Pub you’re getting a bit confused. I don’t know if you’re realised it but USMB, as entertaining as it is, isn’t the Oxford Union. This is not formal debate, this is exchange of opinion.
No kiddin'?
So you feel that outside of formal debate, that invalid sources are okey dokey... given, no doubt to the principle that the bullshit you're shoveling needs every advantage it can get.
Hey Diur, you work it out anyway ya need to... I've noted that you feel it necessary to lean on dubious resources and the reasons why, so if you're good with that, it works for me.
Just know that such a notion undermines your every post, stripping you of what little credibility you may have otherwise enjoyed... and we can move right on to the next logical train-wreck you've set for consideration.
When I make a reference to God of the Gaps it means a couple of things.
1.I know that the idea of “God the Gaps” exists, I didn’t make it up.
2.Other people know the idea of “God of the Gaps” exists, the fact that there is a Wikipedia entry on it demonstrates that it is known.
If you Google the term you’ll find it has a few entries explaining its meaning in Christian apologetics and how the idea has been generalised into casual secular discussions.
Diur I believe I stipulated to the mythical "God of Gaps" fallacy existing... I merely meant to convey that the notion is nonsense; a fabrication designed to color the humanist position credible; meaning that the thesis underlying the projection is invalid; thus it is not a valid example of a logical fallacy; thus there is no such logical fallacy as the "God of Gaps"... this despite the rumors to the contrary.
It is a perspective drawn by a dishonest broker, designed to discredit the opposition by distracting from the argument and appealing to that which is not at issue; thus the erroneous assertion of the God of Gaps being a valid logical fallacy, is a fallacious appeal in and of itself. But let's not quibble over facts... as such is not central to any leftist argument.
Nothing we know can show there is a god. An appeal to ignorance? No, of course not, just a simple statement that bumps against Anselm and Aquinas and anyone else that ever advanced a teleological argument for the existence of a god.
When Sir Christopher Wren died and was buried in St Paul’s Cathedral, which he designed and built, his epitaph read:
Subtus conditur Hujus Ecclesias et Urbis Conditor, CHRISTOPHERUS WREN; Qui vixit annos ultra nonaginta, Non sibi, sed bono publico. Lector, si monumentum requiris, Circumspice.
Underneath lies buried Christopher Wren, the builder of this church and city; who lived beyond the age of ninety years, not for himself, but for the public good.--Reader, if you seek his monument, look around you
That’s a fair claim, there was the evidence all around.
But the argument that says, look at the universe, someone or something must have created it, therefore it was created by a deity, is just an assumption. It’s a matter of belief.
ROFL... Oh Diur, you absolutely kill me...
So the good Mr. Wren you claim built the church and city... I say BULLSHIT! I can show that this arch and that Wall; this street and THAT house were built at a time and place where Mr. Wren is known to be elsewhere. Thus (Using your own humanist reasoning... that this biological and that chemical and this and that physical cause and effect were responsible for : (Insert any assigned evidence of God here)
thus the claim that Mr. Wren created the SPC is discredited...
See how that works? Now you may claim that the Cathedral and surrounding architecture was a result of the guidance, leadership and or inspiration of Mr. Wren and in truth you would be correct... as such is historically incontestable; but if you break the creation of SPC down to its root elements you'll find that there were hundreds of craftsmen, apprentices, masons and carpenters scattered througout the project who individually labored under his influence and direction... now take it to the absurd and discuss the physical, biological, chemical and electrical reactions of trillions upon trillions of cells which comprised those inividuals and then focus down to an exponentially greater number of atoms... which, through very predictable processes, ultimately resulted in what would at first glance appear to be a Cathedral, but what actually amounts to a random collection of atoms in various configurations, alinged and connected, correlated and set in that which could at any moment change to something totally distinct and this a function of random happenstance... which only appears to be a function of an organized effort... an 'inspired creation.'
Get the idea?
Oh sure... you can
SAY that the grave marker and the historical evidence proves C. Wren built SPC... but scientific evidence clearly shows that such COULD have occured quite naturally and definitely occured in the certain absence of one C. Wren...
Now to your gravity argument. It’s not that in 1500 BCE gravity didn’t exist, it’s that in 1500 BCE we probably didn’t even think of it.
Now... NO SHIT? Are ya sure? Because I saw on the Discovery channel...
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT DIUR? That was clearly MY POINT!
We just knew that if we dropped a stone axe it would fall to the ground. Later on gravity wasn’t discovered, it was explained.
Yeah... YET GRAVITY EXISTED! DESPITE OUR HAVING NO EVIDENCE; DESPITE OUR HAVING NO CLUE TO EVEN CONSIDER THAT IT MIGHT EXIST... DESPITE THAT WE
DIDN'T BELIEVE IN IT...
WE WERE STILL SUBJECT TO THE PHYSICAL LAWS WHICH WERE INHERENT TO GRAVITY.
Now guess what... if we think we understand, but we really don't... I mean even though we REALLY BELIEVE in gravity... but the doctrine of Gravity, the understanding of gravity that we are presently buying into... WITH THE BEST OF INTENTIONS... if that's wrong... GRAVITY DOESN'T GIVE A DAMN... it just keeps on advancing its certain characteristics, or principles... how ever ya want to look at it.
Indeed sir... But one can't prove anything to those who will not be convinced.
Apparently not.
While that's cute Diur... to be truly FUNNY it needs to have some element of truth and for you to imply that you've advanced a viable argument on this thread... well that's delusion of the highest order. You've rolled out one fallacious dead horse after another and while I'd like to throw ya a bone here... you've been throughly checked. You have absoltuely nowhere left to go.
But look Mate... don't feel bad; if you were to go to Oxford and find the absolutely brightest socialist ***** on the planet... the up and comers, the real whiz kids... and true believers to boot; they wouldn't do any better than you; and this is because your ideology is a lie and there's no means to make it truth.
