specific God just like I would need to have the evidence to demonstrate that my painting was really painted by Leonardo Da Vinci.

[@nagilumx6715]

If you so diehard on "empirical" evidence (as if there already were none 😕?), when considering the "supernatural," here's what I propose: I. INVESTIGATE PSYCHOKINESIS Scientists have proved that EM waves alter the behavior of matter. They have shown how the brain produces EM--possibly up to 200 Hz. Why don't you search for frequencies above the highest yet measured. See if the brain is producing any. Call these "Omega" waves. Then measure their effect on real matter and virtual particle and force fields. That would represent the beginning of proving to yourself as a nuts-n-bolts seeker of a material explanation for supernatural phenomena. II. INVESIGATE IMMATERIAL LIFE AND INFORMATION SYSTEMS Look among theoretical particles, fields, and force systems for anything that would enable a living information system to exist in such forms. How do you know that only intelligent entities you can see exist--of a known, theoretical, or undiscovered form matter or energy? Don't just gawk at me. YOU HAVE WORK TO DO!!!

[@itsJPhere]

Smidlee If life can only come from life, where do you believe the first life came from?

[@itsJPhere]

Jeff M As far as I know psychokinesis, immaterial life or anything supernatural doesn't exist. Why should I believe in them, why should I care about such things?

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

No, we have far better arguments than just this caricature you present: kzbin.info/www/bejne/n3eoc4J9gc-op5Y kzbin.info/www/bejne/aKOaZamZgt2qi80

[@itsJPhere]

InspiringPhilosophy A part of my original point was that if you have an argument for theism it raises the question of which god is it then and why isn't that god a human invention like the rest. You seem to be a Christian organization. Can you explain how do you get from an unspecified creator of the universe to the specific God of Christianity, why do you believe Christianity is true?

[@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.

[@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.

[@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.

[@Nekulturny]

Are you serious with this crap? Maybe you met some people who assure you that "future humans" will figure out these problems later, but you completely ignore nearly to the point of strawman the other position, in that, there are things we non-theists acknowledge we may never know, and that is the correct answer "I don't know", not "God dun it" OR "humans later will surely figure this out with science". No... the correct answer when we don't know something and have no demonstrated method to find out is "I don't know, we may never know". When you assert "god dun it" because science can't explain something, that is in fact a god of the gaps fallacy, period. It seems like you're projecting more than anything. I don't know if there is a multiverse, I don't know that we'll ever have a way to test it. I don't know what the explanation of cause for the Big Bang was. I'm not asserting "Future Scientists will figure this out one day". I don't know if they will or can. Thats it. Theres no fallacy in there, certainly none of the ones you just invented in this video.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

If you don’t know how do you know so the correct answer is “I don’t know”? After all, you don’t know

[@Nekulturny]

@@InspiringPhilosophy Yeah, and thats not a fallacy. Being honest about not knowing what you don't know is not fallacious, its... honest. This seems to be a theme with you. You go on with a bunch of BS then you shift the burden of proof, while throwing a little snark in there, and if you're dealing with someone like Dillahunty you begin drinking heavily out of frustration when it doesn't work. Yeah that was amazing watching you kill half that bottle of Johnnie Walker Black (I presume thats what it was), then try to get Dillahunty to do a shot with you because you realized you were looking like you had experience drinking like that. I'm starting to recognize that as your modus operandi, I'm being facetious about the drinking part, but the rest of it, yeah. You make a bunch of appeals to god of the gaps fallacies, and then shift the burden of proof. No wonder you have to project that onto non-theists. See and you wrote this, right off the bat your response to Prophet of Zod case in point you fundamentally either do not understand or you are willfully dishonest: "Atheists don’t have any real arguments I suppose." We don't *need* an argument, when are just rejecting yours because it has not convinced us. Like I said, this is what you seem to be quite fond of doing, shifting the burden of proof. Its not our job to prove you wrong, it is your job to prove you are correct. (Proof in the colloquial sense)

[@parktol02]

First

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Congrats, I guess.

[@parktol02]

InspiringPhilosophy Sorry, it’s common nowadays to rush to the comment section and see who can be the first to comment. If I seem as obsessed as a Richard Carrier fanboi on one of his blog posts, I apologize. Love the vids though man.

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

You're good, man! Thanks

[@parktol02]

Btw, do you have any advice for young, wannabe-apologists like myself? Sometimes I get carried away with it all, and I feel that I get overwhelmed at times. Any books? Thanks

[@InspiringPhilosophy]

Stat with "Philosophical Foundations for a Christian worldview" and "Misreading Scripture with western eyes"