• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

When science goes gibberish; what does it indicate?

leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
q konn said:
Wrong again, the concept is only useful in that one has objective standard for verifying the truthfulness of the claim,; since this is not the case, if you claim that there is a 'god of the gaps' position in some ones argument, you therefore are claiming /subjectively/, that deity does not fulfill that part of the persons argument. It's completely subjective; in the manner of usage in an argument, it's almost useless.
Click to expand...
To make it a bit more clear, the god of the gaps fallacy is at issue with the validity of support. It does not contend that God couldn't be responsible. Just that the absence of an alternative doesn't support that God is.
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
q konn said:
'No deity', is a claim. It's a subjective opinion/ declaration, nothing more. It is also essentially unfalsifiable; this makes the 'god of the gaps' nonsense, subjective. It assumes a correct position, a position of knowledge, when there is no position of knowledge; merely a claim.
Click to expand...

Of course it is falsifiable. All you have to do is to show evidence of a deity, in order to falsify it.

Ciao

- viole
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
viole said:
Of course it is falsifiable. All you have to do is to show evidence of a deity, in order to falsify it.

Ciao

- viole
Click to expand...
No, you are talking about convincing, not evidence. A person can be convinced of Deity, this does not mean that you would be, etc. Your position renders anything, literally anything, unprovable. /Hence also a contradictory stance, as you are asking for proof within an unprovable parameter or context. It's essentially nonsense
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
q konn said:
No, you are talking about convincing, not evidence. A person can be convinced of Deity, this does not mean that you would be, etc. Your position renders anything, literally anything, unprovable. /Hence also a contradictory stance, as you are asking for proof within an unprovable parameter or context. It's essentially nonsense
Click to expand...
The point of a discussion is to provide support that the other side can accept as to convince them of the reasoning behind your claim. If you don't have anything verifiable, it is perfectly fine to admit it.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
q konn said:
No, you are talking about convincing, not evidence. A person can be convinced of Deity, this does not mean that you would be, etc. Your position renders anything, literally anything, unprovable. /Hence also a contradictory stance, as you are asking for proof within an unprovable parameter or context. It's essentially nonsense
Click to expand...
She is asking for verifiable evidence of a deity. That was stated clearly.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
leibowde84 said:
Why is that gibberish. The entire point of science is to change increase our understanding of the cosmos. So, of course it will constantly change.
Click to expand...
Right, which is why asking for proof of deity is nonsensical in the scientific context anyway; you don't have a consistent standard by which to determine anything,


it's nonsense, as I stated earlier.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
q konn said:
Right, which is why asking for proof of deity is nonsensical in the scientific context anyway; you don't have a consistent standard by which to determine anything,


it's nonsense, as I stated earlier.
Click to expand...
When did i demand scientific evidence for the existence of deities?
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Mestemia said:
How is it anyone's fault but your own that you cannot present non-fallacious support for your god claim?
Click to expand...
No, you don't seem to realize that your position is merely a claim as well, which has to have evidence. You are presuming a position of correctness, which is why the argument of logical fallacy, in these debates, does not work. So, you have to prove your fallacious claim.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
q konn said:
You infer it by claiming logical fallacy to religious explanations.
Click to expand...
The reason it's a logical fallacy is because you are taking a point in which objective facts are not known, and without gathering any objective evidence yourself, you assume to know the answer, and you assign the answer as god, even though you have no objective or empirical evidence to support this claim.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Shadow Wolf said:
The reason it's a logical fallacy is because you are taking a point in which objective facts are not known, and without gathering any objective evidence yourself, you assume to know the answer, and you assign the answer as god, even though you have no objective or empirical evidence to support this claim.
Click to expand...
No, you are conflating logical fallacy with unproven claim. Two very different things. ''Objective'' here, btw, is actually subjective lol, /so it's really subjective/. Empirical evidence is used as an inference to a Deity, or can be; or Creationism, etc.
 
Shadow Wolf

Shadow Wolf

Certified People sTabber & Business Owner
q konn said:
No, you are conflating logical fallacy with unproven claim. Two very different things. ''Objective'' here, btw, is actually subjective lol, /so it's really subjective/. Empirical evidence is used as an inference to a Deity, or can be; or Creationism, etc.
Click to expand...
objective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
subjective
1
adj taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias
The unproven claim is that god exist. You are making this claim, thus the burden of proof falls on you. Because you cannot provide this evidence, it is not an objective statement. If you say something exists, you must be able to objectively demonstrate that it does. God is an unproven claim. Belief in god is not a logical fallacy, but insisting an unknown is explained by god is.
 
D

Desert Snake

Veteran Member
Shadow Wolf said:
objective
1.
(of a person or their judgment) not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
subjective
1
adj taking place within the mind and modified by individual bias
The unproven claim is that god exist. You are making this claim, thus the burden of proof falls on you. Because you cannot provide this evidence, it is not an objective statement. If you say something exists, you must be able to objectively demonstrate that it does. God is an unproven claim. Belief in god is not a logical fallacy, but insisting an unknown is explained by god is.
Click to expand...
No it isn't. It's a claim. Again, you are conflating subjective, with objective. What is objective to one person, may not be objective to another, it's ''off topic'', if that helps. ie it doesn't apply to many arguments.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top