The Gap God of Christianity

[Ooberman]

God of Gaps:

The term God-of-the-gaps argument can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance.[8][9] Commonly such an argument can be reduced to the following form:

* There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
* Therefore the cause must be supernatural.

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[10]

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been asserted by theologians to have the effect of relegating God to the leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge increases, the dominion of God decreases.[5][6][11][12]

The term "God of the gaps" is sometimes used in describing the perceived incremental retreat of religious explanations of physical phenomena in the face of increasingly comprehensive scientific explanations for those phenomena.[citation needed] An example of the line of reasoning starts with the position that early religious descriptions of objects and events (such as the Sun, Moon, and stars; thunder and lightning) placed these in the realm of things created or controlled by a god or gods. As scientific explanations were found for observations in the realms of astronomy, meteorology, geology, cosmology and biology, the use of supernatural explanations for phenomena was progressively reduced, occupying smaller and smaller 'gaps' in knowledge.[citation needed]

Wiki


Most recently on this forum we have seen it used to support some alternative to Materialism in the Indeterminacy at a quantum level. But it seems fairly pervasive and then, it occurred to me why many Theists, Xians specifically, are drawn to it.

The will ask things like: "What happened at the Big Bang? Were you there? Did you see it? So how do you know God didn't do it?"

(And other variations, some more, some less sophisticated)

But remember what their world view suggests: that Science can be overturned by the actions of some Supreme ruler that must have been the cause of the Universe and everything in it.

And where do they find their proof? In a Gap.

The Bible is a story written around this blatant Gap.

Jesus died
Was placed in a black box; a cave; unseen and undetectable.
>>>>>>God did something<<<<<<<<
Jesus was back!

The Bible is a story written around this hole in the center; this Gap. It is proof to the Xian that God works in Gaps.

(Not all Xians, mind you)

If you think about any explanation from a Theist, there is a Gap. How did God cure my Aunt Mildred? She prayed, and when she woke up, her hangover was gone!

God works in Mysterious ways (read: gaps)

So, is the God of the Gaps a valid argument for Xians to make, since their worldview includes it as a central tenet? A central theme around which their beliefs revolve?

[The Mad Haranguer]

I did not say otherwise. I made a judgment call. Where's your evidence that unconscious matter-energy is all there is, that it is sufficient unto itself? If you wish it to be accepted you must present evidence.

who made these claims?

To negate one thing is to assert another. Sorry, but that's the way life is.

[gabbeTroop]

There is nothing called evidence against something not prooven. You don`t know i exist, im god, do you have any objections? proove it!

[Ooberman]

I did not say otherwise. I made a judgment call. Where's your evidence that unconscious matter-energy is all there is, that it is sufficient unto itself? If you wish it to be accepted you must present evidence.

who made these claims?

To negate one thing is to assert another. Sorry, but that's the way life is.

Who has negated the possibility of your "something else"? Please provide a quote.

See, I know that you are committing a Straw Man and Argument from Ignorance all at once. You are awash in fallacies.

Let me illustrate.

There is a black box, in it is a random number generator that could literally produce any number from negative infinity to positive infinity. One cannot know what number it will choose.

If someone says it can't be 3 (Material based), what evidence do they have?
If someone says, how can you know it can't be 346535, what evidence do they have?
If you say, "how can you say it is 3, when it could be something else", what evidence do you have?

The problem is, is that it literally could be ANYTHING equally.

If you say, "It could be something else", someone else simply gets to say, "sure, it could!, but it could also be something other than that!"

Ad infinitum. It gets you nowhere.

So, when you "suggest" it could be consciousness in the gap - sure! it could be! or, it could be an infinite number of other possibilities, yet - and here is the crucial part of your failed argument:

You are using the gap as a possible evidence for your gap filler - but the gap is, by your own definition - unfillable!


Going back to my example, it's like I said: "Well, it could be 334,365,464,467,001. And the evidence of that is that the gap makes it possible!" But, at least I can say it truly could be a number.

The thing you are trying to put into the gap is something completely unknown and foreign. It is not even any aspect of this Universe that we know of. It's as if I said in the original example:

"It could be 234uj5-duck"

or,

"It could be God/supernatural/something else/bottom line".

But have you defined what that is? You told us "bottom line is the base profit of a company as one of your definitions. This doesn't even make sense.

I know you meant to say it was some base of Reality (as Tillich might say about his God, the Ground of Being), but saying words doesn't define it if we don't have a way to understand it.

So, your argument is a horrible, horrible fallacy and the fact that you are trying to attack Materialism and Science makes it ignorant and horribly juvenile.

Please reconsider your argument.

[The Mad Haranguer]

There is nothing called evidence against something not prooven. You don`t know i exist, im god, do you have any objections? proove it!

To negate something is to affirm its polar opposite. Sorry, but that's the way dualism works. You need to prove the assertion that matter-energy is sufficient just as a theist needs to prove "God did it." You can't prove a negative (there is no God) and neither can I (matter-energy is not sufficient). Since neither has the upper hand as far as proof goes, we, each of us individually, must choose. Choosing not to choose is a choice, and if atheism is the "default position" as many atheists argue, to not choose is to choose atheism by default.

Makes me wonder: how many atheists are atheists because they don't want to "wrestle with God," and how many theists are theists for the same reason.

[The Mad Haranguer]

There is a black box, in it is a random number generator that could literally produce any number from negative infinity to positive infinity. One cannot know what number it will choose.

If someone says it can't be 3 (Material based), what evidence do they have?
If someone says, how can you know it can't be 346535, what evidence do they have?
If you say, "how can you say it is 3, when it could be something else", what evidence do you have?

The problem is, is that it literally could be ANYTHING equally.

If you say, "It could be something else", someone else simply gets to say, "sure, it could!, but it could also be something other than that!"

Ad infinitum. It gets you nowhere.

So, when you "suggest" it could be consciousness in the gap - sure! it could be! or, it could be an infinite number of other possibilities, yet - and here is the crucial part of your failed argument:

You are using the gap as a possible evidence for your gap filler - but the gap is, by your own definition - unfillable!

I'm wondering: how many times did I say it a judgment call (speaking form the intellectual level -- apperceptive "knowing" is entirely different)?

Going back to my example, it's like I said: "Well, it could be 334,365,464,467,001. And the evidence of that is that the gap makes it possible!" But, at least I can say it truly could be a number.

Yes, it can. What's the point? That doesn't explain why the universe is comprehensible. In fact, it is one of the reasons some "scientists" suggest an infinite number of universes.

The thing you are trying to put into the gap is something completely unknown and foreign.

Unknown by ordinary (physical) means, yes -- just like you are trying to put something into the gap. i.e., chance. I think it was Roger Penrose who called it "promissory materialism."

But have you defined what that is?

How can I? You said yourself it was a complete unknown. You are aware, aren't you, God is commonly described the same way -- knowable to apperception but only partly knowable to the intellect.

You told us "bottom line is the base profit of a company as one of your definitions. This doesn't even make sense.

Cut-and-paste. I thought readers would have the sense to apply the appropriate definition. Guess I was wrong.

I know you meant to say it was some base of Reality (as Tillich might say about his God, the Ground of Being), but saying words doesn't define it if we don't have a way to understand it.

Words are all we have. That's been the problem for thousands of years.

[Ooberman]

I'm wondering: how many times did I say it a judgment call (speaking form the intellectual level -- apperceptive "knowing" is entirely different)?

This is exactly what I am arguing against!

There is no judgment call! The example is that the random number generator could make any number. Guessing which one it is is not a "judgment call" it's a blind, baseless guess.

It is more appropriate to say: "I don't know".

And not to torture the example, but you could say "I don't know what number it will generate, but we know there is a number generator, and that it will be a number.

That is, you can make positive claims about what you KNOW.

Knowing is based on a number of things, but verification is key. Verification comes in different forms for different people, but to objectively verify something the Scientific Method works best.

Yes, it can. What's the point? That doesn't explain why the universe is comprehensible. In fact, it is one of the reasons some "scientists" suggest an infinite number of universes.

I'm not sure your argument - is the universe comprehensible, or is it a shadow of "something else" and Indeterminacy suggests that it will never be comprehended?

Which are you arguing? Because neither of those are "comprehensible".

Unknown by ordinary (physical) means, yes -- just like you are trying to put something into the gap. i.e., chance. I think it was Roger Penrose who called it "promissory materialism."

What other means are there, besides physical?

again, you make a claim but don't back it up.

How can I?

I don't even have a clue as to what you are talking about when you say "something else" and the fact that you can't define it means you don't know either - so why propose it?

You said yourself it was a complete unknown. You are aware, aren't you, God is commonly described the same way -- knowable to apperception but only partly knowable to the intellect.

I realize many things are said about God.

None of them are verified or verifiable.

I thought readers would have the sense to apply the appropriate definition. Guess I was wrong.

No, it's worse than that - you pasted different definitions because you are sloppy. I asked you to define the term - not give me all the usages in every context.

Tip: when debating, be prepared to define your terms and provide them clearly.

From the defintions I read, I still don't know what you mean when you say there is "something else" that is a "bottom line".

And, for your earlier admission, you don't know either. Yet, you keep suggesting it is the alternative to Materialism.

Words are all we have. That's been the problem for thousands of years.

My point is that you must define your terms precisely, not through around words that vaguely mean what you are trying to talk about.

What IS the "bottom line" you are talking about?
Is it God's Thoughts? Is it a form of Super Matter? Hyper Energy? What, metaphysically, is it?