I watch atheist versus theologian debates from time to time, and often the term "God of the Gaps" is employed by atheists. The concept is that wherever there is a gap in knowledge, the theologians will attempt to park the battleship of "God" there. Theterm goes back to Friedrich Nietzsche`s 1880s book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", in which he wrote ""... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God".
From Wikipedia...sometimes reduced to the following form:
"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 according to the users of the term, is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is
There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. Therefore, the cause must be supernatural. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#:~:text=%22God%20of%20the%20gaps%22%20is,or%20proof%20of%20God's%20existence.at work.
It shouldn`t be hard to see where I`m going with this. The conspiracy believers do the exact same thing with the concept of conspiracy, anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims the conspiracy is
Not long ago, the issue of the police examining a wallet at the Tippit murder scene was brought up. The wallet`s owner is unknown for certain, but the conspiracy folk were certain what was captured in the photo was the work of the conspiracy. That wasconsidered a given, it was only the exact underhanded thing that being done, exactly what information was suppressed that conspiracy folk differed on.
You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it. Ben does it with the issue of Chaney not being called by the WC. It is unknown why Chaney wasn`t called, so Ben invents a conspiratorial one (of course theconspiratorial one makes little sense, Ben presents it as Chaney`s testimony would be some major problem for their findings, when film and testimony shows his assertion that Connally was struck after the headshot to be demonstrably wrong).
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:26:34 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:The term goes back to Friedrich Nietzsche`s 1880s book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", in which he wrote ""... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God".
I watch atheist versus theologian debates from time to time, and often the term "God of the Gaps" is employed by atheists. The concept is that wherever there is a gap in knowledge, the theologians will attempt to park the battleship of "God" there.
sometimes reduced to the following form:From Wikipedia...
"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 according to the users of the term, is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is
is at work.There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. Therefore, the cause must be supernatural. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#:~:text=%22God%20of%20the%20gaps%22%20is,or%20proof%20of%20God's%20existence.
It shouldn`t be hard to see where I`m going with this. The conspiracy believers do the exact same thing with the concept of conspiracy, anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims the conspiracy
was considered a given, it was only the exact underhanded thing that being done, exactly what information was suppressed that conspiracy folk differed on.Not long ago, the issue of the police examining a wallet at the Tippit murder scene was brought up. The wallet`s owner is unknown for certain, but the conspiracy folk were certain what was captured in the photo was the work of the conspiracy. That
conspiratorial one makes little sense, Ben presents it as Chaney`s testimony would be some major problem for their findings, when film and testimony shows his assertion that Connally was struck after the headshot to be demonstrably wrong).You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it. Ben does it with the issue of Chaney not being called by the WC. It is unknown why Chaney wasn`t called, so Ben invents a conspiratorial one (of course the
Simply put, if we don't know what else it could be, it must be this. This being the default
explanation that the person is arguing for. It is illogical when arguing for God or a JFK
conspiracy.
Carl Sagan had what I believe is the most sensible approach to the theological question.
He
found no compelling evidence of a deity. He would not go so far as to categorically rule it out.
His position was that the known evidence did not allow for the kind of certitude both atheists
and believers profess. Until we know what is, we cannot positively say what is not. Science
can take us as far back as the Big Bang but can't tell us what came before that and what
caused the Big Bang. I attended Catholic schools from K-9 and whenever someone came up
with a question the priest or nun couldn't answer, they would fall back on "It's a mystery.".
George Carlin even did a comedy routine on that. Science has its mysteries too. Stephen
Hawking, an atheist, was once asked what came before the Big Bang. His answer was that
was like asking what was north of the North Pole. To me, the seems to be the equivalent of
"It's a mystery".
If atheism could answer all my questions, I would be an atheist. Until then, I will remain a
devout agnostic.
I am not agnostic when it comes to the JFK assassination. I am 100% convinced Oswald was
the assassin. There is no evidence he had even a single accomplice. While it is theoretically
possible such an accomplice existed for which we have found no evidence, that possibility
seems so remote as to be not worth considering.
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:26:34 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:The term goes back to Friedrich Nietzsche`s 1880s book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", in which he wrote ""... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God".
I watch atheist versus theologian debates from time to time, and often the term "God of the Gaps" is employed by atheists. The concept is that wherever there is a gap in knowledge, the theologians will attempt to park the battleship of "God" there.
sometimes reduced to the following form:
From Wikipedia...
"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 according to the users of the term, is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is
is at work.
There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
Therefore, the cause must be supernatural.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#:~:text=%22God%20of%20the%20gaps%22%20is,or%20proof%20of%20God's%20existence.
It shouldn`t be hard to see where I`m going with this. The conspiracy believers do the exact same thing with the concept of conspiracy, anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims the conspiracy
considered a given, it was only the exact underhanded thing that being done, exactly what information was suppressed that conspiracy folk differed on.
Not long ago, the issue of the police examining a wallet at the Tippit murder scene was brought up. The wallet`s owner is unknown for certain, but the conspiracy folk were certain what was captured in the photo was the work of the conspiracy. That was
conspiratorial one makes little sense, Ben presents it as Chaney`s testimony would be some major problem for their findings, when film and testimony shows his assertion that Connally was struck after the headshot to be demonstrably wrong).
You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it. Ben does it with the issue of Chaney not being called by the WC. It is unknown why Chaney wasn`t called, so Ben invents a conspiratorial one (of course the
Simply put, if we don't know what else it could be, it must be this. This being the default-------------------------
explanation that the person is arguing for. It is illogical when arguing for God or a JFK
conspiracy.
Carl Sagan had what I believe is the most sensible approach to the theological question. He
found no compelling evidence of a deity. He would not go so far as to categorically rule it out.
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:36:53 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:there. The term goes back to Friedrich Nietzsche`s 1880s book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", in which he wrote ""... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God".
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:49:19 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:26:34 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I watch atheist versus theologian debates from time to time, and often the term "God of the Gaps" is employed by atheists. The concept is that wherever there is a gap in knowledge, the theologians will attempt to park the battleship of "God"
sometimes reduced to the following form:From Wikipedia...
"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 according to the users of the term, is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is
conspiracy is at work.There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. Therefore, the cause must be supernatural. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#:~:text=%22God%20of%20the%20gaps%22%20is,or%20proof%20of%20God's%20existence.
It shouldn`t be hard to see where I`m going with this. The conspiracy believers do the exact same thing with the concept of conspiracy, anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims the
That was considered a given, it was only the exact underhanded thing that being done, exactly what information was suppressed that conspiracy folk differed on.Not long ago, the issue of the police examining a wallet at the Tippit murder scene was brought up. The wallet`s owner is unknown for certain, but the conspiracy folk were certain what was captured in the photo was the work of the conspiracy.
conspiratorial one makes little sense, Ben presents it as Chaney`s testimony would be some major problem for their findings, when film and testimony shows his assertion that Connally was struck after the headshot to be demonstrably wrong).You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it. Ben does it with the issue of Chaney not being called by the WC. It is unknown why Chaney wasn`t called, so Ben invents a conspiratorial one (of course the
Simply put, if we don't know what else it could be, it must be this. This being the defaultAs Wikipedia points out, it is an argument from ignorance.
explanation that the person is arguing for. It is illogical when arguing for God or a JFK
conspiracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Carl Sagan had what I believe is the most sensible approach to the theological question.Just for the record, I wasn`t trying to make any kind of theological argument here. Just pointing out the similarities in approaches. God could exist and the "god of the gaps" approach could still be open to criticism.
Of course I feel that in both cases it is borne of a great desire to get where you want to go (damn, I did make a theological argument). BT George, where are you?
HeAs I see it it is only a question of whether there is a reason to believe.
found no compelling evidence of a deity. He would not go so far as to categorically rule it out.
His position was that the known evidence did not allow for the kind of certitude both atheists
and believers profess. Until we know what is, we cannot positively say what is not. Science
can take us as far back as the Big Bang but can't tell us what came before that and what
caused the Big Bang. I attended Catholic schools from K-9 and whenever someone came up
with a question the priest or nun couldn't answer, they would fall back on "It's a mystery.".
George Carlin even did a comedy routine on that. Science has its mysteries too. Stephen
Hawking, an atheist, was once asked what came before the Big Bang. His answer was that
was like asking what was north of the North Pole. To me, the seems to be the equivalent of
"It's a mystery".
If atheism could answer all my questions, I would be an atheist. Until then, I will remain aDo you believe in God?
devout agnostic.
You can`t say "I don`t know" to that.
Stolen from Ricky Gervais, see 3:41 here...
https://youtu.be/u7bFWyEA02cBetween his thick accent, by laptop's weak speakers, and my poor ears, I had a hard time
making out all of his argument,
but what I could make out, I don't agree with. I see nothing that
defies logic to say I don't know if God exists.
If we define God as an intelligent, supernatural
being who created everything in the cosmos, I have serious doubts but I cannot rule out the
possibility of such a supreme being because I don't know what created everything in the cosmos.
I'm not counting on there being an afterlife, but since I've never spoken to anyone who has died,
there is room for doubt.
Since you cited a comedian, I remember a Steve Martin routine when he was still doing comedy.
"What if you died and you went to heaven and it was just like the said it was, with pearly gates and angels playing harps? Wouldn't you feel stupid?"
John Corbett wrote:The term goes back to Friedrich Nietzsche`s 1880s book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", in which he wrote ""... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God".
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:26:34 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I watch atheist versus theologian debates from time to time, and often the term "God of the Gaps" is employed by atheists. The concept is that wherever there is a gap in knowledge, the theologians will attempt to park the battleship of "God" there.
sometimes reduced to the following form:
From Wikipedia...
"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 according to the users of the term, is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is
is at work.
There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
Therefore, the cause must be supernatural.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#:~:text=%22God%20of%20the%20gaps%22%20is,or%20proof%20of%20God's%20existence.
It shouldn`t be hard to see where I`m going with this. The conspiracy believers do the exact same thing with the concept of conspiracy, anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims the conspiracy
was considered a given, it was only the exact underhanded thing that being done, exactly what information was suppressed that conspiracy folk differed on.
Not long ago, the issue of the police examining a wallet at the Tippit murder scene was brought up. The wallet`s owner is unknown for certain, but the conspiracy folk were certain what was captured in the photo was the work of the conspiracy. That
conspiratorial one makes little sense, Ben presents it as Chaney`s testimony would be some major problem for their findings, when film and testimony shows his assertion that Connally was struck after the headshot to be demonstrably wrong).
You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it. Ben does it with the issue of Chaney not being called by the WC. It is unknown why Chaney wasn`t called, so Ben invents a conspiratorial one (of course the
Simply put, if we don't know what else it could be, it must be this. This being the default
explanation that the person is arguing for. It is illogical when arguing for God or a JFK
conspiracy.
Carl Sagan had what I believe is the most sensible approach to the theological question. He-------------------------
found no compelling evidence of a deity. He would not go so far as to categorically rule it out.
God is a complete mystery.
The only connection that humans can have with Him
is, through the given gift of free will, to say I believe, or
I do not believe.
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:49:19 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:The term goes back to Friedrich Nietzsche`s 1880s book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", in which he wrote ""... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God".
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:26:34 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I watch atheist versus theologian debates from time to time, and often the term "God of the Gaps" is employed by atheists. The concept is that wherever there is a gap in knowledge, the theologians will attempt to park the battleship of "God" there.
sometimes reduced to the following form:From Wikipedia...
"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 according to the users of the term, is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is
conspiracy is at work.There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. Therefore, the cause must be supernatural. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#:~:text=%22God%20of%20the%20gaps%22%20is,or%20proof%20of%20God's%20existence.
It shouldn`t be hard to see where I`m going with this. The conspiracy believers do the exact same thing with the concept of conspiracy, anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims the
was considered a given, it was only the exact underhanded thing that being done, exactly what information was suppressed that conspiracy folk differed on.Not long ago, the issue of the police examining a wallet at the Tippit murder scene was brought up. The wallet`s owner is unknown for certain, but the conspiracy folk were certain what was captured in the photo was the work of the conspiracy. That
conspiratorial one makes little sense, Ben presents it as Chaney`s testimony would be some major problem for their findings, when film and testimony shows his assertion that Connally was struck after the headshot to be demonstrably wrong).You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it. Ben does it with the issue of Chaney not being called by the WC. It is unknown why Chaney wasn`t called, so Ben invents a conspiratorial one (of course the
Simply put, if we don't know what else it could be, it must be this. This being the defaultAs Wikipedia points out, it is an argument from ignorance.
explanation that the person is arguing for. It is illogical when arguing for God or a JFK
conspiracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Carl Sagan had what I believe is the most sensible approach to the theological question.Just for the record, I wasn`t trying to make any kind of theological argument here. Just pointing out the similarities in approaches. God could exist and the "god of the gaps" approach could still be open to criticism.
Of course I feel that in both cases it is borne of a great desire to get where you want to go (damn, I did make a theological argument). BT George, where are you?
HeAs I see it it is only a question of whether there is a reason to believe.
found no compelling evidence of a deity. He would not go so far as to categorically rule it out.
His position was that the known evidence did not allow for the kind of certitude both atheists
and believers profess. Until we know what is, we cannot positively say what is not. Science
can take us as far back as the Big Bang but can't tell us what came before that and what
caused the Big Bang. I attended Catholic schools from K-9 and whenever someone came up
with a question the priest or nun couldn't answer, they would fall back on "It's a mystery.".
George Carlin even did a comedy routine on that. Science has its mysteries too. Stephen
Hawking, an atheist, was once asked what came before the Big Bang. His answer was that
was like asking what was north of the North Pole. To me, the seems to be the equivalent of
"It's a mystery".
If atheism could answer all my questions, I would be an atheist. Until then, I will remain aDo you believe in God?
devout agnostic.
You can`t say "I don`t know" to that.
Stolen from Ricky Gervais, see 3:41 here...
https://youtu.be/u7bFWyEA02c
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:43:02 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:there. The term goes back to Friedrich Nietzsche`s 1880s book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", in which he wrote ""... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God".
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:36:53 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:49:19 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:26:34 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I watch atheist versus theologian debates from time to time, and often the term "God of the Gaps" is employed by atheists. The concept is that wherever there is a gap in knowledge, the theologians will attempt to park the battleship of "God"
sometimes reduced to the following form:From Wikipedia...
"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 according to the users of the term, is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is
conspiracy is at work.There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. Therefore, the cause must be supernatural. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#:~:text=%22God%20of%20the%20gaps%22%20is,or%20proof%20of%20God's%20existence.
It shouldn`t be hard to see where I`m going with this. The conspiracy believers do the exact same thing with the concept of conspiracy, anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims the
That was considered a given, it was only the exact underhanded thing that being done, exactly what information was suppressed that conspiracy folk differed on.Not long ago, the issue of the police examining a wallet at the Tippit murder scene was brought up. The wallet`s owner is unknown for certain, but the conspiracy folk were certain what was captured in the photo was the work of the conspiracy.
conspiratorial one makes little sense, Ben presents it as Chaney`s testimony would be some major problem for their findings, when film and testimony shows his assertion that Connally was struck after the headshot to be demonstrably wrong).You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it. Ben does it with the issue of Chaney not being called by the WC. It is unknown why Chaney wasn`t called, so Ben invents a conspiratorial one (of course the
Simply put, if we don't know what else it could be, it must be this. This being the defaultAs Wikipedia points out, it is an argument from ignorance.
explanation that the person is arguing for. It is illogical when arguing for God or a JFK
conspiracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Carl Sagan had what I believe is the most sensible approach to the theological question.Just for the record, I wasn`t trying to make any kind of theological argument here. Just pointing out the similarities in approaches. God could exist and the "god of the gaps" approach could still be open to criticism.
Of course I feel that in both cases it is borne of a great desire to get where you want to go (damn, I did make a theological argument). BT George, where are you?
HeAs I see it it is only a question of whether there is a reason to believe.
found no compelling evidence of a deity. He would not go so far as to categorically rule it out.
His position was that the known evidence did not allow for the kind of certitude both atheists
and believers profess. Until we know what is, we cannot positively say what is not. Science
can take us as far back as the Big Bang but can't tell us what came before that and what
caused the Big Bang. I attended Catholic schools from K-9 and whenever someone came up
with a question the priest or nun couldn't answer, they would fall back on "It's a mystery.".
George Carlin even did a comedy routine on that. Science has its mysteries too. Stephen
Hawking, an atheist, was once asked what came before the Big Bang. His answer was that
was like asking what was north of the North Pole. To me, the seems to be the equivalent of
"It's a mystery".
If atheism could answer all my questions, I would be an atheist. Until then, I will remain aDo you believe in God?
devout agnostic.
You can`t say "I don`t know" to that.
Stolen from Ricky Gervais, see 3:41 here...
Just hit the "CC" if you are having a problem.https://youtu.be/u7bFWyEA02cBetween his thick accent, by laptop's weak speakers, and my poor ears, I had a hard time
making out all of his argument,
but what I could make out, I don't agree with. I see nothing thatThere is knowledge and there is belief. Just because you don`t have knowledge doesn`t rule out having belief.
defies logic to say I don't know if God exists.
If we define God as an intelligent, supernatural
being who created everything in the cosmos, I have serious doubts but I cannot rule out the
possibility of such a supreme being because I don't know what created everything in the cosmos.
I'm not counting on there being an afterlife, but since I've never spoken to anyone who has died,
there is room for doubt.
Since you cited a comedian, I remember a Steve Martin routine when he was still doing comedy.
"What if you died and you went to heaven and it was just like the said it was, with pearly gates and angels playing harps? Wouldn't you feel stupid?"What if you are a devout Christian and you find yourself facing Zeus?
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:02:22 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:there. The term goes back to Friedrich Nietzsche`s 1880s book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", in which he wrote ""... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God".
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:43:02 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:36:53 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:49:19 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:26:34 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I watch atheist versus theologian debates from time to time, and often the term "God of the Gaps" is employed by atheists. The concept is that wherever there is a gap in knowledge, the theologians will attempt to park the battleship of "God"
is sometimes reduced to the following form:From Wikipedia...
"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 according to the users of the term, is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument
conspiracy is at work.There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
Therefore, the cause must be supernatural. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#:~:text=%22God%20of%20the%20gaps%22%20is,or%20proof%20of%20God's%20existence.
It shouldn`t be hard to see where I`m going with this. The conspiracy believers do the exact same thing with the concept of conspiracy, anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims the
That was considered a given, it was only the exact underhanded thing that being done, exactly what information was suppressed that conspiracy folk differed on.Not long ago, the issue of the police examining a wallet at the Tippit murder scene was brought up. The wallet`s owner is unknown for certain, but the conspiracy folk were certain what was captured in the photo was the work of the conspiracy.
conspiratorial one makes little sense, Ben presents it as Chaney`s testimony would be some major problem for their findings, when film and testimony shows his assertion that Connally was struck after the headshot to be demonstrably wrong).You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it. Ben does it with the issue of Chaney not being called by the WC. It is unknown why Chaney wasn`t called, so Ben invents a conspiratorial one (of course the
Simply put, if we don't know what else it could be, it must be this. This being the defaultAs Wikipedia points out, it is an argument from ignorance.
explanation that the person is arguing for. It is illogical when arguing for God or a JFK
conspiracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Carl Sagan had what I believe is the most sensible approach to the theological question.Just for the record, I wasn`t trying to make any kind of theological argument here. Just pointing out the similarities in approaches. God could exist and the "god of the gaps" approach could still be open to criticism.
Of course I feel that in both cases it is borne of a great desire to get where you want to go (damn, I did make a theological argument). BT George, where are you?
HeAs I see it it is only a question of whether there is a reason to believe.
found no compelling evidence of a deity. He would not go so far as to categorically rule it out.
His position was that the known evidence did not allow for the kind of certitude both atheists
and believers profess. Until we know what is, we cannot positively say what is not. Science
can take us as far back as the Big Bang but can't tell us what came before that and what
caused the Big Bang. I attended Catholic schools from K-9 and whenever someone came up
with a question the priest or nun couldn't answer, they would fall back on "It's a mystery.".
George Carlin even did a comedy routine on that. Science has its mysteries too. Stephen
Hawking, an atheist, was once asked what came before the Big Bang. His answer was that
was like asking what was north of the North Pole. To me, the seems to be the equivalent of
"It's a mystery".
If atheism could answer all my questions, I would be an atheist. Until then, I will remain aDo you believe in God?
devout agnostic.
You can`t say "I don`t know" to that.
Stolen from Ricky Gervais, see 3:41 here...
I'll check that out. I've never noticed a CC button but I've never looked for it.Just hit the "CC" if you are having a problem.https://youtu.be/u7bFWyEA02cBetween his thick accent, by laptop's weak speakers, and my poor ears, I had a hard time
making out all of his argument,
I don't believe there is a God but I don't know that to be a fact. Presumably, there are forces thatbut what I could make out, I don't agree with. I see nothing thatThere is knowledge and there is belief. Just because you don`t have knowledge doesn`t rule out having belief.
defies logic to say I don't know if God exists.
caused the universe as we know it to come into being. What we don't know if there was an
intelligence behind that force or things just happened randomly.
If we define God as an intelligent, supernatural
being who created everything in the cosmos, I have serious doubts but I cannot rule out the
possibility of such a supreme being because I don't know what created everything in the cosmos.
I'm not counting on there being an afterlife, but since I've never spoken to anyone who has died,
there is room for doubt.
Since you cited a comedian, I remember a Steve Martin routine when he was still doing comedy.
You might get a lightning bolt up your ass."What if you died and you went to heaven and it was just like the said it was, with pearly gates and angels playing harps? Wouldn't you feel stupid?"What if you are a devout Christian and you find yourself facing Zeus?
Believers have one big advantage over non-believers. If believers are wrong, they will never know
it. If non-believers are wrong, they could be in deep shit.
anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims the conspiracy is at work.
You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it.
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:20:14 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:there. The term goes back to Friedrich Nietzsche`s 1880s book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", in which he wrote ""... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God".
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:02:22 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:43:02 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:36:53 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:49:19 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:26:34 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I watch atheist versus theologian debates from time to time, and often the term "God of the Gaps" is employed by atheists. The concept is that wherever there is a gap in knowledge, the theologians will attempt to park the battleship of "God"
argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:From Wikipedia...
"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 according to the users of the term, is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an
conspiracy is at work.There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
Therefore, the cause must be supernatural. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#:~:text=%22God%20of%20the%20gaps%22%20is,or%20proof%20of%20God's%20existence.
It shouldn`t be hard to see where I`m going with this. The conspiracy believers do the exact same thing with the concept of conspiracy, anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims the
conspiracy. That was considered a given, it was only the exact underhanded thing that being done, exactly what information was suppressed that conspiracy folk differed on.Not long ago, the issue of the police examining a wallet at the Tippit murder scene was brought up. The wallet`s owner is unknown for certain, but the conspiracy folk were certain what was captured in the photo was the work of the
conspiratorial one makes little sense, Ben presents it as Chaney`s testimony would be some major problem for their findings, when film and testimony shows his assertion that Connally was struck after the headshot to be demonstrably wrong).You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it. Ben does it with the issue of Chaney not being called by the WC. It is unknown why Chaney wasn`t called, so Ben invents a conspiratorial one (of course the
Simply put, if we don't know what else it could be, it must be this. This being the defaultAs Wikipedia points out, it is an argument from ignorance.
explanation that the person is arguing for. It is illogical when arguing for God or a JFK
conspiracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Carl Sagan had what I believe is the most sensible approach to the theological question.Just for the record, I wasn`t trying to make any kind of theological argument here. Just pointing out the similarities in approaches. God could exist and the "god of the gaps" approach could still be open to criticism.
Of course I feel that in both cases it is borne of a great desire to get where you want to go (damn, I did make a theological argument). BT George, where are you?
HeAs I see it it is only a question of whether there is a reason to believe.
found no compelling evidence of a deity. He would not go so far as to categorically rule it out.
His position was that the known evidence did not allow for the kind of certitude both atheists
and believers profess. Until we know what is, we cannot positively say what is not. Science
can take us as far back as the Big Bang but can't tell us what came before that and what
caused the Big Bang. I attended Catholic schools from K-9 and whenever someone came up
with a question the priest or nun couldn't answer, they would fall back on "It's a mystery.".
George Carlin even did a comedy routine on that. Science has its mysteries too. Stephen
Hawking, an atheist, was once asked what came before the Big Bang. His answer was that
was like asking what was north of the North Pole. To me, the seems to be the equivalent of
"It's a mystery".
If atheism could answer all my questions, I would be an atheist. Until then, I will remain aDo you believe in God?
devout agnostic.
You can`t say "I don`t know" to that.
Stolen from Ricky Gervais, see 3:41 here...
I'll check that out. I've never noticed a CC button but I've never looked for it.Just hit the "CC" if you are having a problem.https://youtu.be/u7bFWyEA02cBetween his thick accent, by laptop's weak speakers, and my poor ears, I had a hard time
making out all of his argument,
I don't believe there is a God but I don't know that to be a fact. Presumably, there are forces thatbut what I could make out, I don't agree with. I see nothing thatThere is knowledge and there is belief. Just because you don`t have knowledge doesn`t rule out having belief.
defies logic to say I don't know if God exists.
caused the universe as we know it to come into being. What we don't know if there was an
intelligence behind that force or things just happened randomly.
If we define God as an intelligent, supernatural
being who created everything in the cosmos, I have serious doubts but I cannot rule out the
possibility of such a supreme being because I don't know what created everything in the cosmos.
I'm not counting on there being an afterlife, but since I've never spoken to anyone who has died,
there is room for doubt.
Since you cited a comedian, I remember a Steve Martin routine when he was still doing comedy.
You might get a lightning bolt up your ass."What if you died and you went to heaven and it was just like the said it was, with pearly gates and angels playing harps? Wouldn't you feel stupid?"What if you are a devout Christian and you find yourself facing Zeus?
Believers have one big advantage over non-believers. If believers are wrong, they will never knowPascal`s Wager.
it. If non-believers are wrong, they could be in deep shit.
But it assumes there is no downside to belief.
A good video on Pascal`s Wager
https://youtu.be/YBCDGohZT70
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:26:34 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims the conspiracy is at work.So you admit there are problems with the evidence in this case ?
You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it.
I don't claim any conspiracy at work.
I post official documents, testimony, exhibits and videos of the witnesses themselves.
All you post is bullshit like this.
I prove that there are problems with the evidence in this case,
which apparently, you admit exist as "unknowns", "anomalies" and "difficulties".
I expose the lies in the official version.
The only gap here is between your ears.
And its a pretty big one.
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:41:23 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:God" there. The term goes back to Friedrich Nietzsche`s 1880s book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", in which he wrote ""... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God".
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:20:14 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:02:22 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:43:02 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:36:53 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:49:19 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:26:34 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I watch atheist versus theologian debates from time to time, and often the term "God of the Gaps" is employed by atheists. The concept is that wherever there is a gap in knowledge, the theologians will attempt to park the battleship of "
argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:From Wikipedia...
"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 according to the users of the term, is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an
conspiracy is at work.There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
Therefore, the cause must be supernatural. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#:~:text=%22God%20of%20the%20gaps%22%20is,or%20proof%20of%20God's%20existence.
It shouldn`t be hard to see where I`m going with this. The conspiracy believers do the exact same thing with the concept of conspiracy, anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims the
conspiracy. That was considered a given, it was only the exact underhanded thing that being done, exactly what information was suppressed that conspiracy folk differed on.Not long ago, the issue of the police examining a wallet at the Tippit murder scene was brought up. The wallet`s owner is unknown for certain, but the conspiracy folk were certain what was captured in the photo was the work of the
the conspiratorial one makes little sense, Ben presents it as Chaney`s testimony would be some major problem for their findings, when film and testimony shows his assertion that Connally was struck after the headshot to be demonstrably wrong).You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it. Ben does it with the issue of Chaney not being called by the WC. It is unknown why Chaney wasn`t called, so Ben invents a conspiratorial one (of course
Simply put, if we don't know what else it could be, it must be this. This being the defaultAs Wikipedia points out, it is an argument from ignorance.
explanation that the person is arguing for. It is illogical when arguing for God or a JFK
conspiracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Carl Sagan had what I believe is the most sensible approach to the theological question.Just for the record, I wasn`t trying to make any kind of theological argument here. Just pointing out the similarities in approaches. God could exist and the "god of the gaps" approach could still be open to criticism.
Of course I feel that in both cases it is borne of a great desire to get where you want to go (damn, I did make a theological argument). BT George, where are you?
HeAs I see it it is only a question of whether there is a reason to believe.
found no compelling evidence of a deity. He would not go so far as to categorically rule it out.
His position was that the known evidence did not allow for the kind of certitude both atheists
and believers profess. Until we know what is, we cannot positively say what is not. Science
can take us as far back as the Big Bang but can't tell us what came before that and what
caused the Big Bang. I attended Catholic schools from K-9 and whenever someone came up
with a question the priest or nun couldn't answer, they would fall back on "It's a mystery.".
George Carlin even did a comedy routine on that. Science has its mysteries too. Stephen
Hawking, an atheist, was once asked what came before the Big Bang. His answer was that
was like asking what was north of the North Pole. To me, the seems to be the equivalent of
"It's a mystery".
If atheism could answer all my questions, I would be an atheist. Until then, I will remain aDo you believe in God?
devout agnostic.
You can`t say "I don`t know" to that.
Stolen from Ricky Gervais, see 3:41 here...
I'll check that out. I've never noticed a CC button but I've never looked for it.Just hit the "CC" if you are having a problem.https://youtu.be/u7bFWyEA02cBetween his thick accent, by laptop's weak speakers, and my poor ears, I had a hard time
making out all of his argument,
I don't believe there is a God but I don't know that to be a fact. Presumably, there are forces thatbut what I could make out, I don't agree with. I see nothing thatThere is knowledge and there is belief. Just because you don`t have knowledge doesn`t rule out having belief.
defies logic to say I don't know if God exists.
caused the universe as we know it to come into being. What we don't know if there was an
intelligence behind that force or things just happened randomly.
If we define God as an intelligent, supernatural
being who created everything in the cosmos, I have serious doubts but I cannot rule out the
possibility of such a supreme being because I don't know what created everything in the cosmos.
I'm not counting on there being an afterlife, but since I've never spoken to anyone who has died,
there is room for doubt.
Since you cited a comedian, I remember a Steve Martin routine when he was still doing comedy.
You might get a lightning bolt up your ass."What if you died and you went to heaven and it was just like the said it was, with pearly gates and angels playing harps? Wouldn't you feel stupid?"What if you are a devout Christian and you find yourself facing Zeus?
Believers have one big advantage over non-believers. If believers are wrong, they will never knowPascal`s Wager.
it. If non-believers are wrong, they could be in deep shit.
But it assumes there is no downside to belief.
A good video on Pascal`s Wager
https://youtu.be/YBCDGohZT70Interesting arguments,
but since I don't live my life based on a hope and belief of being in
heaven for an eternity, it doesn't really apply to me. If it turns out there is a God and he's pissed
because I used the brain he gave me to doubt his existence, I guess I'll suffer the consequences.
I like George Carlin's take on it. If you're a sinner who has not repented your sins, God will send
you to hell when you die where you'll endure unimaginable suffering for the rest of eternity......
but he loves you.
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:26:34 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims the conspiracy is at work.So you admit there are problems with the evidence in this case ?
You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it.
I don't claim any conspiracy at work.
I post official documents, testimony, exhibits and videos of the witnesses themselves.
All you post is bullshit like this.
I prove that there are problems with the evidence in this case, which apparently, you admit exist as "unknowns", "anomalies" and "difficulties".
I expose the lies in the official version.
The only gap here is between your ears.
And its a pretty big one.
On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 6:30:10 AM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:God" there. The term goes back to Friedrich Nietzsche`s 1880s book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", in which he wrote ""... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God".
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:41:23 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:20:14 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:02:22 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 6:43:02 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 5:36:53 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:49:19 PM UTC-4, John Corbett wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:26:34 PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
I watch atheist versus theologian debates from time to time, and often the term "God of the Gaps" is employed by atheists. The concept is that wherever there is a gap in knowledge, the theologians will attempt to park the battleship of "
argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:From Wikipedia...
"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 according to the users of the term, is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an
the conspiracy is at work.There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
Therefore, the cause must be supernatural. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#:~:text=%22God%20of%20the%20gaps%22%20is,or%20proof%20of%20God's%20existence.
It shouldn`t be hard to see where I`m going with this. The conspiracy believers do the exact same thing with the concept of conspiracy, anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims
conspiracy. That was considered a given, it was only the exact underhanded thing that being done, exactly what information was suppressed that conspiracy folk differed on.Not long ago, the issue of the police examining a wallet at the Tippit murder scene was brought up. The wallet`s owner is unknown for certain, but the conspiracy folk were certain what was captured in the photo was the work of the
the conspiratorial one makes little sense, Ben presents it as Chaney`s testimony would be some major problem for their findings, when film and testimony shows his assertion that Connally was struck after the headshot to be demonstrably wrong).You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it. Ben does it with the issue of Chaney not being called by the WC. It is unknown why Chaney wasn`t called, so Ben invents a conspiratorial one (of course
seem to go away but then return. Quite obvious that happens here.Simply put, if we don't know what else it could be, it must be this. This being the defaultAs Wikipedia points out, it is an argument from ignorance.
explanation that the person is arguing for. It is illogical when arguing for God or a JFK
conspiracy.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance
Carl Sagan had what I believe is the most sensible approach to the theological question.Just for the record, I wasn`t trying to make any kind of theological argument here. Just pointing out the similarities in approaches. God could exist and the "god of the gaps" approach could still be open to criticism.
Of course I feel that in both cases it is borne of a great desire to get where you want to go (damn, I did make a theological argument). BT George, where are you?
HeAs I see it it is only a question of whether there is a reason to believe.
found no compelling evidence of a deity. He would not go so far as to categorically rule it out.
His position was that the known evidence did not allow for the kind of certitude both atheists
and believers profess. Until we know what is, we cannot positively say what is not. Science
can take us as far back as the Big Bang but can't tell us what came before that and what
caused the Big Bang. I attended Catholic schools from K-9 and whenever someone came up
with a question the priest or nun couldn't answer, they would fall back on "It's a mystery.".
George Carlin even did a comedy routine on that. Science has its mysteries too. Stephen
Hawking, an atheist, was once asked what came before the Big Bang. His answer was that
was like asking what was north of the North Pole. To me, the seems to be the equivalent of
"It's a mystery".
If atheism could answer all my questions, I would be an atheist. Until then, I will remain aDo you believe in God?
devout agnostic.
You can`t say "I don`t know" to that.
Stolen from Ricky Gervais, see 3:41 here...
I'll check that out. I've never noticed a CC button but I've never looked for it.Just hit the "CC" if you are having a problem.https://youtu.be/u7bFWyEA02cBetween his thick accent, by laptop's weak speakers, and my poor ears, I had a hard time
making out all of his argument,
I don't believe there is a God but I don't know that to be a fact. Presumably, there are forces thatbut what I could make out, I don't agree with. I see nothing thatThere is knowledge and there is belief. Just because you don`t have knowledge doesn`t rule out having belief.
defies logic to say I don't know if God exists.
caused the universe as we know it to come into being. What we don't know if there was an
intelligence behind that force or things just happened randomly.
If we define God as an intelligent, supernatural
being who created everything in the cosmos, I have serious doubts but I cannot rule out the
possibility of such a supreme being because I don't know what created everything in the cosmos.
I'm not counting on there being an afterlife, but since I've never spoken to anyone who has died,
there is room for doubt.
Since you cited a comedian, I remember a Steve Martin routine when he was still doing comedy.
You might get a lightning bolt up your ass."What if you died and you went to heaven and it was just like the said it was, with pearly gates and angels playing harps? Wouldn't you feel stupid?"What if you are a devout Christian and you find yourself facing Zeus?
Believers have one big advantage over non-believers. If believers are wrong, they will never knowPascal`s Wager.
it. If non-believers are wrong, they could be in deep shit.
But it assumes there is no downside to belief.
A good video on Pascal`s Wager
I only linked to it because the concept you expressed was a well known trope, summed up as Pascal`s Wager.https://youtu.be/YBCDGohZT70Interesting arguments,
But whenever I watch these videos, I always get the "that sounds familiar" feeling, and realize the exact same things applies to conspiracy ideas. You may have notice that at the very beginning of the video he talks about ideas that are recycled, that
but since I don't live my life based on a hope and belief of being in heaven for an eternity, it doesn't really apply to me. If it turns out there is a God and he's pissedIt appears God favors people who are willing to accept extraordinary things on no evidence.
because I used the brain he gave me to doubt his existence, I guess I'll suffer the consequences.
I like George Carlin's take on it. If you're a sinner who has not repented your sins, God will sendYes, quite the paradox. And being omnipotent he knows how everything will play out before they happen, so what is the point?
you to hell when you die where you'll endure unimaginable suffering for the rest of eternity......
but he loves you.
Simply put, if we don't know what else it could be, it must be this. This being the default
explanation that the person is arguing for. It is illogical when arguing for God or a JFK
conspiracy.
Carl Sagan had what I believe is the most sensible approach to the theological question. He
found no compelling evidence of a deity. He would not go so far as to categorically rule it out.
His position was that the known evidence did not allow for the kind of certitude both atheists
and believers profess. Until we know what is, we cannot positively say what is not. Science
can take us as far back as the Big Bang but can't tell us what came before that and what
caused the Big Bang. I attended Catholic schools from K-9 and whenever someone came up
with a question the priest or nun couldn't answer, they would fall back on "It's a mystery.".
George Carlin even did a comedy routine on that. Science has its mysteries too. Stephen
Hawking, an atheist, was once asked what came before the Big Bang. His answer was that
was like asking what was north of the North Pole. To me, the seems to be the equivalent of
"It's a mystery".
If atheism could answer all my questions, I would be an atheist. Until then, I will remain a
devout agnostic.
I am not agnostic when it comes to the JFK assassination. I am 100% convinced Oswald was
the assassin. There is no evidence he had even a single accomplice. While it is theoretically
possible such an accomplice existed for which we have found no evidence, that possibility
seems so remote as to be not worth considering.
On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 03:18:10 -0700 (PDT), John Corbett
<geowri...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 5:39:49?AM UTC-4, Gil Jesus wrote:
On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 4:26:34?PM UTC-4, Bud wrote:
So you admit there are problems with the evidence in this case ?
anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims the conspiracy is at work.
You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it.
I don't claim any conspiracy at work.
I post official documents, testimony, exhibits and videos of the witnesses themselves.
All you post is bullshit like this.
I prove that there are problems with the evidence in this case,
Claiming is not proving.There is **NOTHING** that would prove to you the most solid and
supported of facts if said fact contradicts your faith.
which apparently, you admit exist as "unknowns", "anomalies" and "difficulties".
These factors do not invalidate the evidence. An intelligent person explores these things toGil is referencing standard American justice. You are TERRIFIED of
find the answer. He does not automatically assume this invalidates the evidence which is your
approach.
it, because you know that the WCR was not an investigation, but a prosecution.
I expose the lies in the official version.
There are no lies in the official version if by the official version you mean the WCR.I've documented many of them. Here's #1 in that series:
Speculation. - Tippit and his killer knew each other.
Commission finding. - Investigation has revealed no evidence that
Oswald and Tippit were acquainted, had ever seen each other, or had
any mutual acquaintances. (WCR 651)
"...recalled the person now recognized as Oswald was last seen by her
in the restaurant at about 10 a.m. Wednesday, November 20, at which
time he was "nasty" and used curse words in connection with his order.
She went on to relate that Officer J.D. Tippit was in the restaurant,
as was his habit at about that time each morning, and "shot a glance
at Oswald." She said there was no indication, however, that they knew
each other. (CE 3001)
The WCR lied when stating that there was no evidence that Oswald and
Tippit had ever seen each other.
You can't refute this... nor will you even try. Nor can you cite any refutation of this fact BY ANY BELIEVER ANYWHERE ON THE INTERNET.
Such a refutation doesn't exist.
So clearly, and provably... YOU'RE A LIAR.
I watch atheist versus theologian debates from time to time, and often the term "God of the Gaps" is employed by atheists. The concept is that wherever there is a gap in knowledge, the theologians will attempt to park the battleship of "God" there. Theterm goes back to Friedrich Nietzsche`s 1880s book "Thus Spoke Zarathustra", in which he wrote ""... into every gap they put their delusion, their stopgap, which they called God".
From Wikipedia...sometimes reduced to the following form:
"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 according to the users of the term, is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is
There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world. >Therefore, the cause must be supernatural.is at work.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps#:~:text=%22God%20of%20the%20gaps%22%20is,or%20proof%20of%20God's%20existence.
It shouldn`t be hard to see where I`m going with this. The conspiracy believers do the exact same thing with the concept of conspiracy, anywhere there is an unknown, an anomaly, a difficulty, there is where the conspiracy folks claims the conspiracy
Not long ago, the issue of the police examining a wallet at the Tippit murder scene was brought up. The wallet`s owner is unknown for certain, but the conspiracy folk were certain what was captured in the photo was the work of the conspiracy. That wasconsidered a given, it was only the exact underhanded thing that being done, exactly what information was suppressed that conspiracy folk differed on.
You`ll see this a lot, Gil Jesus is probably the worst offender, but they all do it. Ben does it with the issue of Chaney not being called by the WC. It is unknown why Chaney wasn`t called,
so Ben invents a conspiratorial one (of course the conspiratorial one
makes little sense,
Ben presents it as Chaney`s testimony would be some major problem
for their findings, when film and testimony shows his assertion that
Connally was struck after the headshot to be demonstrably wrong).
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 297 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 116:52:45 |
| Calls: | 6,662 |
| Files: | 12,209 |
| Messages: | 5,334,234 |