I did, and I've pointed out its flaws.

You seemed to think you have which is curious.

You're endorsing a God of the gaps claim. As I've been maintaining, and as you kept complaining about and saying 'That's namecalling!' as if that undoes the observation.

It isn't a refutation. Call it whatever you want, it doesn't affect the validity.

Done repeatedly.

Yet you can't point to a single one and by your own admission Imm somehow able to dismiss all of your supposed arguments.

Argon, you're using your usual schtick here - you're acting as if my goal is to get you to concede, and if you don't concede, I haven't made my case. But that's not what's going on here: I'm using you as an example. Every time you ignore what's been pointed out, or worse, argue poorly against it - in vain - you're giving me what I'm after. Thank you kindly.

Heh ok...

Nowhere have I said I'm 'acting as though something exists when you're not convinced'. I've nowhere tried to convince you 'God exists'. I've been pointing at the flaws in your arguments.

The think you're claiming exists is an abstract example of a notion of God that is falsifiable. By the very nature of the claim you're claiming that the addition of a set of metaphysics is more falsifiable than the underlying physics which is patently absurd. But you keep claiming that such a thing exists. I told you then that I can't argue against something that you're abstractly claiming exists without actually settling on an actual concept.

God of the gaps. As I kept saying, and which you've denied until now, where once again you're forced to.

Again, naming an argument doesn't refute it. "If A then B is an argument of type X. Therefore ~(If A then B)"

As I keep pointing out - and as you keep struggling with - God of the Gaps reasoning is a fallacy. You keep talking about how 'God exists' is not a scientifically falsifiable concept, but you cover your ears and yell "I'm not listening, la la la!" when I point out that naturalism is not a scientifically falsifiable concept. Arbitrarily stating 'A-ha! But I'm going to say that if God exists, then He should be (for example) answering prayers in a way that should be scientifically detectable! Sure, I acknowledge that both this and any conceivable scientific test would not falsify naturalism, but... well, uh... if I say that I personally would change my mind then that means it's falsifiable so that's that!'

What is he fallacy that I've committed, then? Because I'm looking through Hurley and it seems they forgot to include the "God of he Gaps Fallacy" in their chapter on informal fallacies. More name calling as a substitute for cogent counterargument. If I have a false premise please name it. But again "If A then B is an argument of type X. Therefore ~(If A then B)"

You've gone from saying 'Naturalism is falsifiable and theism is not' to 'Okay I'm no longer defending naturalism, but I'm defending scientific-naturalism' to

Yes I'm arguing not just X but The combination of X, Y, and Z together. I've expanded my claim. "You at one point argued X. Now you've clarified your position to X'. Therefore ~X' and ~X." Simply amazing.

'You're calling it a God of the Gaps argument, that's namecalling, it's not that'

Again arguing whether "If A then B" is type X or X' is irrelevant.

to 'Okay it's a God of the Gaps argument but I God of the Gaps can falsify God's existence if my subjective ad-hoc gap is found but it could never falsify naturalism because... oh shit, uh.. no it's just like that, that's that, bye now!'

"<in a nasaly voice> "If A then B". Therefore ~(if A then B)". Hilarious. What's your counterargument?

You see, ArgonTorr... you've lost. Naturalism is unfalsifiable.

"If A then B, if B then C" isn't countered by "If B' then ~C".

The only valid purely scientific (as in, eliminating metaphysical discussion as much as possible) view is utter agnosticism: "We do not know if God exists or not. We do not know if naturalism is true or not. We default to the scientific starting point of 'We don't know' on both questions."

Agnosticism deal with knowledge. My position deals with distinguishability.

Naturalism is in principle scientifically compatible with any empirical/observable state of affairs, by appeal to either brute fact, chance, or undiscovered naturalistic explanation (See: Shermer, Myers, Dawkins, etc.) A view which is scientifically compatible with any empirical/observable state of affairs is unfalsifiable. Naturalism is unfalsifiable.

Fallacy of composition. "X, Y, and Z individually have Property P. Therefore XYZ has Property P". Demonstrating pure naturalism is unfalsifiable does not demonstrate that scientific naturalism is unfalsifiable.

And to add the coup de grace. Add 4. (Naive Atheist claim) It is unreasonable to believe in a claim which is scientifically unfalsifiable. This is insufficiently rigorous. If this were true you couldn't make it through he day. My claims are more specific than that.

Add 5. (3 & 4) By NA standards, we do not have warrant to believe in naturalism.

So if neither 3 nor 4 hold what happens? I'm guessing in your world that means the two in validities cancel and your argument is valid again?

Finally, two more notes. First, you shouldn't play around with terms like 'contraposition' when you don't understand them.

As I understand it, contraposition is to say that "If ~G then ~T" is the same as "If T then G", there in this case the terms are Theism and Gaps (as I have defined them). Hence by negating one flips the necessary and sufficient conditions. Why? Is this not correct?

The existence of a gap wouldn't demonstrate God's existence,

Correct

and the lack of a gap doesn't demonstrate God's existence - because both 'God exists' and 'God does not exist' are not falsifiable.

Fallacy of composition. Read this carefully before responding: The lack of an explanation for which scientific naturalism can be categorically ruled out would demonstrate that one could not distinguish between this universe and a universe in which the contradiction of scientific naturalism (I.e. At least one of the woo-ey collection of claims is true) is false. In such a universe, belief in any one of the counterclaims is unmerited, because if the union of all these claims are collectively indistinguishable from being false, then each of the individual claims aware false. This is my central argument, refer to my bulleted argument list for a more rigorous detailing of my arguments. I'm putting my foot down on the nonsense: If an argument doesn't address at least one premise of this central argument in a way that makes it clear which premise you are refuting, I simply won't address it.. This has gone on for too long.

Second, you should actually pay attention to the article: There are so many phenomena that would raise the specter of God or other supernatural forces: faith healers could restore lost vision, the cancers of only good people could go into remission, the dead could return to life, we could find meaningful DNA sequences that could have been placed in our genome only by an intelligent agent, angels could appear in the sky. The fact that no such things have ever been scientifically documented gives us added confidence that we are right to stick with natural explanations for nature. So, contra your own view, Stenger and company are arguing that gaps would in fact demonstrate the existence of God. So, once again: They are engaged in God of the gaps reasoning. As are you

They are giving examples of potential falsifications of what I am calling scientific naturalism, that is theism + supernaturalism + the collection of silly 'outs' you've offered, along with similar claims, are all collectively indistinguishable from not existing. The examples they've briefly outlined would be defeaters for my premise that no observation or set of observations exist for which scientific naturalism can be ruled out.

Label that what you want. I'd like to see an actual cogent reply to my argument.