A Reminder: Claiming A Miracle Is A "God Of The Gaps" Fallacy

Click on the link below for an in-depth expose of how the Catholic Church handles this fraudulent enterprise and how it is fueled as much by the indoctrinated, ignorant members at least as much as the clergy:

Inside the Vatican's secret saint-making process

"Something From Nothing" Explained In Two Minutes

Click below for a concise YouTube video that explains what science knows about the controversial hypothesis that the universe came from nothing:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/Ej4Xj-w03CI

Emergence Explained, From Atoms To Humans

God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is a logical fallacy that occurs when believers invoke Goddidit (or a variant) in order to account for some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument) explain. This concept resembles what systems theorists[1] refer to as an "explanatory principle".[2] "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the remaining gaps for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know yet" as an alternative that works better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena always remain possible, especially in the future where research may uncover more information.[3] (link)

Click on the link below for a counter-apologetic video presenting a concise and complete rebuttal to this ubiquitous attempt to justify belief in a god. It centers around the well-known natural phenomenon of emergence in nature:

Answers to Questions for Atheists

The Gaps Continue To Get Smaller and Fewer

Anyone who is aware of the interactions between religious apologists and their counter-apologists knows that virtually ALL arguments for a God involve the God of the Gaps fallacy: a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.^[1][2]   It's clearly a logical fallacy, an appeal to ignorance. 

Click on the link below for a podcast discussing a recent finding that gets us much closer to solving one of the mysteries that is used by religious apologists; abiogenesis:

New Discovery in the Chemistry of Life

God Of The Gaps Explained

Place yourself at home in the morning and there is just you and two others in the house. You prepare your breakfast of toast and coffee and are ready to eat. However, nature calls and you have to answer it. When you return, one of the two slices of toast is gone. You asked the two others, "Where is my toast?" Both of them deny taking it. There is no evidence pointing to either one (a gap in knowledge), however, you make the claim that one of them did it (a leap of faith). THIS is what we are talking about when religious apologists make claims for a God.

The above can be illustrated by debunking the Cosmological Argument (Argument from First Cause, and its variants). The religious claims that there must be the first cause of everything and it is God. The science-based thinker states that such a claim is unsupported by objective evidence and, in fact, given the weirdness of reality at the sub-atomic level and some suggestive evidence for an eternal system of multiverses, the only reasonable stance is to say, "We don't know."

Atheist: Don't Fall Into A Theist Trap

Atheists usually challenge theist arguments as being "God of the Gaps." While this is true, some atheists make a "Naturalism of the Gaps" faulty argument. How is that, you might ask? Well, aren't theists making positive claims that there IS a God when using "God of the Gaps" arguments? When atheists make positive claims that all reality IS natural, they are also guilty of speaking out of the confines of what is known. The only justified answer to theist's claims is "We don't know, but God is not necessary." See the difference?

• Making a positive claim that there is a God is assuming knowledge not justified. This is the "God of the Gaps" argument.
• Making a positive claim that all reality is natural is assuming knowledge not justified. This is Philosophical Naturalism.
• Saying "We don't know" to a claim that can't be falsified is Methodological Naturalism and is a major feature of the scientific method. Let's not give the theist any evidence of faulty reasoning.

Click on this link for more on Methodological Naturalism. The burden of proof is on the one making the claim. Don't make claims that cannot be supported.

Theologians Are Backed Into A Corner

"How did the universe begin? Some scientists claim that the universe did not have a beginning. Some theologians contend that the universe did not need a beginning."

The theologians in the video are attempting to accept that the universe probably had no beginning by saying that: "God could create an infinite universe"; "God is not the 'cause' of the world, He is the 'reason' for the world." Ah, the dishonesty of apologetics. Yes, the gaps, indeed, are closing.

Click on the link below for the latest cosmological information regarding the beginning of our universe:

Did the Universe Have a Beginning?

Consciousness And The Double-Slit Experiments

There is no greater example of the "God of the Gaps" ("Leap of Faith") argument than what one can find in the area of consciousness, where the "woo" promoters are very active. Why? Many scientists believe that the hardest problem/mystery in science is consciousness and, thus, these pseudoscientists fill the "gap" with claims unsupported by evidence. The most frequent example of this is found in their interpretation of so-called "Double-Slit" experiments where they say it "proves" that the mind can control matter through its effects on quantum mechanics. While there are some scientists who think there may be a relationship between consciousness and quantum physics, others are skeptical (link).  This video challenges the woo.

The link below is one of the best retorts to the misinterpretation of the Double-Slit experiments:

"What I hope to do is demonstrate that the double-slit experiment doesn’t suggest that consciousness collapses the wave function of a particle. I’ll also attempt to go further in this article. I believe that the double-slit experiment provides considerable evidence that a ‘Quantum-consciousness’ (QC) hypothesis, the idea that consciousness can exist away from the brain and can affect particles in the double-slit experiment, must be false."

The Double Slit Experiment Demystified. Disproving the Quantum Consciousness connection

How Did Life Begin?

One of the biggest mysteries in our reality is how did life begin from chemistry? This 15-min video presents current knowledge of chemical evolution and how life plausibly could have begun from such. Just like the gap of knowledge regarding the plausibility of a natural eternal universe is closing, so is the gap of knowledge regarding the plausibility of a natural evolution from chemicals to life.

Origin of life. Where did life come from? Abiogenesis

Let The Mystery Be

The main problem with promoters of religion, alternatives to medicine and all other pseudoscience is that they move past the knowledge provided by science.  This is called The Argument from Ignorance or if it is from the religious, The God of the Gaps Argument.  Why do this?  This article explains the situation quite succinctly and clearly. Wouldn't you think that if one God was real, one religion's claims would be accepted by science and there would be no gaps?

Why not just stay within what we really know and just "Let the Mystery Be?"

God Of The Gaps Is All They Have

"Now my claim is twofold. First, science can answer some of the big questions (the ones with asterisks above), though believers may not like the answers. Second, insofar as the Big Questions are moral or philosophical, religions can give answers, but different religions give different answers—so there is no general “answer” at all. For instance, “do we live on after death” will be answered differently by Christians, Buddhists, and Jews."

What are the Big Questions that science can’t answer but religion can?

Misunderstanding Science

"What we have in Hoffman’s essay is just a science-hater trying to argue that science isn’t the best way to approach solving environmental problems. Of course we need to take into account people’s emotions and subjective judgments, as well as subjective ethics (I believe all ethics is subjective, based on non-objective preferences); but what Hoffman offers is simply genuflecting toward religion and the Great Mysteries That We Can’t Fathom."

A reputable professor uses The God of the Gaps argument.

The New Science of Afterlife Research and Its Benefits to Society?

"Researchers as diverse as physicians studying the near-death experience and engineers setting up electronic equipment through which the deceased can communicate are the new high priests telling us about what to expect when we die."

Classical argument from ignorance/God of the Gaps thinking.  SMH

The Huffington Post touts the Afterlife

Neil deGrasse Tyson Shows He Can Think Unscientifically

The link below is evidence that even the best of scientific minds can fail to always use it. It's curious that Neil deGrasse Tyson fails to see that this statement is as scientifically wanting as a religious apologist using the Fine Tuning argument for the existence of God.  Why?  Because science deals in probabilities.  The probability ("very likely") stated in both cases, without knowing the "out of" (the denominator), cannot be determined.

Neil deGrasse Tyson says it’s ‘very likely’ the universe is a simulation 

Belief Without Evidence In Math Terms

"God of the Gaps" arguments = Speculations without evidence on any subject

Evolution 2.0?

First there was Creationism.   That was defeated decades ago.  Then, there was Intelligent Design.  That was defeated with the Kitzmiller vs Dover trial in 2005: 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kitzmiller_v._Dover_Area_School_District.

Now the apologists are trying a new challenge to the consensus of the experts in evolutionary biology called Evolution 2.0:

http://www.premierchristianradio.com/Shows/Saturday/Unbelievable/Episodes/Unbelievable-Is-it-time-for-Evolution-2.0-Perry-Marshall-vs-PZ-Myers

Are Some Physicists Getting Into "Fill In The Gaps" Pseudoscience Thinking?

"Just a few days ago, scientists restarted investigations with the Large Hadron Collider, after a two-year hiatus. Upgrades have made it even more powerful, and physicists are eager to explore the properties of the Higgs particle in greater detail. If the upgraded collider does discover supersymmetric particles, it will be an astonishing triumph of modern physics. But if nothing is found, our next steps may prove to be difficult and controversial, challenging not just how we do science but what it means to do science at all."

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/opinion/a-crisis-at-the-edge-of-physics.html

The "God Of The Gaps" Is Dead

"The main difference between Newton, Laplace and modern cosmology is that we don't presume (or shouldn't) to know all there is to know about the universe. Even as we strive to know more about nature — and this is what science is supposed to do — we also realize (or should) the vastness of what we don't know. One thing should be clear to all who share a scientist's urge to learn about the world: To put God in our current knowledge gaps certainly would not further our understanding of the universe. For that we need science and its stubbornly secular modern approach."

The "God of the Gaps" should not be used in support of a god..... full stop.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2015/04/08/398227737/what-the-god-of-the-gaps-teaches-us-about-science

Click here if you want to see an example of how Christian apologists don't really understand what the God of the Gaps means.  I responded to this ignorance with, "You do not understand the god of the gaps argument. Science simply states that any claim must be supported by evidence. Every claim in support of an interventionist deity has been falsified. Philosophy will never provide empirical evidence for anything. Instead of positing a god where there is no evidence, a science-based thinker says, "I don't know." (full stop)"  The website blocked this response by saying it is spam.  Ironically, apologists say they have "The Truth" but will not really have an honest and open discussion when challenged.