God of the Gaps ISN'T a Fallacy!?

[@iambuhlockay8007]

A better analogy would be two detectives see a dead body, and one (the theist) claims that the victim was killed by gremlins. The other detective (the atheist) asks how they know that. They respond “Well, how else do you explain this dead body?”

[@freddan6fly]

Or theist respond "Just trust me bruh".

[@planetpeterson2824]

Gremlins are the necessary and sufficient condition for death, and the contrary is impossible.

[@iambuhlockay8007]

@@planetpeterson2824 “Do you reject the necessity of the death gremlins as the ultimate cause of reality?”

[@catelynh1020]

Two detectives see a body with bloody footprints leading away. The atheist detective: this was a murder done by a human, based off the evidence of the footprints, the wounds on the body, and the location of the blood/body Theist detective: this was done by a god who did a miracle to spawn the wounds after death and another miracle to shape the blood into the shape of footprints

[@vidyagaems4063]

Gremlins are known to cause humans to die, it says so in the Tale of Gremlins. Therefore gremlins explain death parsimoniously.

[@enlacostaizquierda]

What irks me the most about the god of the gaps is summed up nicely by the Futurama creationist ape bit.. every gap closed becomes another gap. And even after we closed thousands and thousands of gaps they still want thousands and thousands more.. their god is so small that he now hides between quarks.

[@an.d.m.a]

And they want to open gaps in places where there are no gaps.

[@enlacostaizquierda]

@@an.d.m.a Yes. Mostly this is caused by their lack of understanding. For example "Lucy" is only a member of the species that led to us. Which doesn't satisfying them and they demand we find the real Australopithecus "Eve" or we're lying somehow. But evolution works on populations over many generations so there never can be a true "Eve". Each genetic change has a first but it takes many of them combined to become a new species. So while we might have a "mitochondrial Eve" she isn't necessarily the first female with any of the tens of thousands of other genes. The same is true for "Y chromosomal Adam"

[@EdwardHowton]

Every gap closed becomes _two_ gaps; one on either "side" of the original. The end result being that christians keep making their own god smaller and more insignificant as time goes on. The really irksome thing is that christians should be first in line to oppose using the god of the gaps tactic, precisely BECAUSE it makes their god increasingly pathetic. Instead we get this shit of trying to defend the patheticization of God in the name of "proving" how "awesome" "God" is. Keep doing our work for us I guess, theists? Thanks? You can stop though.

[@PsychoMuffinSDM]

How did we make an airplane? We made it. How did we make an airplane? Because we wanted to. How did we make an airplane? We made one in a year.

[@timgargac2766]

Dr. Banjo 🙂

[@alexanderingraham8255]

“Naturalism of the Gaps” sounds like they’re playing Mad Libs with the arguments they can’t refute…

[@shassett79]

Being _extremely charitable_ complaining about "naturalism of the gaps" is a way for theists to attack epistemologies based on naturalism. They also complain about "naturalistic bias." And while I might be sympathetic to a discussion on that, if it were advanced in good faith by an intelligent person, the thing theists don't seem to notice is that people have very good reason to work from the perspective of naturalism, and essentially no reason to reject it. They're basically saying, "you're biased," but not explaining what's wrong with that bias. It's like telling someone that they're predisposed to assume that they can use a light switch to turn on a light and complaining about their "pro-light switch bias." Like... _of course they do that, because that's how light switches work._

[@somexp12]

What does "naturalism" even mean to them? This is what they call literally anything other than God. There are basically infinite explanations under the heading "naturalism." Using this catch-all label gives the false impression that the two choices are equal. But the choices are actually between "God" and *_literally anything else._*

[@shassett79]

@ I mean, I agree... but to again bend over backwards and be as charitable as possible, I imagine they'd say naturalism is the predisposition to prefer natural explanations over gods. Like, they'd imply that naturalists don't offer sufficient consideration to magic, even if they can't describe why anyone should actually consider magic in the first place.

[@11kravitzn]

It's called projection-gaslighting, accusing your opponent of what you are in fact doing to make it seem less likely that you are doing it yourself. Theists strongly resent the success of naturalism in explaining and predicting phenomena and making powerful technologies. Theism predicts precisely nothing and has made a grand total of zero technologies.

[@EdwardHowton]

Because that's precisely what they're doing. Sprinkled with a generous lethal dose of 'no u' on top. It's an old and very common tactic apologists and wannabes use. One of "our side" publishes a book titled The God Delusion, they publish a bajillion _no u_ books with the same title replacing 'god' with the author's name. Or worse, they start out with "evalushin false because GAWD", and later when that doesn't work they go "evalushin PROVES Gawd ackshullee!", and typically they don't get the memo not to say _both_ of those at the same time. Because they really are just aping their betters. The intellectual equivalent of 'nuh uh times infinity!'

[@shassett79]

Better analogy: One detective says the murderer was a human and the other one says that the person was killed by time-traveling garden gnomes who murder people by singing.

[@somexp12]

Even closer: one says it was time-traveling garden gnomes while the other merely says it was probably something that wasn't a time-traveling garden gnome. Could be a human being, could be a coyote, could be a falling meteor, could be one of _infinite possibilities other than time-traveling garden gnomes._

[@andreywonttell4016]

The "Kalam" argument supports this conclusion. The origin of the universe ("first cause") came from the fact that they teleported to the beginning of time and started our universe.

[@shassett79]

@ Well, as WLC will tell us, it's impossible to refute the Kalam. All hail the time-traveling garden gnomes!

[@baymarin4456]

The guy simply expired. The blood and the footprints were left by the passerby with nosebleed who called the police. Case closed.

[@Michael-sb8jf]

I like sir sic's explanation from his response to this video Went something like the guy was bleeding out from self induced accident and stepped in their own blood

[@TheJPomp]

Oh snap he's wearing a blazer? Shit's about to get real.

[@michaelbell3181]

"murder of the gaps "! Now, "naturalism of the gaps" LOL 🤣 this kid is hilarious

[@Julian0101]

The fun part is that even if it were 'naturalism of the gasp', in the history of humanity a god has never been found out as the correct answer for anything, and all the correct answers we have found have been natural. So even by that projection the apologists still lose.

[@danpettinger1353]

Looks like someones been in court for parking ticket.

[@SRampley]

3:32 don't forget the shoe wearing Unicorn.

[@vex1669]

Would explain the circular wound at least. But why would a unicorn have gunpowder on its horn?

[@SteveLaw-UK]

​@@vex1669it works in a gunpowder factory with shoddy personal protective equipment.

[@andreywonttell4016]

@@SteveLaw-UK And I told that damn animal to join the union already and fight for its labor rights.

[@TheOmegaXicor]

11:30 OMG this is like when the British opposition MP said of her opponent "Her budget is filled with unfunded taxes rises", you don't understand what the other side is saying, but you know it's bad, so you just repeat it back at them even though it makes no sense when directed at them.

[@AztroNut66]

13:33 He is stating that a scientific theory is somehow equivalent to Presuppositionalism. Also, perhaps, a false dichotomy by assuming that one of ONLY THESE TWO OPTIONS should be considered. Pitting naturalism against supernaturalism on the same playing field is like scheduling a pro football game in which the home team will be hosting a team that is not in the NFL, has no stats or record, has never been seen, and for which we have no evidence for them even existing. What advertiser would invest in air time for that halftime?

[@ezbody]

Just like AronRa said: Every theist argument is a fallacy. I will add: special pleading is their favorite one.

[@lunalegion]

It’s amazing the lengths people will go to justify themselves for pretending to know things.

[@SamyasaSwi]

14:00 Oh somebody came to me with that exact argument, and they just could not understand why that's not how it works, or they at least pretended not to understand. Just because one model can't (yet) explain a phenomena, does not automatically make any other model that claims it can, right/superior. You have to have evidence. Why don't some people understand that very simple fact?

[@DeetotheDubs]

He really thought he was cooking with his "No, you." retort. It's almost adorable if D2J wasn't such a smooth-brained d-bag.

[@danielhoward9729]

The man cut himself while jumping a fence, dying from blood loss. He left behind bloody footprints while he was seeking help. Also, God stopped his heart. Boom! Didn't see that coming.

[@thettguy]

As a scientist hearing him describe the Naturalism of the gaps thing my thoughts were - fuck yeah - that is exactly what science is. Science stops as soon as a scientist goes - no point trying to explain that - God did it. Naturalism of the gaps - guilty as charged you honour. Now what?

[@Minisynapse]

God of the gaps is, as an argument, one of the most ironic ones because in order to invalidate all future possibilities of invoking the God of the gaps argument, you'd have to attain godlike omniscience. God of the gaps' relies solely on the existence of ignorance. Whenever we patch previous ignorance, new questions will emerge, all the way until we know everything. Because we will likely never know everything, God of the gaps can always be utilized. To make matters worse, we don't even know what "knowing everything" would look like. We stumble into numerous epistemological problems when trying to understand omniscience, such as an infinite regress of knowledge about knowledge, because knowing that you know something is also knowledge: I know X. I Also know that I know X. But I also know that I know that I know X. And I know that I know that I know that I know X...etc ad infinity. This infinite regress is necessary in order to avoid not knowing that you know something, because that would cause a contradiction with omniscience. You MUST know that you know that you know...(insert infinity)...that you know X, because otherwise you cannot claim that you know everything. If it is possible to not know you know something, you then might not know that you know that you know that you know...(infinity again)...that you know X. God of the gaps is, therefore, epistemologically bankrupt. Knowledge self-generates ignorance. This is also why experts on any scientific field consistently admit that the more they have learned about a subject, the more aware they are of how little they know about it. This is likely also the root of the Dunning-Kruger effect: without knowing enough about a subject, you will also lack knowledge about how much (or little) you know about it. I'd even be willing to say that there's an exponential, positive relationship between learning about a subject and knowing how much you still have to learn. Learn enough and you'll realize you have to learn forever.

[@shassett79]

This dude has strong Principal Skinner energy. "Could it be that my reasoning is fallacious? No. It is the philosophers who are wrong!" Also is that Kyle Hill at 1:35? What's he doing here?

[@EdwardHowton]

Don't know if anyone else here is old enough to remember a good while back in... I want to say a DonExodus2 video, where some theist complained "logical fallacies were invented by people who hate God". As if arguing that you're right because you say so is somehow correct and some pesky atheists came along and said 'no' to hide the truth of the invisible space wizard, or something. This is nothing new... but it's getting worse as these lazy non-thinkers get lazy and prouder of not thinking. The way things are going we're soon going to see "apologists" boast "I's so dum I dont even no how 2 wipe aftur I shet!" to wild applause. We're almost there already.

[@JLWarren]

I’m almost convinced that Darwin to Jesus is really an atheist troll.

[@DeetotheDubs]

Nice to see you here. I'd like to think he's a troll but that is some supreme acting and contortion to get one's head in place to think like them.

[@BillGarrett]

We find a dead body. A Christian tells us there must be a murderer. We ask how the murder was committed, like with a knife or a gun? We ask what signs on the body indicate murder? And we are told "well there was a murderer and he did murder".

[@Jessica_O_Bell]

FTR I'm at 19:59. An historical example of "naturalism of the gaps". Using Newton's laws of motion, we tried to fully understand the motion of the planets. When we did this, our mathematical calculations and our observations were very similar to one another... but didn't line up perfectly and exactly. Every physicist employed a "naturalism of the gaps" orientation. Everyone just assumed that there was a missing component in Newton's equations, and that one day we'd find it. And then we did. Thanks to Einstein. Now, the mathematical calculations and observations line up perfectly. "Naturalism of the gaps" was proven correct. Are there any cogent comparable examples of "God of the gaps" being proven correct???

[@uzi98mc]

Hey I commented on that video months ago, because it was just so dumb, lovely to see you cover it 😂 Edit: Oh lol I just saw the comment is even visible at the start of the video 😂😂

[@Sang-Je]

Someone combined the writings of bronze age mens fantasy books, so now a god exists.

[@SteveLaw-UK]

Still waiting for the last book of the trilogy. God's slower than JRR Martin.

[@SteveLaw-UK]

@@maniswolftoman I don't know much about the Koran. I know they see Jesus as a prophet and not the son of god but do they retcon it like you would in a sequel? Plot twist! Also, isn't it closer to a rewrite/reboot than a continuation?

[@jamierichardson7683]

​@@SteveLaw-UK Quran,Mormonism,

[@jamierichardson7683]

​@@SteveLaw-UKisn't the new testament the same. Pretty sure that's how the Jews see it

[@SteveLaw-UK]

@@jamierichardson7683 it's mostly introducing a new character arc with some references to the first book in the series via various unreliable narrators.

[@ronanclark2129]

1:52 more like it never precedes the "conclusion" stage 😂

[@Unicorn-Black]

Amazing how those ignorants think that if you have an answer it's better even if it's false than not having an answer. Top idiots

[@S4int__]

"Yeah, but you know who else leaves footprints? Jesus!"

[@matt92hun]

People always ask why is the engine, but they never ask how is the engine :(

[@Jessica_O_Bell]

A more accurate metaphor would be that God is Kira from Death Note. He is able to commit murder using magic. The murder just happens because he consciously wants it to happen. And he leaves behind no evidence, and there is no physical mechanism by which the murders occur.

[@ilyaleytes1611]

This was a long way to go to say “I’m uncomfortable saying I don’t know and I hate that you are”.

[@shassett79]

I refer to this phenomenon as the "theistic certainty fetish."

[@danthsmith]

Theist argument: Anything I don't understand, it was magic

[@ilyaleytes1611]

Serious question, why is it that all too many theists seem to think that atheists and scientists are the same thing?

[@Noooiiiissseee]

Persecution complex. They think the entire scientific community purely exists to disprove their god and make people atheists. That must mean the two are intrinsically linked.

[@sammayberry4652]

This is effectively what thiests are saying: "I don't know. Therefore, I know."

[@FutureWorldX]

What about Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe may leaf be upon her?

[@catelynh1020]

She's pretty hands off...hooves off?...after pooping out the world. But i still feel like i need to say that Lisa the Rainbow Giraffe, leaf be upon her, is a more reasonable explaination than the judeo christian god

[@amandswright2040]

I'll bet she craps Skittles 😂

[@ekojar3047]

14:22 im going to pay attention to this now from both sides. An argument from ignorance. If i understand correctly, i cant say my new friends idea is wrong strictly because i know more about the other things in this subject. Basically, its not impossible for the janitor in a police station to come in to clean the detectives office, there is a map on the wall with a bunch of tacs in it. And the Janitor asks the detectives, What is that arrow made of tacs pointing at? The janitor can still be right, the detectives shouldn't says, your ignorant about our work, so you have to be wrong because its impossible for you to be right about anything in investigations. You're only a cleaner. I think I get it. Its just so lame when anyone does this in a debate, but even worse is when someone doesn't understand a fallacy, and accuses a rock solid real hard truth drop of being a fallacy, and say nope, thats an argument from authority and a sraw man. Like, nothing they said makes sense, it just makes them sound smart to the average joe , joe will think its a sick burn, and stay trapped in the echo chamber forever. The "Eko Jar" if you will lol, thats my online name.

[@klodius8588]

The heart beats; therefore there is a heart beater.

[@Connection-Lost]

First: Are we going to ignore the fact that this guy's avatar is AI Rob Lowe Jesus? Second: His analogy about the ants and a car engine is similar to something I came up with on my own- Asking humans to perceive space-time, how the universe came to be, and what was before the big bang is tantamount to asking a parrot to tell you how a car works by looking at an oil stain in a driveway. But yes our current version of science is the only thing that gets us remotely close to having SOME answers.

[@thatgut2375]

You and Sir Sic both do a great job rebutting this video, though his video is more satirical because he hates the hoomanz and is fueled by whiskey

[@weschilton]

OK I will say it, All apologists ARE liars.

[@Jessica_O_Bell]

FTR I'm at 7:25 A human decides that they want to commit murder, they pick up a weapon, attack a person, and then that person goes from being alive to being dead... This event can only be explained via naturalism. Both event in total, and each constituent stage. Murder is a naturalistic phenomenon. This is nothing more than a weak wordplay game, trying to equate a conscious deliberate action of God with a conscious deliberate action of a human. The phenomena of a conscious agent thinking with their mind, consciously making a decision, and then taking action to act upon the world is all naturalistic.

[@Jessica_O_Bell]

5:50 This "I asked you how, not who" dilemma only really relates to the modern monotheistic, superlative God. In this school, God's will, word and act are synonymous and indistinguishable. So yes, God thought of something, he said something (there is no way to distinguish between God's internal and external speech), and then the thing came into existence instantaneously. There's no fingerprints, no mechanism, no use of matter or energy, no externalities, no direct or indirect evidence to demonstrate that God did anything. God is pure abstraction without any relationship to matter. The same problem doesn't exist with the non-monotheistic, non-superlative Gods. How does Thor create lightning? Well, first he does this, then he does this, and then...

[@RobertSmith-gx3mi]

We talking god of the gaps like the gaps in our knowledge of agriculture and farming and weather that saw us praying and dancing to the gods in order to please them enough so that they would make it rain?

[@FloppimusMaximus]

19:00 SUPREMEMLY false! We used to think lightning came from the gods. Then we figured it out through science, it was a natural process. How many gods have been proven?

[@stonehallow]

The murder bit at the beginning would be abductive though not inductive wouldn't it?

[@altair91100]

Imagine this conversation a 100 years from now when we actually will have solved abiogenesis and we could create life in the lab from a scratch. Theres fewer and fewer gaps to fill

[@peterwyetzner5276]

Koine, which means "ordinary" or "common", is the form of Greek in which the Septuagint, the Apocrypha, and the New Testament are written. It's a somewhat simplified form of the classical language from a time when Greek culture spread across the Mediterranean, in the 4th century BCE and after. For a bit more, see: kzbin.info/www/bejne/Z4W4fqCfYtuamMU

[@kenichiotaku3693]

Isn't The God Of The Gaps a triune fallacy made of argument from ignorance + argument from incredulity + circular reasoning aka begging the question?

[@malcky1132]

5:00 How did you make this sandwich? My Wife made it.

[@Jessica_O_Bell]

If we had God's bloody footprints on the floor, then the theistic position would be so much stronger than it presently is.

[@thatgut2375]

19:00 it is more reasonable and honest to say "I don't know," and then fill in the gap in your knowledge as you and the world discover new things about this universe than it is to just go "God did it" and never learn anything new after that.

[@an.d.m.a]

Not last

[@antondovydaitis2261]

But the First Shall Be Last!

[@ucchi9829]

Peter Godfrey-Smith?

[@tylerdurden783]

For some reason, your video stutters and drops frames every time you resume playback of the other guy's video

[@ShadowManceri]

Theist: Pi's value is GOD! Mathematician: How do you prove that? Theist: It just is. I have faith it is so. Mathematician: That doesn't provide any explanatory power, and you have not provided any work. Theist: Well, can you show me what the exact value of Pi is? Mathematician: I can't. We don't yet have that ability. The best I have is an approximation to many billion digits. That's more than enough to do practically any calculation you need. Theist: Aha! That means you can't explain it! And because you have no answer, that means my answer is correct! Mathematician: You can't explain it any better. You are presenting a god of the gaps fallacy. You have to default to not knowing rather than any random idea. And from that not knowing state, you have to now do the work to show this new idea is correct. Theist: But you are presenting naturalism of the gaps! Mathematician: By saying that I'm optimistic that we can solve Pi at some point because we already have partially solved it? That's not a fallacy. It's an expression of optimism, given that the history of evidence is getting better and better all the time. That suggests it is possible to solve it if we just keep at it. Theist: But... but how do you explain how the universe got here? Your Pi has no answers.

[@atheist.archive]

If God can just speak things into existence, wouldn't that be a reaction or something in relation to the environment that God finds himself in?

[@BlastedChutoy]

Am I crazy or did that Jesus picture early on look exactly like Peterson? Coincidence? I don't know, you tell me theists 😂😂

[@twalt_twr]

A Wise man once said “God did!”

[@FloppimusMaximus]

22:00 DUDE Metaphysics does explain everything. (With zero evidence) Which means it's a claim. JTFC

[@ShawnHawkins666-33]

The one set of footprints proves that Jesus came and carried the guy away before he could get caught.

[@LanceHall]

I'd buy a car from Eric.

[@Evidence1]

Atheism isn't a worldview that has to explain how the universe came to be.

[@СергейМакеев-ж2н]

The world is impossible. But my God can make an impossible thing happen anyway. Therefore, my God has explanatory power.

[@Charron684]

the "victim" could have left the foot prints themselves as they staggered around after cutting them self by accident NO GOD NESSESARY

[@jumpman8282]

Theists can't explain why the universe exists either. Saying that god did it only shifts the question to "why did god do it?"

[@traviseller8160]

How? What. How? What. How? What. How? Why. How?

[@mitchellcarter9760]

If I was a theist, I would be pissed that this kid represents my apologetics. That was pitiful.

[@steelebennett4788]

APPROVED BY LORD SPANKY

[@jaredwollan1952]

He's not a bad guy offline. I used to talk with him regularly. His online presence is a bit insufferable though. He loves to use presup... Pretty sure he's in his mid to late 20's maybe early 30's so not really a "kid". But yeah, his arguments are pretty bad.

[@keiryuujin]

The feck is 'Natural' theology?

[@thinkeightsix]

I would recommend adding a or your before god. Not doing so makes it sound like you're acknowledging a god exists.

[@andralfoo]

so long story short, it is

[@markvonwisco7369]

"Naturalism of the gaps" has to be one of the stupidest I've ever heard.

[@BlueBarrier782]

Why argue philosophy when you can just redefine it?

[@11kravitzn]

Here's an "explanation" of literally anything: Why is X the case? God willed it so. How? By omnipotent fiat. Why? God knows. Just remember that "God" explains nothing. You may as well say "magic". "God did it" is a way of saying "it's the case, I don't know how, so God." Every invocation of "God" as an explanation achieves a double effect for the theist: it "explains" the unknown, and it gives God something to do. Theists are always at pains to try to find something for God to do, given how much can be increasingly explained (actually explained, mind you) without God.

[@kevinfrench9753]

I just wanted to mention how snazzy you look today.

[@EddyBombay]

Cold cases don't exist. Every cold case was done by God. Solved.

[@veganpundit1]

💯👍⭐️

[@Gordy-io8sb]

Someone tell DTJ that atheists created the A.I. he uses.

[@1eviledy]

AI art is crap.

[@tgrogan6049]

I don't know. You don't know. Therefore fore we both know -that is, we know that God originated it." An honest person, when confronted with something he knows nothing about, will admit he knows nothing about it. To argue that we do not know how a thing was brought about is clearly not to argue that we know something concerning cerning how it was brought about. Ignorance implies only ignorance. If we begin the argument from science by assuming a position of ignorance as to the existence of adequate quate natural causes and the existence of God, then we cannot proceed to the conclusion that God exists. The argument can move only from ignorance to ignorance. It can conclude that God exists only if it begins with that assumption. B. C. Johnson. The Atheist Debater's Handbook (Skeptics Bookshelf Series) (Kindle Locations 127-131). Kindle Edition.

[@heavymetalpancake]

that video is so stupid i feel dumber now.

[@AlexPBenton]

The analogy is terrible, but even taking it at face value he’s simply wrong. The reason why bloody footprints is evidence for a murder is not because nobody has given an explanation for how they would exist without a murder, it’s because it’s the kind of thing you would expect to see if there was a murder.

[@LanceHall]

Omg theists and their nonsensical analogies.

[@midlander4]

Bropologetics... wow it's tiresome

[@wiledman2430]

Your looking quite dapper, doing something special today?

[@ChallengeYourBeliefs]

I read the posts from Darwin to Jesus and he is one of the more stupid ones. He constantly makes strawman arguments. And he thinks that if he refutes atheism, his god will come into existence. 😂😂😂

[@boxodrive]

Which detective is the atheist and which is the theist doesn't matter because in his view both arguments are equal and he's stupid and the argument is terrible

[@KEvronista]

sorry, but " how did god create the universe" is as incoherent as "god created the universe." KEvron

[@tyemaddog]

God of the gaps is ultimately fine tuning

[@jimstone3014]

I'm a Christian and I believe in God. This man is not affiliated with me I also believe that, while yes, there is a lot in science we don't understand yet, I believe that eventually, we will. God made this universe with rules and laws of physics and all that with the intention of us finding it out someday.

[@murrayphillipson4830]

How did he do it?

[@jimstone3014]

I believe that many of God's miracles adhere to the laws of physics. So maybe it looked a lot like how the scientific theory of how the early universe and formation of the earth looked

[@Diviance]

@@jimstone3014 If they adhere to the laws of physics, they ain't miracles.

[@jimstone3014]

@@Diviance Take Moses turning the Nile to blood for example. All the fish died and it became undrinkable. There's some theories that it wasn't actually blood, but rather an algae bloom. Those can often be red and they take most of the oxygen out of the water. What's an algae bloom doing the the Nile? I dunno, that's the miracle part

[@ianchisholm5756]

@@jimstone3014 If an event is in line with the laws of physics, there's no justification for saying that it could be the result of divine intervention.

[@ossiedunstan4419]

Yes it is amongst a myriad of other fallacies.