The Gap God of Christianity

For the love of the pursuit of knowledge

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
Ooberman
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4262
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia

The Gap God of Christianity

Post #1

Post by 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?

User avatar
The Mad Haranguer
Under Probation
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:21 pm

Post #2

Post by The Mad Haranguer »

Theists who use "God in the gaps" are often criticized by the same people who use "Chance in the gaps" for the same reason. It's like two people looking at the same picture, one saying “Beautiful� or “Divine� and the other saying, “I don't see it.�

The issue is not about facts or right conclusions. The logic of the dispute is not that of deductive reasoning nor is it a matter of assimilating information like a detective in order to find a criminal. Rather, it is an issue that has its own sort of logic and end: the solution is a decision, like a ruling from a judge, but with the ruling comes an attitude and a relationship. If you have any doubts about it coming with an attitude and a relationship, just visit a few of the many atheist forums online.
"Concepts do not rise to the level of what it is to be human." — The Mad Haranguer

User avatar
Ooberman
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4262
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Post #3

Post by Ooberman »

The Mad Haranguer wrote:Theists who use "God in the gaps" are often criticized by the same people who use "Chance in the gaps" for the same reason. It's like two people looking at the same picture, one saying “Beautiful� or “Divine� and the other saying, “I don't see it.�

The issue is not about facts or right conclusions. The logic of the dispute is not that of deductive reasoning nor is it a matter of assimilating information like a detective in order to find a criminal. Rather, it is an issue that has its own sort of logic and end: the solution is a decision, like a ruling from a judge, but with the ruling comes an attitude and a relationship. If you have any doubts about it coming with an attitude and a relationship, just visit a few of the many atheist forums online.

There is a vast difference between the Living process of the Scientific Method and the dead/static word of the Bible.

In a gap, the Xian says "God", the scientist says "I don't know". The latter is more intellectually honest, and the former has, whenever science does answer the question, been proven to be wrong.

To say that there are different kinds of logic is to simply declare another gap: what kind of logic are you talking about for Xianity? what kind of relationship? Like the one I have with my wife? no.

The "different world view" idea is prevalent in the Presuppositionalist camp. It makes it easy for them to ignore everything they want in order to arrive at their preconceived conclusion.

And that conclusion is that there is "something else". Materialism doesn't presume there isn't "something else", it simply says that we can only know what we can test for at the moment, and the rest is speculation - and may or may not be true.

If something may or may not be true, then you can't put percentages on it like it might be 50% true, or 90% true, etc. You can't know and it might be 0% true.

The Xian will respond, "but it might be 100% true" - yes, or 0%. Until you have a valid method to figure it out, you can't say anything about it.

It's a gap. And a gap must be approached with what is known. Logic, science, etc. have shown how useful and accurate they are and until something better comes along, they are the best we have.

And when I say best, I mean it. The scientific method is better (at discovering truth about our external Universe) than God, prayer, mysticism, meditation, spirituality, conjecture, guessing, idle musing, asserting, claiming, declaring, worshiping, or putting oneself into a trance.

I would ask that you be precise. In doing so, you will see how mystic language falls apart in describing our Universe.

For example, you claim there is "something other", this "something other" is claimed to have some kind of "energy". Not Energy, as in, what we know it to be scientifically (Energy can be measured and it is a specific term), but this mystic "energy" is "something else" - allegedly.

What is it? It's a gap; it's God. Gap=God. And that is especially true in Xianity.

User avatar
gabbeTroop
Student
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 6:23 pm
Location: Norway...Or was it earth?

Post #4

Post by gabbeTroop »

Pos Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:20 am Post subject:
Theists who use "God in the gaps" are often criticized by the same people who use "Chance in the gaps" for the same reason. It's like two people looking at the same picture, one saying “Beautiful� or “Divine� and the other saying, “I don't see it.�

The issue is not about facts or right conclusions. The logic of the dispute is not that of deductive reasoning nor is it a matter of assimilating information like a detective in order to find a criminal. Rather, it is an issue that has its own sort of logic and end: the solution is a decision, like a ruling from a judge, but with the ruling comes an attitude and a relationship. If you have any doubts about it coming with an attitude and a relationship, just visit a few of the many atheist forums online.
Chance commonly refers to:

* Probability
* Luck
* Randomness
* Contingency (philosophy)
* Chance (Ancient Greek concept)
WIKIPEDIA

Is evolution a "probability"? yes

Is evolution "luck"?Sometimes, if this is what causes one mutated individual to survive, this mgiht be.

Is evolution "randomness"? no..

Is evolution "Contingeny" within philosophy? hat does depend on your worldview i think..

Is evolution then "chance"? I dont know any "Ancient greek concepts" named that..

I think you might referr to probability here, so you would rather say, probability in the gaps, which then will be "probability in the gaps". Evolution is "just a theory" right? Then the theory of gravity is also "probability in the gaps", now this sounds just weird..then what is a scientific gap?

User avatar
The Mad Haranguer
Under Probation
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:21 pm

Post #5

Post by The Mad Haranguer »

Ooberman wrote:
There is a vast difference between the Living process of the Scientific Method and the dead/static word of the Bible.

In a gap, the Xian says "God", the scientist says "I don't know". The latter is more intellectually honest, and the former has, whenever science does answer the question, been proven to be wrong.

To say that there are different kinds of logic is to simply declare another gap: what kind of logic are you talking about for Xianity? what kind of relationship? Like the one I have with my wife? no.

The "different world view" idea is prevalent in the Presuppositionalist camp. It makes it easy for them to ignore everything they want in order to arrive at their preconceived conclusion.

And that conclusion is that there is "something else". Materialism doesn't presume there isn't "something else", it simply says that we can only know what we can test for at the moment, and the rest is speculation - and may or may not be true.

If something may or may not be true, then you can't put percentages on it like it might be 50% true, or 90% true, etc. You can't know and it might be 0% true.

The Xian will respond, "but it might be 100% true" - yes, or 0%. Until you have a valid method to figure it out, you can't say anything about it.

It's a gap. And a gap must be approached with what is known. Logic, science, etc. have shown how useful and accurate they are and until something better comes along, they are the best we have.

And when I say best, I mean it. The scientific method is better (at discovering truth about our external Universe) than God, prayer, mysticism, meditation, spirituality, conjecture, guessing, idle musing, asserting, claiming, declaring, worshiping, or putting oneself into a trance.

I would ask that you be precise. In doing so, you will see how mystic language falls apart in describing our Universe.

For example, you claim there is "something other", this "something other" is claimed to have some kind of "energy". Not Energy, as in, what we know it to be scientifically (Energy can be measured and it is a specific term), but this mystic "energy" is "something else" - allegedly.

What is it? It's a gap; it's God. Gap=God. And that is especially true in Xianity.
You are able to read, but that does not mean you are literate. Did you not understand anything at all of what I wrote? When everything is concrete, everything is quarantined from everything else. You see the brushstrokes and the colors, but not the art. You see the superficial, but not the essence.

The "something else," as you put it, is simply a mystery that science cannot, even in theory, penetrate or observe. Because there is something mysterious at the quantum level means that materialism (belief that unconscious matter-energy is all there is, or if not all. at least the bottom line) is no less an act of faith than theism.
"Concepts do not rise to the level of what it is to be human." — The Mad Haranguer

User avatar
Ooberman
Banned
Banned
Posts: 4262
Joined: Fri Dec 05, 2008 6:02 pm
Location: Philadelphia

Post #6

Post by Ooberman »

gabbeTroop wrote:
Pos Posted: Sat Jul 31, 2010 12:20 am Post subject:
Theists who use "God in the gaps" are often criticized by the same people who use "Chance in the gaps" for the same reason. It's like two people looking at the same picture, one saying “Beautiful� or “Divine� and the other saying, “I don't see it.�

The issue is not about facts or right conclusions. The logic of the dispute is not that of deductive reasoning nor is it a matter of assimilating information like a detective in order to find a criminal. Rather, it is an issue that has its own sort of logic and end: the solution is a decision, like a ruling from a judge, but with the ruling comes an attitude and a relationship. If you have any doubts about it coming with an attitude and a relationship, just visit a few of the many atheist forums online.
Chance commonly refers to:

* Probability
* Luck
* Randomness
* Contingency (philosophy)
* Chance (Ancient Greek concept)
WIKIPEDIA

Is evolution a "probability"? yes

Is evolution "luck"?Sometimes, if this is what causes one mutated individual to survive, this mgiht be.

Is evolution "randomness"? no..

Is evolution "Contingeny" within philosophy? hat does depend on your worldview i think..

Is evolution then "chance"? I dont know any "Ancient greek concepts" named that..

I think you might referr to probability here, so you would rather say, probability in the gaps, which then will be "probability in the gaps". Evolution is "just a theory" right? Then the theory of gravity is also "probability in the gaps", now this sounds just weird..then what is a scientific gap?
I think this is common, but The Mad Haranguer is offering another variation on "the Gap" in the Indeterminacy at the quantum level. Obviously, Evolution is perfectly explicable, so there needs to be another Gap for God to live.

Another popular one today is in the question itself. "Who made the Universe?" That is, it begs the question that there is a "who" to make the Universe.

Or, "Who made Logic?"

That is, the very question creates a gap that they feel can only be answered by "God".

That is part of the philosophical difference between Theism and Science. Science doesn't say "What made the Universe, therefore X". It asks a more precise question: "What do we know about the origins of the Universe and what can we extrapolate to develop more questions to ask?"

User avatar
The Mad Haranguer
Under Probation
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:21 pm

Post #7

Post by The Mad Haranguer »

gabbeTroop wrote: I think you might referr to probability here, so you would rather say, probability in the gaps, which then will be "probability in the gaps". Evolution is "just a theory" right? Then the theory of gravity is also "probability in the gaps", now this sounds just weird..then what is a scientific gap?
Probability is a measurement, not a cause or an explanation except to say "just because."
"Concepts do not rise to the level of what it is to be human." — The Mad Haranguer

User avatar
gabbeTroop
Student
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 6:23 pm
Location: Norway...Or was it earth?

Post #8

Post by gabbeTroop »

gabbeTroop wrote:

I think you might referr to probability here, so you would rather say, probability in the gaps, which then will be "probability in the gaps". Evolution is "just a theory" right? Then the theory of gravity is also "probability in the gaps", now this sounds just weird..then what is a scientific gap?
Probability is a measurement, not a cause or an explanation except to say "just because."
probability is a measurement, there is a probability that your god doesn`t exist, you made the claim without any evidence, if you wish it to be accepted you must present evidence.

User avatar
The Mad Haranguer
Under Probation
Posts: 221
Joined: Tue Jul 06, 2010 1:21 pm

Post #9

Post by The Mad Haranguer »

gabbeTroop wrote:
gabbeTroop wrote:

I think you might referr to probability here, so you would rather say, probability in the gaps, which then will be "probability in the gaps". Evolution is "just a theory" right? Then the theory of gravity is also "probability in the gaps", now this sounds just weird..then what is a scientific gap?
Probability is a measurement, not a cause or an explanation except to say "just because."
probability is a measurement, there is a probability that your god doesn`t exist, you made the claim without any evidence, if you wish it to be accepted you must present evidence.
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.
"Concepts do not rise to the level of what it is to be human." — The Mad Haranguer

User avatar
gabbeTroop
Student
Posts: 74
Joined: Sun May 09, 2010 6:23 pm
Location: Norway...Or was it earth?

Post #10

Post by gabbeTroop »

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?

Post Reply