I found jesus yet his logic is disturbing

[Worldslaziestbusker]

Just a thought: if GOTG was anything other than an argument for the existence of a deity, would it mention gods at all?
Acknowledgement of the gaps is a necessary starting point in philosophy of science courses and covers the ground neatly without ever mentioning gods. The same points are raised as in GOTG wordings, just leaving out the superfluous.

[irishjazz]

Originally Posted by Worldslaziestbusker

Just a thought: if GOTG was anything other than an argument for the existence of a deity, would it mention gods at all?

Acknowledgement of the gaps is a necessary starting point in philosophy of science courses and covers the ground neatly without ever mentioning gods. The same points are raised as in GOTG wordings, just leaving out the superfluous.

The gaps certainly don't need gods to fill them. And gods should not be mentioned in philosophy of science courses.

The non-logically fallacious GOTG position is an argument for possibility of the existence of gods, but it stops short of an argument for their existence. (Those who try to use it as a proof step full-on into fallacy.)

You have said you are an agnostic atheist, which means that you do not deny the existence of gods, you lack belief because of a lack of any credible evidence for gods' existence. If you are leaving open the tiny, tiny, tiny chance that some little god might exist, where are they going to emerge from but a place that we do not understand- i.e. a "gap?

[irishjazz]

Originally Posted by Logic please

@ij: am I to take from your non-response (and basically posting right past my query), that you have no further to add on the matters I raised?

If your reticence is due to concern about compromising the upcoming debate(s) please advise.

I think the place where we are not connecting is in the idea that the GOTG position is necessarily an argument for the existence of gods, rather than an argument for the possibility of the existence of gods. The former is a fallacy, the latter is not. The standard moderate Christian formulation is:

1. I believe in God because of faith - i.e. in the absence of evidence
2. I believe in science because it does not conflict with my religious beliefs. God's power transcends the physical world.

I totally agree that this is a convenient assertion. It is not an argument, so there is no logical structure to be flawed.

Since it isn't logical it is, to quote Fermi, not even wrong.

[Logic please]

@ij: thanks for your replies. I've been tied up with other matters, so my apologies for not replying.

Given the need to attend to your debate with WAS, I'm happy to leave our discussion in abeyance for the duration so that it does not distract, and pick up again on conclusion of the debate. If you agree, of course.

Good luck for the debate.

[Strato]

[quote=yrtemmyscirtemmysa;360269]There are realms restricted to human knowledge, like what created space.

Yrt,

No my good friend. You know intuitively there is no ever transcendent cruelly provoking God ever withholding the full understanding from us, after allegedly creating us, ever to be so curious.

[irishjazz]

Originally Posted by Logic please

@ij: thanks for your replies. I've been tied up with other matters, so my apologies for not replying.

Given the need to attend to your debate with WAS, I'm happy to leave our discussion in abeyance for the duration so that it does not distract, and pick up again on conclusion of the debate. If you agree, of course.

Good luck for the debate.

Thanks Logic please.

I am looking forward to the debate.