"God of the Gaps" and other things.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Do you not get that this also implies that if Science can explain something in every little detail then God couldnt have done it?

See this is what I am trying to get you to understand. First you are using the term incorrectly because no where does science say if it can explain something then it is evidence against god or that a god couldn't have been the force behind the explainable mechanism.

You would say its God of the Gaps because the details about the origins of life are still unknown,

No I would not say that. Now if someone claimed that because we don't know for sure how life started it must be god then they are using an argument from ignorance by claiming so which is better known for that instance as God of the gaps argument".

You seem to be redefining what god of the gaps means maybe on purpose or maybe because you don't quite understand what that term means.

From reading some of your posts to others which many of are excellent examples of the "god of the gaps" fallacy I am also wondering if you are somehow trying to legitimize the "god of the gaps" fallacy to get people to think it isn't a fallacy.

So I will ask directly..

Are you trying to legitimize "god of the gaps" fallacies?

Or

Are you trying to redefine the definition of what "god of the gaps" fallacies describe?

a reply to: Diderot

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.

Are you saying the Christian God is imperfect? I mean you said yourself, "..a true God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly wise, just, and loving." These are all characteristics of the Christian God imo. Are you saying that the reality you observe doesn't convince you that such a God could exist?

a reply to: Grimpachi

You seem to be redefining what god of the gaps means maybe on purpose or maybe because you don't quite understand what that term means.

I understand the term just fine, and I am not redefining God of the Gaps. If their is a gap in scientific knowledge and one says that gap is evidence for God that statement isn't made about the mechanisms behind the gap but the agent behind the gap. When one imposes the "god of the gaps" argument they are saying that when Science discovers the Mechanisms behind the gap then the space for God gets smaller I have heard many people say that verbatim. I am trying to get you to realize that it doesn't matter if we understand the mechanisms behind something or not. If I say life existing is evidence of God, what I mean is that life exist against improbable odds and random chaos most likely couldnt have produced those odds and design is a more rational out look. That claim remains true regardless of the mechanisms behind the "origin of life."

Are you trying to legitimize "god of the gaps" fallacies?

Nope. Simply saying that just because Science doesn't understand the mechanisms or because they do holds no weight on claims like God makes it rain or God created life. Those claims are not about mechanisms. So god of the gaps is a weightless argument...

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

When one imposes the "god of the gaps" argument they are saying that when Science discovers the Mechanisms behind the gap then the space for God gets smaller I have heard many people say that verbatim.

Instead of going by what you think other people have said you should stick to the clear definition of what it actually means.

I am trying to get you to realize that it doesn't matter if we understand the mechanisms behind something or not.

I think understanding how things work does matter but you are welcome to your opinion.

If I say life existing is evidence of God, what I mean is that life exist against improbable odds and random chaos most likely couldnt have produced those odds and design is a more rational out look. That claim remains true regardless of the mechanisms behind the "origin of life."

Well if you said"If I say life existing is evidence of God," then that would be your opinion and if you want others to except what you are saying you would need some very convincing arguments to back that position up. Unfortunately your statements about the odds is not a good rational argument. Your statement that it is true is your opinion.

Nope. Simply saying that just because Science doesn't understand the mechanisms or because they do holds no weight on claims like God makes it rain or God created life. Those claims are not about mechanisms.

Well if your saying. If science clams to understand the mechanisms or doesn't neither would be evidence for or against god you would be correct. God of the gaps fallicy isn't continingent on what scence knows.

God of the gaps is about when a party claims that something can't be known that it would be evidence of god.

Like saying the universe couldn't have simply happened and claiming a creator/god must have done it. That would be a "god of the gaps" argument.

In fact your earlier statement:

If I say life existing is evidence of God, what I mean is that life exist against improbable odds and random chaos most likely couldnt have produced those odds and design is a more rational out look.

That is another "god of the gaps" fallicy argument.

Which brings everything back to either you do not properly understand the term or you are trying to redefine it so that your arguments can hold weight.

a reply to: Grimpachi

It has also been argued that the God-of-the-gaps view is predicated on the assumption that any event which can be explained by science automatically excludes God; that if God did not do something via direct action, God didn't do it at all

This is also from your wiki page and is the exact same thing that I am arguing for this whole time.....I am not the first to make this argument. You dont have to agree with it, but generally when the phrase is applied they speaker makes the implication above. This is my problem with the God of the Gaps. Its not about the definition its about the implications of the definition and how people use it in conversation.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

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.

randomness creates uniformity in the presence of rules. in other words, there are things that matter can do and things it cant do. there are things it is more likely to do given certain factors and things it is less likely to do given certain factors. the laws of physics bolster a very slow process of construction and preservation using the ebb and flow of energy at a subatomic level, which eventually translates to the world we see. maybe some people think that because they cant see the chaotic ballet that infuses the atomic world, it doesnt really exist. they see the calm and balanced upper world, and not the frenzied fireworks underneath. more specifically, i dont know how the universe happened. all i know is i havent heard a convincing explanation from any theist i have ever talked to, which tells me that they are just placeholding for their ignorance and having fun while doing it. some people arent hard enough to face a reality that has no intrinsic meaning besides survival.

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 know what i know? i know that youre not here to change your mind. you are here to find every available excuse to cling to the engine that drives your sense of self-worth and direction. which means that im wasting my time in arguing with you.

ciao.

a reply to: TzarChasm

randomness creates uniformity in the presence of rules.

How do rules enter a random system?

Randomness suggests a non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of symbols or steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination.

The universe is full of cycles. Cycles are not random. They occur as you said based on rules which is defined as one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or spheres.

maybe some people think that because they cant see the chaotic ballet that infuses the atomic world, it doesnt really exist. they see the calm and balanced upper world, and not the frenzied fireworks underneath.

I believe even the atomic world has rules it must follow no?

all i know is i havent heard a convincing explanation from any theist i have ever talked to, which tells me that they are just placeholding for their ignorance and having fun while doing it. some people arent hard enough to face a reality that has no intrinsic meaning besides survival.

Well as an atheist/agnostic what exactly does your ability reason mean to you? I mean if you are correct in your world view and everything is basic materialism, then we are all just meat and chemicals fizzing around dancing to our DNA. I am theist simply because thats the way my chemicals fiz and you are atheist or whatever world view you cling to simply because your chemicals fiz a bit differently. You have no way of justifying your ability to reason. So if you are right why should I listen to you in the first place because its not reason or logic that makes you say that it is simply chemicals.

you know what i know? i know that youre not here to change your mind. you are here to find every available excuse to cling to the engine that drives your sense of self-worth and direction. which means that im wasting my time in arguing with you.

" I am not here to tell anyone how to live there life or what to believe. I can only tell you parts of my own story and hope that maybe you find a bit of Truth for yourself to better your life. " -OP

I am not here to change my mind? You are right. I am here to find as much Truth as possible, and if that changes my mind then so be it. I am not Christian because it gives me a sense of worth and direction, so why don't you let me speak for myself. I am a Christian because I honestly 100% believe it is the most rational and logical position for me to take. This is for personal experiences as well as evidence I have seen within this world.

I should have asked you this question a long time ago. If Christianity were True would you become a Christian?

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Hello again,

"Are you saying that the reality you observe doesn't convince you that such a God could exist?"

I would not say that. I would say that the reality I observe does not convince me that such a God does exist.

This is a major difference.

I cannot rationally state that such a God does not exist.

I am quite willing to be convinced, though.

At that point God will become part of the natural universe.

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

randomness creates uniformity in the presence of rules.

How do rules enter a random system?

Randomness suggests a non-order or non-coherence in a sequence of symbols or steps, such that there is no intelligible pattern or combination.

The universe is full of cycles. Cycles are not random. They occur as you said based on rules which is defined as one of a set of explicit or understood regulations or principles governing conduct within a particular activity or spheres.

maybe some people think that because they cant see the chaotic ballet that infuses the atomic world, it doesnt really exist. they see the calm and balanced upper world, and not the frenzied fireworks underneath.

I believe even the atomic world has rules it must follow no?

all i know is i havent heard a convincing explanation from any theist i have ever talked to, which tells me that they are just placeholding for their ignorance and having fun while doing it. some people arent hard enough to face a reality that has no intrinsic meaning besides survival.

Well as an atheist/agnostic what exactly does your ability reason mean to you? I mean if you are correct in your world view and everything is basic materialism, then we are all just meat and chemicals fizzing around dancing to our DNA. I am theist simply because thats the way my chemicals fiz and you are atheist or whatever world view you cling to simply because your chemicals fiz a bit differently. You have no way of justifying your ability to reason. So if you are right why should I listen to you in the first place because its not reason or logic that makes you say that it is simply chemicals.

you know what i know? i know that youre not here to change your mind. you are here to find every available excuse to cling to the engine that drives your sense of self-worth and direction. which means that im wasting my time in arguing with you.

" I am not here to tell anyone how to live there life or what to believe. I can only tell you parts of my own story and hope that maybe you find a bit of Truth for yourself to better your life. " -OP

I am not here to change my mind? You are right. I am here to find as much Truth as possible, and if that changes my mind then so be it. I am not Christian because it gives me a sense of worth and direction, so why don't you let me speak for myself. I am a Christian because I honestly 100% believe it is the most rational and logical position for me to take. This is for personal experiences as well as evidence I have seen within this world.

I should have asked you this question a long time ago. If Christianity were True would you become a Christian?

I don't know where the rules came from. Maybe they are existential properties. No existence possible except in the presence of these root forces. And even the most sophisticated system wears down and malfunctions, meaning the subatomic fireworks I mentioned. That's a lot of atoms playing hard ball because we force them to. Imagine a heart attack on a molecular level, or a flicking lighter. Every step you take. The reaction in a light bulb. Maybe the universe was never truly random, because its very nature limits the possible outcomes. You throw a brick up in the presence of gravity, its gonna come down. The universe can't break itself. I don't know. And if Christianity were proven to be the truth, I would acknowledge it...then I would go back to seeing Christians and Muslims and jews as just another ideological group. I don't need a god to be perfectly happy with my services to society and myself. But you're right, I have no right to pressure you. I'm sorry.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Hello once more. From my earlier post,

"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."

Let me reword it.

I, as an atheist, am unconvinced of the reality of God.

Now let me ask you,

Do you pray to a God that is imperfect? Are there any disciples who view their God as flawed?

I trust that your answer is an emphatic "No".

I am not convinced that God is real, perfect or otherwise.

Your God, I trust, is perfect in His wisdom, virtue, and grace.

You and I might reach out to touch the hand of God.

For me, I am reaching to embrace wisdom, virtue, and grace.

a reply to: TzarChasm

But you're right, I have no right to pressure you. I'm sorry.

I appreciate the apology friend.

And if Christianity were proven to be the truth, I would acknowledge it...then I would go back to seeing Christians and Muslims and jews as just another ideological group.

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying you would only acknowledge that it was true, but wouldn't accept the Christian God ever?

I don't need a god to be perfectly happy with my services to society and myself.

Well I believe in God and I am utterly ashamed of myself. So God is not there to make me feel good about preforming altruistic acts. God is there to show me that I am incapable of being purely altruistic because of my human nature. My God's message is not about how to live your life, but about salvation. The law of God is Love. We all break this law at some point in our life. Those who act against love are doing Evil in God's eyes. Can you think of any moral fact that the opposite reaction would not be called unloving? God is perfectly Just and therefore must punish all Evil based on his Character not his ability. God demands Justice because thats who He is. He allows a gift of grace because He loves us. None of these things are necessary for a happy life on Earth.

Brother, I love you and I hope one day maybe you will feel the connection with God that I do, as it is as real as the one you have with any of the people you love in your life. I get that there are things that keep you from seeing what I see and that is perfectly ok as it is your choice , but let me leave you with this. If I am right, you should expect to see a few things within the next decade. Psalm 83 and Isaiah 17. Both are prophecies from the Bible that haven't come to pass yet. Israel will get there holy temple back and start Sacrificing. All of this is encompassed by the start of what Christians call the 70th week of Daniel. The Hebrew word translated week in Daniel 9 does not mean 7 days, but rather a week of years, or 7 years. The NASB however shows this well.

Daniel 9:24 “Seventy ‘sevens’ are decreed for your people and your holy city to finish[d] transgression, to put an end to sin, to atone for wickedness, to bring in everlasting righteousness, to seal up vision and prophecy and to anoint the Most Holy Place". This is actually a period of 490 years. 483 of these years passed consecutively from the time of the decree to rebuild Jerusalem in the first month of the 20th year of the reign of King Artaxerxes of Persia (March of 445 BC on our calendar).

Daniel 9
5 “Know and understand this: From the time the word goes out to restore and rebuild Jerusalem until the Anointed One,[f] the ruler, comes, there will be seven ‘sevens,’ and sixty-two ‘sevens.’ It will be rebuilt with streets and a trench, but in times of trouble. 26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing"

(7 X 7) + (62 X 7)=483, so 483 years after the decree on March 445 B.C Jesus rides into town on a donkey to the shouts of "Hosanna." This is the only time he allowed his followers to claim him as Israels King.

John 12
12 On the next day the large crowd who had come to the feast, when they heard that Jesus was coming to Jerusalem, 13 took the branches of the palm trees and went out to meet Him, and began to shout, “Hosanna! Blessed is He who comes in the name of the Lord, even the King of Israel.” 14 Jesus, finding a young donkey, sat on it; as it is written, 15 “Fear not, daughter of Zion; behold, your King is coming, seated on a donkey’s colt.” 16 These things His disciples did not understand at the first; but when Jesus was glorified, then they remembered that these things were written of Him, and that they had done these things to Him. 17 So the people, who were with Him when He called Lazarus out of the tomb and raised him from the dead, continued to testify about Him. 18 For this reason also the people went and met Him, because they heard that He had performed this sign. 19 So the Pharisees said to one another, “You see that you are not doing any good; look, the world has gone after Him.”

Daniel 9
26 After the sixty-two ‘sevens,’ the Anointed One will be put to death and will have nothing

So after the 69th week or 483 years Jesus is Crucified. This is where something interesting happens imo. God's time clock stops. This is where God put in his plan for the Church. Jesus leaves and the Holy Spirit comes. We enter the Age of Grace. God has put his plans on hold until the fullness of the gentiles come in.

I believe Gods started counting toward the end of the Church Age in 1948. I won't go in to Scripture details as I know most of this is probably gibberish to you now, but I believe that a maximum of about 80 years from 1948 are left in order for the Age of Grace and the last of the 7 years of Daniels Seventy 'sevens' to come to an end. That means that all of it must end by 2028, and 2023 is the latest possible date for the end of the Age of Grace. I tell you all of this to get to this if the Age of Grace ends and you do not know God you will be left to experience his wrath on all who have ever went against the law of Love. I don't tell you that to scare you, but it is something you will observe in physical reality as millions will no longer be on Earth, and a global government will create some form of peace treaty with Israel for 7 years and break that treaty in the middle. If all of this is happening you have one last chance to find God, but I believe you will be responsible for sticking close to God, where as the Holy Spirit ensures that I do not stray from Him. There is one more chance thats all I wanted to let you know.

a reply to: Diderot

Do you pray to a God that is imperfect? Are there any disciples who view their God as flawed?

No, I personally do not pray to imperfect God. As for your second question, I would assume that most people would answer no, but there is always that one exception. Do you ever pray?

I am not convinced that God is real, perfect or otherwise. Your God, I trust, is perfect in His wisdom, virtue, and grace. You and I might reach out to touch the hand of God. For me, I am reaching to embrace wisdom, virtue, and grace.

My God is all of those things, and I am none of those things. Do you also seek to embrace perfect Justice?

a reply to: Diderot


"Are you saying that the reality you observe doesn't convince you that such a God could exist?"

I would not say that. I would say that the reality I observe does not convince me that such a God does exist. This is a major difference.

I would agree that is a major difference. You seem to be more of an agnostic to me, yet you lean to the atheistic side of the argument.

I am quite willing to be convinced, though. At that point God will become part of the natural universe.

Why exactly would God need to become part of the natural world in order for you to be convinced of his existence? Math doesn't exist in the natural world, yet Math can describe the natural world in amazing way. so why can't a perfect, all powerful God have an impact in the natural world without physically being part of it?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
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?

i think that even in the tornado, a sort of order exists because even tornadoes follow rules. i have never heard of a tornado defying the laws of physics.

the universe does not reason, it operates. it follows rules and reacts according to those rules. it doesnt thinks about it anymore than a drop of rain thinks about its fall.

a reply to: TzarChasm

I never said this universe reasons? I asked you if your ability to reason could be evidence for God

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Are you saying the Christian God is imperfect? I mean you said yourself, "..a true God is omnipotent, omniscient, and perfectly wise, just, and loving." These are all characteristics of the Christian God imo.

How exactly did you come to this conclusion?

Is it what you've been taught, or is it a conclusion you've found though reading the bible?

IF the latter is true... How do you reconcile this with your conclusion?

The NT says "God is love"... In the OT you'll find many instances of "god" killing innocent men, women, and children... and telling his people to do this as well...

Is that loving, wise, or just?

Now personally I don't believe this is the "Christian" God... and the OT is most definitely not compiled using Christian books...

so.... ?

originally posted by: ServantOfTheLamb
a reply to: TzarChasm

I never said this universe reasons? I asked you if your ability to reason could be evidence for God

no you didnt. you said "what about your ability to reason?" and no, i dont think its evidence of anything except that growing neurons foster greater cognitive capacity.


a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

Correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying you would only acknowledge that it was true, but wouldn't accept the Christian God ever?

that is correct.

Well I believe in God and I am utterly ashamed of myself. So God is not there to make me feel good about preforming altruistic acts. God is there to show me that I am incapable of being purely altruistic because of my human nature.

so you are ashmed of being human because your god says that humans are basically filthy animals. thats why i would not accept him ever. i do not appreciate being denigrated by an narcissistic hypocrite of literary fiction, even if its just through his readerbase. dont let that stop you tho.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

"My God is all of those things, and I am none of those things. Do you also seek to embrace perfect Justice?"

To seek the embrace of perfect Justice is to enrich the heritage of humanity.

We are on a journey.

You seek the grace and blessing of your God,

and I seek the promise of our human potential.

I feel that we stride the same path.

a reply to: ServantOfTheLamb

"I would not say that. I would say that the reality I observe does not convince me that such a God does exist. This is a major difference."

"I would agree that is a major difference. You seem to be more of an agnostic to me, yet you lean to the atheistic side of the argument.

An agnostic tends to sit on the fence. Technically I would call myself a virtual atheist.
One thing I try to avoid is a dogmatic absolute.



"I am quite willing to be convinced, though. At that point God will become part of the natural universe."

"Why exactly would God need to become part of the natural world in order for you to be convinced of his existence? Math doesn't exist in the natural world, yet Math can describe the natural world in amazing way. so why can't a perfect, all powerful God have an impact in the natural world without physically being part of it?"

To me, nothing lies beyond the realm of nature. If I were to be convinced of the reality of God,
Then God and nature would be as one.
By the way, math exists in the natural world because we perceive it.
If a tree falls in the forest...

a reply to: TzarChasm
I suppose there is really no reason in us continuing our conversation as you have already made your choice about God. Regardless of his existence or not you have already decided that you would not join Him, and He being a loving and just God will not force you into his presence for eternity.