"God of the Gaps" and other things.

a reply to:

"god of the gaps" means your god doesnt answer the questions we have. it reflects any application of god in place of actual science. that has nothing to do with your relationship.

God of the Gaps was not even part of that conversation you quoted. I dont mind your input, but at least stay with the correct topic when your trying to form a counter position.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to:

"god of the gaps" means your god doesnt answer the questions we have. it reflects any application of god in place of actual science. that has nothing to do with your relationship.

God of the Gaps was not even part of that conversation you quoted. I dont mind your input, but at least stay with the correct topic when your trying to form a counter position.

i was tying the whole thread together in my response. god of the gaps is in the thread title, so excuuuuuse me. pardon my effort to keep this train on track. i notice your response didnt actually answer mine tho.

a reply to: TzarChasm

i was tying the whole thread together in my response. god of the gaps is in the thread title, so excuuuuuse me

Well its actually God of the Gaps and others things as I dont like to put limits on the conversations as they go into more complex and deeper thoughts. I am not mad I was just simply showing you that your response to that particular quote was a strawman argument. I did respond to it in the context properly if you would like me to give you a counter proposal even though its a strawman I can gladly change back to the God of the Gaps idea. Although I believe I answered it in the first paragraph of the OP. Why do you believe that just because I can describe the way something works in detail that it could not have been designed?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

i was tying the whole thread together in my response. god of the gaps is in the thread title, so excuuuuuse me

Well its actually God of the Gaps and others things as I dont like to put limits on the conversations as they go into more complex and deeper thoughts. I am not mad I was just simply showing you that your response to that particular quote was a strawman argument. I did respond to it in the context properly if you would like me to give you a counter proposal even though its a strawman I can gladly change back to the God of the Gaps idea. Although I believe I answered it in the first paragraph of the OP. Why do you believe that just because I can describe the way something works in detail that it could not have been designed?

i dont believe I ever said that. i said "god of the gaps" is shorthand for the idea that gods are worshipped out of ignorance, in acknowledgment of the number of gods who only exist because our science wasnt up to scratch. how many gods are now considered mythology because we figured out where lightning really comes from and what that giant ball of fire in the sky really is. some of those gods are still fingered today in connection to miracles past and present. gods of the gaps.

a reply to: TzarChasm

Well that is exactly what God of the Gaps means...It means I know how this particular aspect of Science works therefore God could not have designed it....

So if a little girl and a scientist are both asked, "why does it rain?"

And the Little girl says, "God does it."

The Scientist says. "No way little girl the water cycle is why we have rain."(I could have went into much more detail here it is just for times sake)

Is the little girl producing the God of the Gaps idea in your opinion?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

Well that is exactly what God of the Gaps means...It means I know how this particular aspect of Science works therefore God could not have designed it....

So if a little girl and a scientist are both asked, "why does it rain?"

And the Little girl says, "God does it."

The Scientist says. "No way little girl the water cycle is why we have rain."(I could have went into much more detail here it is just for times sake)

Is the little girl producing the God of the Gaps idea in your opinion?

yes. because according to scientific inquiry, theres no god involved in the water cycle. just physics.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Yup. She doesn't know the real answer so god must of done it.

God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence. The term was invented by Christian theologians not to discredit theism but rather to point out the fallacy of relying on teleological arguments for God's existence.[1] Some use the phrase to refer to a form of the argument from ignorance fallacy.en.wikipedia.org...

I am wondering if you accidently worded your sentence wrong when typing.

It means I know how this particular aspect of Science works therefore God could not have designed it

If you had said

It means I don't know how this particular aspect of Science works therefore God must have designed it.

Then that would be correct explanation of the "god of the gaps" fallicy.

a reply to: TzarChasm

yes. because there is no reason to suspect that the water cycle has anything to do with a divine being. we can recreate the water cycle in a laboratory, does that make us godly?

Notice what you just said. We can recreate the water cycle...that means intelligence is asserted to cause the process. The water cycle happens naturally in the world, but it still depends on the same principles that we must use in a laboratory. These principles are rationally intelligible, and therefore are evidence for design. So if God created the water cycle in the World the same way we recreate it in a laboratory then the little girl is technically right. God makes it rain. And the Scientist is also right as God made water and heat and designed the rules that govern their interactions. This is not a God of the Gaps. You want to call it a Gap because you do not wish to view it as designed. God is the agent behind the mechanism. Mechanisms will never contradict the existence of an agent. I am not saying the existence of natural mechanisms are evidence for God I am saying that they are normally very delicate and depend on precise constants, and therefore imply intelligence behind them. You see in the end there are two world views: The Big Bang was either a purely random act or The Big Bang was a guided act. You seem to be an atheist/agnostic so you take the world view that the Big Bang was purely random. Explain to me, how randomness created uniformity? Explain to me how that is a logical thought? I mean to me that is like saying if I go and get all the materials needed for a house and put them in a room that simulates a tornado and wait. I will eventually get my house.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Soooo....Basicly you didn't know what "god of the gaps" actually meant and now you are trying to redefine a well established saying/term. Which BTW was defined by christian theologians.

Now I understand why the OP didn't make any sense.

Notice what you just said. We can recreate the water cycle...that means intelligence is asserted to cause the process. The water cycle happens naturally in the world, but it still depends on the same principles that we must use in a laboratory. These principles are rationally intelligible, and therefore are evidence for design.

i honestly couldnt tell you. i've never seen an intelligent lifeform produce laws pf physics out of pure existential chaos. ive never experienced any reason to believe that the universe is at the mercy of its own laws, nor have i experienced any reason to believe that this condition was a result of intellectual deliberation.

You see in the end there are two world views: The Big Bang was either a purely random act or The Big Bang was a guided act. You seem to be an atheist/agnostic so you take the world view that the Big Bang was purely random. Explain to me, how randomness created uniformity? Explain to me how that is a logical thought? I mean to me that is like saying if I go and get all the materials needed for a house and put them in a room that simulates a tornado and wait. I will eventually get my house.

i cant say for sure that this universe isnt just a failure self-destructing in what amounts to super slow motion from our point of view. i dont know, but thats not a good reason to say some god thing did it. that's a cheap and lazy way of arriving at the answers to my questions. at that point, i might as well give up and stop trying to learn. i will let science tell me when it has found out. and i trust science more than i trust anyone who says "it was god because god said so".

a reply to: TzarChasm


" As an atheist, I know that there is no God that is not infinitely wise and loving."

how do you know?

Because a true God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly wise, just, and loving.

Are there any disciples who worship a God that is flawed?

(Don't answer that!)

By the way, were you being TzarChastic?

a reply to: TzarChasm

no, intelligence is required to exedite it.

Nor did I say it took intelligence, I said factors about it imply design which implies intelligence behind it. Here is the wiki link about an internal combustion engine. I don't have to know any of that information in order for my car to run after I turn the key. There is no intelligence needed after that because it was designed that way. So that doesn't really mean the water cycle wasn't designed... and this concept can be applied to anything that Science discovers.

You see in the end there are two world views: The Big Bang was either a purely random act or The Big Bang was a guided act. You seem to be an atheist/agnostic so you take the world view that the Big Bang was purely random. Explain to me, how randomness created uniformity? Explain to me how that is a logical thought? I mean to me that is like saying if I go and get all the materials needed for a house and put them in a room that simulates a tornado and wait. I will eventually get my house.

Can you respond to that I am interested as to how you view the world.

a reply to: TzarChasm

no, intelligence is required to exedite it.

Nor did I say it took intelligence, I said factors about it imply design which implies intelligence behind it. Here is the wiki link about an internal combustion engine. I don't have to know any of that information in order for my car to run after I turn the key. There is no intelligence needed after that because it was designed that way. So that doesn't really mean the water cycle wasn't designed... and this concept can be applied to anything that Science discovers.

You see in the end there are two world views: The Big Bang was either a purely random act or The Big Bang was a guided act. You seem to be an atheist/agnostic so you take the world view that the Big Bang was purely random. Explain to me, how randomness created uniformity? Explain to me how that is a logical thought? I mean to me that is like saying if I go and get all the materials needed for a house and put them in a room that simulates a tornado and wait. I will eventually get my house.

Can you respond to that I am interested as to how you view the world.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

"Truth is personal and subjective...."

"Now this is an interesting conversation
I agree Truth is personal, but there has to be some objective measure of True or Truth is only a clever illusion played by the mind. Let me toss a bit of a hard question your way, is the quoted statement True, and if it is True then does it not prove an objective realm of Truth on its own? In other words if the statement is True doesn't it contradict itself?"

It is absolutely true that nothing is absolutely true.

Truth is a matter of mutual agreement.

There is always going to be some joker that does not believe that 2 + 2 equals 4.

Granted that it is a matter of absolute truth as to whether or not there is a Greyhound bus orbiting Jupiter.

We humans are quite clever, but sometimes we haven't got a clue.

Yet.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Hello again Servant,

"Also I would like to add that I am honored that you believe I am a good person, but I would have to respectfully disagree."

Well at the very least, the respect of your disagreement is a virtue.

Seriously though, I sense that you are a wise disciple of God.

A wise soul is a good soul.


"As an atheist, I know that there is no God that is not infinitely wise and loving."

"Can you clarify what you mean here? The wording is a bit confusing."


If I, as an atheist, am unconvinced of the reality of a perfect God,

Then an imperfect God is even harder to accept.

I hope that helps.

a reply to: Grimpachi

God of the gaps is a type of theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence

This is from your wiki page. This implies that once Science understands something it can no longer be viewed as evidence for God. I get that most people use this phrase when modern Christians say things like we dont know how life started so God must have done it. Yet it implies that if we understand and can describe in detail how life started that its refutes the idea of God. This will never be the case...because Science discovers and describes mechanisms, and God is an Agent. Just like my car functions off of mechanisms no matter how much you understand them they will never be able to explain why I chose to turn left, because I am an agent in that situation.. God is the same...

Try looking for characteristics of the Christian God in the universe and how we understand it instead of looking for physical evidence of Him. DNA for example carries an immaterial form of information that is eventually physically expressed as your appearance. DNA is like a picture book. The nucleotides are the words and you are the picture. I get that there are integral steps I am just hoping to get you to understand the concept.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

I get that you are making up stuff and you think it is convincing.


Do you get that the "god of the gaps" Fallicy is a "Argument from ignorance".

"God of the gaps" is saying "we can't explain it with science so it must be god.



It is saying god can be found in the gaps of our understanding hence the "God of the gaps" fallicy.

a reply to: TzarChasm

i've never seen an intelligent lifeform produce laws of physics out of pure existential chaos.

When does pure chaos ever amount to order? When does a tornado ever pick up the materials necessary for a house and create a house out of pure chaos? The most probable answer is never.

nor have i experienced any reason to believe that this condition was a result of intellectual deliberation.

How about your ability to reason?

a reply to: Grimpachi

My problem is with the implications as I have said. I am not going to sit here and talk in circles with you.

"God of the gaps" is saying "we can't explain it with science so it must be god.

Do you not get that this also implies that if Science can explain something in every little detail then God couldnt have done it? For example, if I said life is evidence of God. You would say its God of the Gaps because the details about the origins of life are still unknown, or in other words an argument for ignorance. I would then reply and say that the details of life's origin hold no weight on my statement as they are merely mechanisms. Science can only hope to tell us how life came into existence, but it will never tell us why.

a reply to: Diderot

It is absolutely true that nothing is absolutely true.

This goes against the law of non-contradiction. Why should I consider this statement when Logic dictates is as false?

Truth is a matter of mutual agreement.

Truth exist regardless of our opinion. If we both agreed the Earth was flat would that make it true? would we then be able to fall of the ends of the Earth? The Truth is the Earth is round regardless of if I believe that or not. Truth is something Humans discover not something we create.