Comments on: Augustine on Genesis: don’t be a dill

By: SmartLX

SmartLX — Thu, 19 Jun 2008 15:26:31 +0000

Thanks.

By: Invalid arguments don’t mean false conclusions » The Crazy Australian

Invalid arguments don’t mean false conclusions » The Crazy Australian — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 22:01:53 +0000

[...] post was based largely on my comment on another post. If you don’t already read the comments, do. There’s some gold buried down there.) [...]

By: hayesy

hayesy — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:54:21 +0000

“though filling the gaps is the best way to specifically deal with the god of the gaps arguments”
Ouch. Good point.

By: SmartLX

SmartLX — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 21:11:07 +0000

Agreed, though filling the gaps is the best way to specifically deal with the god of the gaps arguments. There are still plenty of those around; like Michelle says, the case for ID consists of little else.

By: hayesy

hayesy — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 04:46:28 +0000

Yeah. God of the gaps doesn't help anyone. Far better to look at how cool hummingbirds are and praise the God who designed both the birds and the mechanics behind it! (or the _____ and the evolutionary/cosmological process that caused it)

On the other side of that, I talked to a guy who doesn't believe in God because all the arguments he's heard used to argue for God have failed. That is, his reasoning is: 1. Arguments x, y, and z tried to prove God. 2. Arguments x, y, and z failed to proved God. Therefore, 3. There is no God.

Anyone else see a problem with that? Maybe they were just bad arguments! In philosophy one needs to be constantly reminded that to find an argument invalid is not the same as to falsify its conclusion.

God of the gaps isn't a good way to argue for God, but neither is the filling of those gaps a good way to argue against Him.

By: Michelle

Michelle — Wed, 18 Jun 2008 03:09:54 +0000

I don’t know if this is the same track but …

I’ve always been frustrated by the “we can’t explain how (insert random example here) hummingbirds fly, so it proves ID/creation”. Stupid logic. What if we figure out how hummingbirds fly? Does it disprove the existence of, and creative work of, God? Of course it doesn’t, but that’s the logical conclusion one would have to draw if one followed the aforementioned logic.