#godofgaps

God of the gaps (or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "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 gap 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 are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.

The God of the Gaps is a didit fallacy and an ad hoc fallacy, as well as an argument from incredulity or an argument from ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/scienceonreligion/2016/02/no-space-for-god-of-the-gaps/

http://www.argumentsforatheism.com/arguments_god_ignorance.html

http://atheism.wikia.com/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

http://www.godlessgeeks.com/WhyAtheism.htm

https://whyevolutionistrue.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/atheism-of-the-gaps/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btpczTQ-wP0

Neil deGrasse Tyson

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a5zkks6mZ6w

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ytaf30wuLbQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HooeZrC76s0

The Atheist Experience with Matt Dillahunty

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xoxmvYcwPLY

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gm2fWehzyOk

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mdNyhLASaW0

‘God Did It’ is a Terrible Explanation

http://commonsenseatheism.com/?p=11046

New Theory: God Did It - Edward K. Lankford

https://www.colorado.edu/Sociology/gimenez/corner/god.html

Didit fallacy

"I can't explain it" becomes "It can't be explained" becomes "It has been explained; the gods did it" — or more succinctly — "I don't know, therefore I do know". —TheraminTrees

A didit fallacy is an informal fallacy that occurs when a complex problem is handwaved away by invoking (without reason) the intervention of some powerful entity.

In essence:

Something happened, I'm not sure why.

X did it!

It's that simple.

All didit fallacies are essentially golden hammers, because they propose a simplistic solution for a range of complex and unrelated problems.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Didit_fallacy

Golden Hammer Logical Fallacy

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Golden_hammer

Argument from ignorance (argumentum ad ignorantiam)

http://trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/relevance/argument-from-ignorance

The argument from ignorance (or argumentum ad ignorantiam and negative proof) is a logical fallacy that claims the truth of a premise is based on the fact that it has not (yet) been proven false, or that a premise is false because it has not (yet) been proven true. This is often phrased as "absence of evidence is not evidence of absence".

If the only evidence for something's existence is a lack of evidence for it not existing, then the default position is one of mild skepticism and not credulity. This type of negative proof is common in proofs of God's existence or in pseudosciences where it is used as an attempt to shift the burden of proof onto the skeptic rather than the proponent of the idea. The burden of proof is on the individual proposing existence, not the one questioning existence.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_ignorance

Videos:

Arguments From Ignorance (1-2)

Matt Dillahunty - The Atheist Experience #654

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08eBv0lfT5E&t=18s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z-Sfs65CTzA&t=44s

Matt Dillahunty On Argument From Ignorance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cxy-nUCAozc&t=59s

Atheist Experience-Argument with ignorance again

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QFEgwk-cFfg&t=31s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eNNDkmMrJUs&t=14s

The Atheist Experience - The Argument from Ignorance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5H06nVjZqNk&t=30s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ESV_EuNAWAE

Argument From Ignorance? - The Atheist Experience #748

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cHqBgamhZ_c

Damn Argument from Ignorance - The Atheist Experience

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=puJKyH_zED0

Neil deGrasse Tyson:The Argument from Ignorance A Sequence NOT Included in In God We Teach.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lImxObF-BfA

Neil Tyson talks about UFOs and the argument from ignorance

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9BRDCxNEuyg

The Argument from Ignorance - Debunked (The Appeal to Ignorance - Refuted)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e2dYW1pSQy8

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/56/Argument-from-Ignorance

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/ignorant.html

http://www.skepdic.com/ignorance.html

Open Minds and the Argument from Ignorance

https://www.csicop.org/SI/show/open_minds_and_the_argument_from_ignorance/DeleteRossMay

https://michaelshermer.com/tag/argument-from-ignorance/

https://www.thoughtco.com/appeal-to-ignorance-fallacy-1689122

http://philosophy.lander.edu/logic/ignorance.html

Argument From Incredulity

https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/personal-incredulity

Argument from Incredulity (Fallacy of the Week)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x7aZMwZsg_0

The argument from incredulity is a logical fallacy that occurs when someone decides that something did not happen, because they cannot personally understand how it could happen.

The fallacy is an argument from ignorance and an informal fallacy.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Argument_from_incredulity

http://trulyfallacious.com/logic/logical-fallacies/relevance/argument-from-personal-incredulity

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/196/Argument-from-Incredulity

http://www.talkorigins.org/indexcc/CA/CA100.html

http://youngausskeptics.com/2009/03/ca100-argument-from-incredulity/

Bad Moves: Arguments from incredulity, By Julian Baggini

http://lclane2.net/argumentfromincredulity.html

Ad hoc

Ad hoc is a phrase (literally, "for this") that describes ideas which are created solely for a specific task and not intended to be generalizable in any way.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Ad_hoc

Informal Fallacy

An informal fallacy (also relevance fallacy, conceptual fallacy, soundness fallacy) is an argument that is formally valid but is unsound because of the falsity or irrelevance of one or more of its premises. Informal fallacies are often characterised by the fact that there is a disconnect of some kind between their premises and conclusions. Inappropriate generalisations and argument from ignorance are forms of informal fallacies. These tend to be more numerous and slightly more interesting than formal fallacies.

Informal fallacies are ad hoc, ad hominem, ambiguous, arguments from ignorance, non causa pro causa, circular, special pleading, or weak analogies.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Informal_fallacy

Divine Fallacy

The divine fallacy is a species of non sequitur reasoning which explains something one does not understand by conjecturing the existence of some unknown force.

This is fallacious since explaining a fact by verbally creating 'somebody' responsible for causing it, while no evidence of existence is given, does not explain anything.

http://esgs.free.fr/uk/log83.htm

http://skepdic.com/dvinefal.html

Non Sequitur

Non sequitur is a Latin phrase meaning “it does not follow”. It means that the conclusion reached does not follow from the premise(s). Often examples of non sequitur arguments are hilariously disconnected, but those encountered in the wild can be subtle and may not be easily uncovered. The reason that such arguments are fallacious in logic should be fairly obvious.

https://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Non_sequitur

https://www.logicallyfallacious.com/tools/lp/Bo/LogicalFallacies/136/Non-Sequitur

https://literarydevices.net/non-sequitur/

Please Join Pages In Our ExposingReligion Network

http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/20825271431

The ExposingReligion Research Directory:

http://exposingreligionblog.tumblr.com/post/16944061808

More Research:

The Burden of Proof and the religious shifting of it. A negative proof, universal negative, and the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance. You cannot prove a negative? Not so fast. Proving A Negative.

http://tmblr.co/ZTwOHx1oTcGfK

Debunking, Refuting & Answering Top Creationist & Intelligent Design: Questions, Arguments, Myths, Misconceptions, Misinformation, Mischaracterizations, Fallacies, Tactics, Lies, & Fraud