Sentences with phrase «god of the gaps»

[24] Other prominent atheists, such as Richard Dawkins, suggested Flew's deism was a form of God of the gaps.

Also known as god of the gaps.

And what is with the unwarranted God of the Gaps statement of morondom this guy insists on using?

If you reach the point of an unknown and invoke a «god of the gaps then you have not answered the question, you have» just halted inquiry.

What you offer is a «god of the gaps» argument.

There is no evidence in your post, this is what is known as the «God of the Gaps» argument.

What you have provided is called the God of the Gaps argument.

Atheists accuse Christians of believing in a «God of the gaps», simply calling upon God for things we don't know about.

The truth project was blatantly intelligent design and loaded with quote mines, arguments from ignorance, god of the gaps, strawmen, etc...

Changing your theology to keep up with science is called using the «God of the Gaps» theory.

2) May I remind you that this God of the Gaps has been steadily on the retreat in the last few thousand years and especially in the last couple of hundred years.

This is called the God of the Gaps.

That is why we call it the God of the Gaps argument.

That is just a re-spun version of the «god of the gaps» fallacy, (and most other scientists disagree with him, and his arguments are easily refutable).

I don't have a «god of the gaps».

Your argument is the «god of the gaps» argument.

You make a fallacious claim...no - one can possibly know with 100 % certainty if a god exists, so why bother using the God of The Gaps argument to explain away the unknown?

fred, that is the «god of the gaps» fallacy.

That my friend is called «The God of the Gaps.»

Stop using the God of the Gaps for the things you fail to comprehend!

God is not a «god of the gaps,» reduced to being the explanation for the inexplicable; instead He is the very reason for there being explanations at all.

there is no logical path that one can take that would lead one to the conclusion that an all powerful creator existed outside of space and time... that claim is nothing more than a god of the gaps argument.

Christians who work in the natural sciences are dogged by a persistent bogeyman: a singular creature called the God of the gaps.

Your argument is a version of the classic «God of the Gaps» argument.

However, as time is marching forward and scientific progress is being made, it is becoming harder and harder to use the God of the Gaps argument, as science «is» unquestionably «continuing» to fill in those gaps and answers.

Believers grasp at the God of the Gaps (because we don't know, Goddidit) because he's been driven away from everything else.

While science can't «understand» everything YET the the crux here is «YET» The god of the gaps is becoming more and more useless as science grows our understanding of the universe.

There is no room for the «God of the gaps» in the new world, nor is this the God of whom the Bible speaks.

Your argument is called the «God of gaps» position.

In fact, I suspect, but do not know, that the quote this silly woman used in support of her «God of the Gaps» article was meant by Hoyle as a reason to reject the Big Bang - i.e. it was just so silly to think that a super-intellect monkeyed with physics that one should reject the Big Bang on this basis.

I am not interested in a «God of the gaps» kind of evidence.

And I am not talking about the god of the gaps kind of evidence.

@ atroyfoster: deGrasse is simply inverting the God of the gaps fallacy — which is to make the same mistake (just reciprocally).

This is called the «god of the gaps» argument.

It's just more «god of the gaps».

To reduce this to a silly «God of the gaps» argument is to misunderstand.

Without data, its all an argument from ignorance, and «god of the gaps».