You’ve spoken far more concisely than I have ever managed on a subject that I have wrestled with for a long while now: The subject of miracles. My favourite analogy on the subject is a sports analogy: Golf. Gaping over how all of these conditions are just so to create this particular result is analogous to gaping over how this golf ball landed on this blade of grass. Well, yes, but it had to land somewhere, didn’t it? This is simply an alternate approach to your point on puddles, and I hoped you might like it.

Regardless, I applaud you, and several others I know do too. You deserve a bit of positive feedback, ne? Even if not-terribly-constructive.

Yours sincerely,

A fan.

Does it not seem odd that the argument uses logic, which is a simple extension of the laws of physics to repudiate a hypothesized answer to a question of what shapes the laws of physics and thus logic?

Any attmept to deconstruct this position amounts to using a word to define itself, that’s why you can’t prove an axiom.

I grow weary of having words shove into my mouth.

This is the atheist equivalent of “You’re only an atheist because you hate god.” equals “You only believe in a god because you don’t understand.”

What if I DO understand? What if YOU don’t understand? What if you can’t? What if you won’t?

To reiterate. It is not a god of the gaps argument if the gap can ONLY be filled by a force that could by definition ONLY be a god, and nothing but.

“Oh but it’a not a god it’s just this thing that created existence and enforces every physical rule.” That’s a god, and clearl,y we have one, dress it up how you like.

There is no analogy, there is no process of definition. It is axiomatic, and you either get it or you don’t. There is no proof that 1=1, it must simply be realized.

The structure of all is what it is, and there are no real alternatives. Universe=Universe.

Many people, regardless of reading, regardless of processing power and memory, simply can not grasp that, or I think on a deep psychological level, won’t, out of reluctance I expect to join what they see as the rank and file. (Those dimwitted theists.)

Granted theism can be a mental infection, or a symptom of mental weakness, but not always. A careful claim of god which includes ONLY those traits which MAKE something a god, and yet ONLY fills the LAST gap, renders a thinking man a thiest by default.

The speed of light is not up for debate, nor are the associated laws, yet we still have creationists, same thing here, accept it or refuse.

As they say all achievement is a compensation for some other failing perceived or actual, conscious or sub, what happens when the very determination that’s gives birth to profound understanding recoils to its core at the idea of coming full circle?

Enjoy the last word sketch, I’m done with this. I’m happy I could help with this article.