o_O.Q said:
lol... so all you can do is call out fallacies without elaborating on them? this is absolutely hilarous, i am honestly lost for words
i'll try one last time """all i am saying is that this is similar to what has been done with concepts associated with a god" can you elaborate on how this employs the god of the gaps fallacy?"" |
Atheists are used to debating Christians and their arguments. Over the years we've come to expect certain Christian arguments, and have gotten in the habit of rebutting them. But you're not a Christian, and so we expect a certain argument, and you throw out something completely different. In other words you are throwing him for a loop, because he's assuming you're a Christian. I almost fell into the same mistake at first too. xD
The structure of the supposid God of the Gaps fallacy goes like this...
1. We can't explain X with science.
2. God would explain X.
3. Therefore God must exist.
You can fill in X with just about anything that science or philosophy doesn't understand yet. For example a God of the gaps argument from ancient Egyptians would have looked like this... "We don't know why the sun moves across the sky. Ra's chariot pulling the sun would explain that. Therefore Ra exists."







