I'm going to step in here because Registrant's post has a number of problems which do not help discussion. As this area of the forum is particularly for visitors and those new to the forum, it is worthwhile pointing out what these are so that similar issues can be "nipped in the bud."
Firstly, the post breaches rule 3 of the guidelines.
http:///WebPages/ForumRules.html "Respect for others is the rule here. Argue the position, not the person."
Secondly, while not in intself a breach of guidelines, the whole line of argument is based on a logical fallacy which prevents the discussion moving forward. I'm going to point out this issue because new posters here can learn much from it.
Thirdly, the line of argument is aggressively and confrontationally based on this fallacious line of argument, which only serves to entrench it and further prevent the argument moving positively. In fact, had the post been more temperate, much interesting discussion on the nature of the "god of the gaps" fallacy could have been had. But by slinging unnecessary insults, and unlearned allegations in with his flawed logic, Registrant has done much harm both to the line of argument and his, or her, own credibility.
Look at the following quote from Registrant:
quote:
I've never seen, unlike other valid logical principles in the voluminous expositions on what constitutes real logic, the official deliniation of the precise phrase "God of the Gaps Fallacy". You therefore lie and are making up your own rules as you go along.
I am sure most will immediately see the logical flaw which any sophomore student of logic would be ashamed to make - the statement that because Registrant has not seen it, it does not exist. To accuse someone of lying on the basis of this travesty of rational thought, it as sure an indication as one could wish for of a mind unschooled and unskilled in formal or informal logic.
Amusingly, Registrant claims to have seen official delineation of logical fallacies. Except, of coure, that there is no such thing. Which "office" promulgates them? Others may suggest that Registrant is therefore lying, but I think Registrant is merely mistaken. What Registrant means, perhaps, is those lists of fallacies often found on the web or in textbooks of logic. None of these, of course, could be called "official" in any reasonable sense of the word.
But further, Registrant is wrong to assert (without anything but their own, clearly flawed, word to support it) that such a fallacy does not exist. Any of you wishing to check this out for yourself - which is ever the best way - can do so by googling for the phrase "god of the gaps."
The earliest use of the phrase I am aware of - perhaps the first use, though he may have been quoting Dietrich Bonhoeffer in translation - is by the Bishop of Woolwich in the Corbishley Memorial Lecture of 1980, where he said,
"It is the remote ‘deus ex machina’ of Paley’s ‘Evidences’ of the 18th century with its clock-maker view of the universe - a god creating his world and occasionally intervening or interfering with it but definitely remote from it and sovereign beyond it. If you hold such a view of God I am not surprised that you might find it hard to reconcile that sort of view of the Creator with an informed fascination with his creation. Before long, such a God will be relegated simply to the god of the gaps - gaps left over when science has finished explaining and unravelling. If you place the Creator too much over and above his creation and do not balance that doctrine with an imminent theology of God within his creation then before too long you allot to theology the left-overs of what cannot be explained any other way."
In logic and philosophy the term more often used is that quoted by the Bishop, "deus ex machina." This is originally a dramatic term, meaning the unlikely appearance of a God (generally quite literally by means of a mechanism or stage-effect) at the climax of a play to solve a seemingly intractable plot problem.
In philosophy and logic the phrase is much used for the reasoning also known as "god of the gaps." For example David Hume, in section 7 of his "Enquiry Concerning Human Understanding", 1748, refers to the "theos apo mechanes" and the line of reasoning that "The same ignorance, therefore, reduces them to the same conclusion. They assert that the Deity is the immediate cause ..." This is clearly the same "god of the gaps" fallacy, applied to causation.
The contemporary Christian philosopher and lecturer in logic, Robert Koons - a strong supporter of the intelligent design movement - puts it as follows:
Strictly speaking, the God of the gaps error is made whenever P(e/~h), the probability of the event's occurring without design, is simply unknown. If we know that P(e/~h) is low, then an appeal to design is perfectly reasonable. Admittedly, it can be hard at times to determine the value of P(e/~h). This is a neatly set out version of the fallacy in semi-formal terms.
That Christian theologians also recognize the "god of the gaps" argument as a genuine fallacy can be seen from the frequent references to it in apologetics texts. It is found in the glossary of the apologetics.org
Home | CS Lewis
The Institute for Christian Teaching feels quite happy apparently to say
Page not found - Adventist International Institute of Advanced Studies "Thus the concern about falling again into the god-of-the-gaps fallacy is valid, and deserves an answer."
One can even find the Creationist organization Leadership University referring to an "atheism of the gaps"
http://www.leaderu.com/...sues/ft9511/articles/revessay.html
So, Registrant has made a fool of himself and breached the forum guidelines. He has insulted, argued the person not the position and made unsupported allegations. For now, he has done enough damage to himself, so he needs no more than a warning from administration.