i'm surprised christians still say this, it's so absurd. so obviously just an excuse to believe something with no good reason.
People hear voices all the time and do crazy things. Inspiration is going to be a tough one. Tin foil hat so you don't hear the voices, right Maris?
But be clear that the evidence on my thread, especially "life cannot be created by non-life" and "Mathematical improbability" of the universe; with all the known atoms; and the estimated time of the universe is "not probable" can explain that the universe needed "fine tuning"; hence intelligence to guide the way.
i'm assuming maris is referring to events that have the potential to be explainable by natural laws, even though they currently aren't - trying to preempt god-of-the-gaps nonsense. an event that contradicts natural laws could still be considered evidence, or would be considered evidence if it happened in a way indicating intelligence was involved.
There are many, many reasons to believe in God, most of which are backed by scientific, historical, archaeological, cosmological and teleological evidence, but ABM makes a good point here. Anyone who has knowledge of the Bible knows that God requires faith, and through faith we are saved. Faith is only possible in a world with suffering, so is growth. Not only would faith be impossible with objective physical evidence of God, but it would violate free will.
But couldn't any evidence that contradicted pre-established natural laws be identified as something else for which we simply don't yet understand the natural explanation? For instance, isn't that essentially the default position for the explanation of genesis of matter out of nothingness?
except you do NOT HAVE free will to genuinely believe in something for which there is no evidence. genuine belief is not a matter of choice. it is ONLY compelled by evidence. anything else (faith) is convincing yourself through wishful thinking or self-brainwashing. the free will is in accepting god or not IF i think there's evidence he exists, but i don't have that choice at all if i have no reason to think he exists.
The God of the gaps theory isn't enough evidence to discredit what we don't know. If that's the case; then all historical accounts of people, kings, crusaders, etc. Would all be discounted. That's why I cannot accept that theory. It would toss out everything that modern science, archeology and historical data recorded or tried to explain.
Well that's your opinion, I personally believe there are mountains and mountains of overwhelming evidence for a Creator/Designer behind the universe, and there are a lot of scientists/philosophers now and throughout history that agree with me. I personally have yet to hear an atheistic argument behind origins that's in any way convincing, much less more powerful than theistic arguments.
we can look at established patterns of explanation by natural law for what is reasonable and unreasonable. for example given what we know about the bootstrap nature of evolution, it would be pretty hard to support the claim that abiogenesis is impossible by natural means. on the other hand if somebody prayed to god for their severed leg to appear back, and it did, we would tend to think something is up. the default position among cosmologists is that what exists has always existed in some sense. few if any would say the big bang came from "nothing". sometimes they say it could have been the result of a quantum fluxuation in empty space, but even empty space is not nothing.
"God of the gaps" has always been a laughably weak argument, it assumes way too much to validate any claims. I.E. established scientific facts that are only explained by the atheistic worldview.
Yeah because it can be made easily as a "rebuttal" in this regard. We can call it "Science of the Gaps".
god of the gaps in itself isn't an argument for naturalism. it's just a statement that lack of explanation is not evidence for theism. what you two are disputing is something else - scientists assuming naturalism based on past patterns of successful explanation, or whatever.
I rely on faith in the sense that I can't see God, or hear God, but I know He's there and He hears me and that I can depend Him.
And a lack of an explanation is not evidence for atheism either. We can't observe things that happened in the past, but if you are willing to accept that there is a transcendent Being who brought the universe into existence and exists outside of the space/time He created, then miracles are very plausible. And again, "science" =/= atheism/naturalism. It's all based on what your philosophy and presuppositions are. And many prominent scientists, thinkers and philosophers throughout history believe in God and the spiritual realm. I would argue that many naturalists are more biased than theists, because they rule out any possible supernatural explanation from the beginning and work around anything that seems like it could be explained by them. Whereas theists are open to natural AND supernatural explanations, and base their opinions on where the evidence leads.
