It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The Double Standard of the “God of the Gaps” argument

page: 2
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 10:18 PM
link   
a reply to: Kandinsky



Originally posted by Kadinsky
I agree with the basics of your argument


Wow!!!

Moderators agreeing with OP’s…what’s going on around here lol



Originally posted by Kadinsky
We don't know what came before the 'Big Bang.' Speculation suggests that something existed prior to it in the form of branes, cyclical collapses/expansions or 'bubbles.' We often seem to be dealing with concepts of infinity and singularities our current knowledge can't quite relate to or fully comprehend.


Yes, those singularities that take place in and around black holes seem to suggest that the Laws of sciences begin to break down at certain points…

If the universe just gets up and running by chance factors though, then one would imagine that in a infinite universe, that it would be an extremely difficult thing to ever happen…



Originally posted by Kadinsky
The subtle difference is how science specifically addresses the stuff we can measure; things that we *know* to exist. We can measure red shift and *know* that galaxies and nearly everything else is moving away. Science has looked at why space isn't a blinding vista of infinite stars. Scientists have identified different classes of stars and know they have predictable lifetimes.


Science has also weighed up the probability of universe getting up and running to just the carbon stage and it appears to show just how mathematically astronomical it was…



Originally posted by Kadinsky
God isn't something that can measured, predicted or even identified.

As much as SCIENCE is propelled by trying to fill the gaps, it's much more rational than a solution that 'God did it.'


That’s just the thing though, without complete evidence either way, neither is more rational than the other…IMO


- JC




posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 10:38 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Originally posted by Krazysh0t
Because the God of the Gaps argument is used when someone pretends to know the answer to a question that science doesn't know the answer to. That's the point.


It’s tends to get discriminately aimed at a large proportion of God believers in a wide brush stroke fashion though too…



Originally posted by Krazysh0t
There is no universal definition of god. You just made that up in your head.


The one aspect of God that appears universally more than any others, is that God is the THE CREATOR…

Here’s the thing though, if you’re saying that God can’t be defined and that your not even going to entertain one possible definition put forward for God, then nothing can be discussed…

Congratulations…Well Done lol




Originally posted by Krazysh0t
Irrelevant. Definitions have to stay consistent across media. The definition isn't consistent and is too vague in most characteristics.


So how most religions see God universally across the board and how most dictionaries define God (as The Creator) is irrelevant lol…That’s the most consistent definition that there is!

But again, without any agreed upon definition, God can’t be discussed…




Originally posted by Krazysh0t
It is a way of labeling a description of god as a logical fallacy because the evidence to make that description doesn't exist and we really don't know if it is true or not.


Yes, you said it right “the evidence to make that description doesn't exist” but the same goes for science presuming, without complete evidence, that the universe is a mechanistic one, that has “no direction” to it…



Originally posted by Krazysh0t
God of the Gaps isn't a statement of belief. It's a statement of disbelief. Disbelief doesn't mean the opposite of what is believed is true though.


I ‘ve been through this before… “Disbelief”, is just another form of faith, wrapped up in a different guise…



Originally posted by Krazysh0t
Science hasn't defined it though. You've even admitted that science is merely leaning in that direction. So to now say that science has declared it true is intellectually dishonest.



I’m not saying science has declared it as true, but they are taking it as a given i.e. that the universe has no “intelligent direction” to it, which hasn’t been proven.


- JC



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:14 PM
link   
I don't pay much attention to science or scientists. They all have limits to what they can do and say without having their career discredited, even if they are right and everyone knows it.

It serves the agenda of the powerful which is to dominate the weak so I don't trust scientists any more than pastors or presidents. Nasa especially since it is a military operation.

I don't listen to pastors when they talk about God because they don't know anything that I don't and they preach for money.

I definitely am not going to listen to a scientists about God. Unless he or she happens to discover the truth.



posted on Jul, 5 2016 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: Joecroft

Absolutely indeed.

However, do NOT expect the acolytes of the Religion of Scientism to have the least bit of insight into the facts and truths you outline.

They have all manner of derisive "humor" against the Judeo/Christian construction on reality but 0.00% of the least bit of good humor about their own hypocrisies, duplicities, out-right idiocies when it comes to origins and the growth of the universe and life therefrom.

Their fantasies about what happened are more than laughable to even a thinking perceptive 7 year old. Yet they pontificate as though their fantasies based on faith in a MAGICAL, INVISIBLE, SELF-REPLICATING AND GROWING, IMPROVING, ADVANCING WATCH FACTORY are talked about in purportedly erudite hushed tones of the "truly enlightened."

BARF.

Good points.

Thanks.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 04:06 AM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
...
It’s seems a fairly logical statement to say, that something always existed and that whatever it is, is eternal…

It is a postulate. Now all you have to do is to prove it.



Many scientists when speaking of or to believers in a God, in conjunction with creation and the unviverse etc…invoke this typical phrase “the God of the Gaps”, or the magical “Fairy Dust”, the great “Sphaghetic Monster” etc etc…but isn’t this just in reality a double standard…?

Allow me to explain…there’s really essentially only 2 options…

(1) God always existed, is eternal and helped form and guide everything we know and see around us in the known universe…

(2) The very substance of the universe always existed, is eternal, and somehow unaided, and without any partiucular type of guidance, and by some unknown mechinasitc procedure, that science has yet to explain, manged, on its own, to form everything we know and see around us!!!

Now just have a think about those 2 options for a monment.

You see, depending on how you look at it, option 2 could be viewed as the real “Sphaghetic Monster”, or another form of “Fairy Dust”…

Science is trying to uncover how the universe works, but its defualt position is rooted in a form of option 2. What this amounts to, is that mainstream science is looking for the answer, in the form of a random happenstance and mechanistic solution. Science is of course searching for the answers, but in this field it’s searching for an answer whilst simulatanously being grounded in option 2.

Science doesn’t claim to know how the unverse works in it’s entirety, and is of course searching for the answers. But why rigidly stick to a solution revolving around option 2, when they don’t really know how everything works. Surely it’s better to not rule out option (1) if all is not known etc…

The "mechanistic procedure" arises due to science beeng rooted in mathematics.



But yet science continues to bash people over the head with this “God of the Gaps” phrase, as if they have some higher intellectual authority over the truth of things…when they clearly don’t

Where’s the double standard?

If you feel bashed by science, then maybe the problem lies with you?



Science has already filled “The Gap”, by searching for a solution that’s’ rooted only in searching for a mechanistic, uniaded and unguided uninverse. This is really just another form of Gap, except it’s the “Science of the Gaps”…IMO

You are confusing the method with the result.

There are plenty of gaps in our knowledge. Some gaps will probably never be answered. That is where your creator will continue to exist eternally.

The actual question is, why do you(and other believers) feel to have a need for a creator?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 06:38 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Missler purposely misunderstands quantum mechanics to try to make it mesh with Christianity. This works because Quantum Mechanics is one of the hardest to understand sciences, so people who listen to him will just accept that he knows what he is talking about since they understand QM less than him (or it appears that way). Very deceptive. I don't take anything that loon says seriously.
edit on 6-7-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 06:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Tell me what he has wrong.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 06:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Krazysh0t
It’s tends to get discriminately aimed at a large proportion of God believers in a wide brush stroke fashion though too…

That's because religion is founded on the God of the Gaps argument. The entire idea of god is based on the God of the Gaps argument. We don't know the answer to why the universe exists, so god believers say the answer is "god". That's a god of the gaps argument because there is no definition of what god is and why it answers the question of "why the universe exists".


The one aspect of God that appears universally more than any others, is that God is the THE CREATOR…

Here’s the thing though, if you’re saying that God can’t be defined and that your not even going to entertain one possible definition put forward for God, then nothing can be discussed…

Congratulations…Well Done lol

Well then scientifically define god and we can have a conversation.


So how most religions see God universally across the board and how most dictionaries define God (as The Creator) is irrelevant lol…That’s the most consistent definition that there is!

But again, without any agreed upon definition, God can’t be discussed…

There is no "most religions see god universally across the board". Every religion believes things VASTLY differently and you are doing a GRAVE disservice to them all to pretend like they are similar to your Christian god. Buddhism Creationism is NOTHING like Christian Creationism for instance.


Yes, you said it right “the evidence to make that description doesn't exist” but the same goes for science presuming, without complete evidence, that the universe is a mechanistic one, that has “no direction” to it…

No one said that science said they were right there. That is just the leading assumption, because it has the most evidence supporting it. That's how science works. We say things are a certain way because the evidence says they are that way. When new evidence says something else, then we change the way we believe things are.

It's a great process that can only get more and more correct as time goes one. Meanwhile, religion is static and never changing. It must utilize the God of the Gaps argument to stay relevant, else it be exposed as just wishful thinking.


I ‘ve been through this before… “Disbelief”, is just another form of faith, wrapped up in a different guise…

You should read up on the null hypothesis.

In inferential statistics, the term "null hypothesis" usually refers to a general statement or default position that there is no relationship between two measured phenomena, or no association among groups.[1] Rejecting or disproving the null hypothesis—and thus concluding that there are grounds for believing that there is a relationship between two phenomena (e.g. that a potential treatment has a measurable effect)—is a central task in the modern practice of science, and gives a precise criterion for rejecting a hypothesis.

The null hypothesis is generally assumed to be true until evidence indicates otherwise.


In other words, one must assume a state of disbelief until proven otherwise. This is regardless of you viewing disbelief as a measure of faith.


I’m not saying science has declared it as true, but they are taking it as a given i.e. that the universe has no “intelligent direction” to it, which hasn’t been proven.


- JC

Well if you have a problem with that, then prove that god exists. That's the only way that science will change its mind. You can use all the words and reasoning you want, but at the end of the day science doesn't care until you can prove your statements.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 06:51 AM
link   
a reply to: NOTurTypical

Make a thread on it and maybe we'll have a discussion. As it stands, his speaking history and beliefs aren't relevant to the topic of this thread. I gave you my opinion on him and that should be enough.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 06:55 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Fair enough, you're free to your opinion, absolutely.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 09:59 AM
link   
a reply to: moebius


The actual question is, why do you (and other non-believers) feel such a fierce NEED to trash the idea of a creator?



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:00 AM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t

Almighty God Yehovah has a firm grip on

proving whatever He wishes to prove about Himself

in His ways and His timing.

Stay tuned.

The show will be dramatic . . . while not exactly favoring disbelievers.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 10:14 AM
link   
a reply to: BO XIAN

I've been "stay tuned" my whole life. Humanity has been "stay tuned" for 2000 years now. Waiting has lost its appeal. It may work for you still, but I'm a man of evidence and action. God can go kick rocks.

Hell, even when I say mean things about him, he doesn't bother to correct me or prove me wrong. So I can live without him.
edit on 6-7-2016 by Krazysh0t because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 11:37 AM
link   

originally posted by: BO XIAN
a reply to: moebius


The actual question is, why do you (and other non-believers) feel such a fierce NEED to trash the idea of a creator?


They are missionaries for their faith too.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:21 PM
link   
Option 1 is korrect.

Science is a religion with its own preachers, creation mythology, unquestionable dogmas and so on.
edit on 6-7-2016 by secretboss because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 01:36 PM
link   

originally posted by: secretboss
Option 1 is korrect.

Science is a religion with its own preachers, creation mythology, unqueationable dogmas and so on.


And clergy.



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 06:03 PM
link   
a reply to: moebius



Originally posted by Joecroft
It’s seems a fairly logical statement to say, that something always existed and that whatever it is, is eternal…




Originally posted by moebius
It is a postulate. Now all you have to do is to prove it.


Science has already shown that matter can neither be created nor destroyed, so it’s already been proven in a way…




Originally posted by moebius
The "mechanistic procedure" arises due to science beeng rooted in mathematics.


But doesn’t mathematics require numbers to do calculations on, starting with at least 1…there’s your eternal again…






Originally posted by moebius
If you feel bashed by science, then maybe the problem lies with you?


No, I really love science…it’s just that science is about proving hypothesis through empirical evidence and observation…no one has proved the universe to be purely mechanistic and with “no direction” to it etc…




Originally posted by moebius
You are confusing the method with the result.


But there is no result as of yet…but science is mainly focussed down the avenue of the universe being purely mechanistic…




Originally posted by moebius
The actual question is, why do you(and other believers) feel to have a need for a creator?


I don’t “feel the need” lol it just is what it is…

I just think there should exist a “neutral ground” when discussing such things especially when all has not yet been figured out …


- JC



edit on 6-7-2016 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 6 2016 @ 07:00 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Originally posted by Krazysh0t
Well then scientifically define god and we can have a conversation.


Scientifically define a mechanistic universe with “no direction” to it…and then we can have a conversation…

What I’m getting at is that many religious people can look out at the night sky…and they see, purpose creation, great beauty and design etc…which is how they’re defining it…

Science on the other hand is generally defining the universe as being without direction and just some mechanical process etc…

How does one remove their own bias (Rhetorical Question) when weighing up the evidence, because it’s ultimately “us” who are defining these things one way or the other…



Originally posted by Krazysh0t
There is no "most religions see god universally across the board". Every religion believes things VASTLY differently and you are doing a GRAVE disservice to them all to pretend like they are similar to your Christian god. Buddhism Creationism is NOTHING like Christian Creationism for instance.


Yes, religions do all have vast differences that’s true, but they all have some major similarities in common too. And one of those major similarities, is that God is the creator…

Try taking the word “God” out of the equation if you prefer. Just look at my OP as 2 options being presented, from a thought experiment perspective.

Either the universe and everything we know is just mechanical in nature with no direction to it…with the opposite of that being, a universe that is guided, has design and is therefore created…

There’s really only 2 options…with on being the opposite of the other…




Originally posted by Krazysh0t
No one said that science said they were right there. That is just the leading assumption, because it has the most evidence supporting it.


Yeah but “most evidence” doesn’t = true or fact…




Originally posted by Krazysh0t
Well if you have a problem with that, then prove that god exists. That's the only way that science will change its mind. You can use all the words and reasoning you want, but at the end of the day science doesn't care until you can prove your statements.


But surely sciences mind shouldn’t be made up, until it knows for a fact…And by that I mean how the universe got here, as outlined in my OP…

Btw - this thread isn’t about proving Gods existence or proving that the universe has “no direction”…


- JC



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 06:57 AM
link   

originally posted by: Joecroft
a reply to: Krazysh0t
Scientifically define a mechanistic universe with “no direction” to it…and then we can have a conversation…

The universe exists. We don't need to fully define it, because we live in it. We experience it every instance of our lives. However, science IS the definition of the universe. Until it is complete then the universe's definition remains incomplete as well.


What I’m getting at is that many religious people can look out at the night sky…and they see, purpose creation, great beauty and design etc…which is how they’re defining it…

So? That's just imparting your assumptions as facts in lieu of evidence. It also spawns confirmation bias. Just because you THINK something is so, doesn't make it true.


Science on the other hand is generally defining the universe as being without direction and just some mechanical process etc…

How does one remove their own bias (Rhetorical Question) when weighing up the evidence, because it’s ultimately “us” who are defining these things one way or the other…

It's very hard and something that scientists struggle with all the time. I'm not perfect with it either, but that's what the peer review process is for. OTHER scientists who can remove their biases can look at a scientist's work objectively and without bias to identify if that scientist was successful in doing it too. The peer review process also never ends. A scientific notion can go unchallenged for years, decades, or even lifetimes before someone can remove enough of their bias to see the faults in a fault scientific notion.

It also takes practice. It is something you have to work at. I know you asked this question rhetorically, but it DOES have an answer. And I highly suggest you pursue and learn it.


Yes, religions do all have vast differences that’s true, but they all have some major similarities in common too. And one of those major similarities, is that God is the creator…

False.


Try taking the word “God” out of the equation if you prefer. Just look at my OP as 2 options being presented, from a thought experiment perspective.

Either the universe and everything we know is just mechanical in nature with no direction to it…with the opposite of that being, a universe that is guided, has design and is therefore created…

There’s really only 2 options…with on being the opposite of the other…

This is a false dichotomy fallacy. Just because you can't think of other options off the top of your head doesn't mean there aren't other options.



Yeah but “most evidence” doesn’t = true or fact…

No one said it did. That's why science is willing to change its conclusions as new evidence comes to light. Don't invent strawmans out of thin air please.


But surely sciences mind shouldn’t be made up, until it knows for a fact…And by that I mean how the universe got here, as outlined in my OP…

Again. Science's mind ISN'T made up. It just heavily favors certain conclusions because they have the most evidence supporting them.


Btw - this thread isn’t about proving Gods existence or proving that the universe has “no direction”…


- JC

Oh I know, but that is a flaw in your argument that must be overcome to properly pursue this conversation like you are trying to do.



posted on Jul, 7 2016 @ 09:26 PM
link   
a reply to: Krazysh0t



Originally posted by Krazysh0t
The universe exists. We don't need to fully define it, because we live in it.


You need to define it to be able to discuss it, that’s the exact same option that you gave me a few posts back…



Originally posted by Joecroft
What I’m getting at is that many religious people can look out at the night sky…and they see, purpose creation, great beauty and design etc…which is how they’re defining it…




Originally posted by Krazysh0t
So? That's just imparting your assumptions as facts in lieu of evidence. It also spawns confirmation bias. Just because you THINK something is so, doesn't make it true.



I was just describing in that post above how religious people tend to see it, I wasn’t talking about myself, so why are you stating it’s “my bias…”, and” my assumption” etc…?

I said “how they’re defining it” stop making assumptions and try to comprehend what’s written…

You also completely missed my other point which was that science could be/maybe defining things incorrectly…due to it’s own bias…And when you consider the amount of stuff we don’t know about the universe, there’s a HUGE potential there for incorrect assumptions and therefore for bias to exist…

The same applies to religious people, they may have some things right about God and others wrong etc…So assumptions could/can exist on both sides…neither of which is deliberate of course…



Originally posted by Joecroft
Yes, religions do all have vast differences that’s true, but they all have some major similarities in common too. And one of those major similarities, is that God is the creator…




Originally posted by Krazysh0t
False.


If you follow the conversation from the beginning, what I meant was that it’s the most common trait out of all the religions. I don’t mean all religions believe in a Creator, because clearly a few don’t, but the majority of religions do believe in a creator…



Originally posted by Krazysh0t
This is a false dichotomy fallacy. Just because you can't think of other options off the top of your head doesn't mean there aren't other options.


Seriously, you’re starting to sound like some kind of pedantic fool…

But of course there are other options, but that would take YEARS to discuss. And even then people would disagree over the many options presented etc…this is why I kept it simple…

The ones presented in my OP are very simple and logical…and are a good starting point…IMO



Originally posted by Joecroft
Yeah but “most evidence” doesn’t = true or fact…




Originally posted by Krazysh0t
No one said it did. That's why science is willing to change its conclusions as new evidence comes to light. Don't invent strawmans out of thin air please.


That wasn’t a false straw man…



Originally posted by Krazysh0t
Again. Science's mind ISN'T made up. It just heavily favors certain conclusions because they have the most evidence supporting them.


You’re not understanding what I’m saying. When I say it’s minds made up, I don’t mean they think they’ve found ALL answers to the universe and everything in it.

I mean science shouldn't be favouring anything, just based on “Some Evidence”, because the amount of knowledge we have of the universe so far, is tiny and massively disproportionate to what we don’t know about the universe…




Originally posted by Joecroft
Btw - this thread isn’t about proving Gods existence or proving that the universe has “no direction”…




Originally posted by Joecroft
Oh I know, but that is a flaw in your argument that must be overcome to properly pursue this conversation like you are trying to do.


So what your really saying is, is that no one can discuss this topic without first (A) proving Gods existence, or (B) proving that the universe is mechanistic and has no direction to it. Two things which no one has ever proven before…

Are you for REAL !!! lol


- JC


edit on 7-7-2016 by Joecroft because: (no reason given)




top topics



 
5
<< 1   >>

log in

join