What's wrong with the God of the gaps that Darwinist like to say when losing a debate

originally posted by: Puppylove
a reply to: neoholographic

Without omniscience, who are you to say what's possible? There's lots we don't know yet, I'm certainly not a specialist on this matter and frankly neither are you.

There's a lot we don't know yet but we do know that it's impossible for a medium to encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode that sequence.

There has to be intelligent agency to do this. So you can be an idealist, dualist or accept panpsychism as many scientist are starting to do but a materialist explanation is impossible.

Minds Everywhere: 'Panpsychism' Takes Hold in Science

www.livescience.com...

Is the Universe Conscious? Some of the world's most renowned scientists are questioning whether the cosmos has an inner life similar to our own.

www.nbcnews.com...

It's not about knowing, it's about what's possible.

a reply to: neoholographic

That's the issue, you're assuming you know what's possible, when it is in every way plausible, that what you think is impossible is only impossible because you have knowledge that's lacking which, if you had it, might turn your notion of what's possible or not completely on it's head.

All anyone is ever truly capable of doing is making their best guess based on knowledge at hand and past experiences. Anyone who makes an absolute claim that's not shorthand for, "what I feel is most likely based on my life experience an education" and is instead an actual absolute as in "This is the truth end of story" is more often than not, a fool.

a reply to: Puppylove

You said:

when it is in every way plausible

Tell me how it's plausible.

How can a medium encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode the information?

Waiting........

a reply to: neoholographic

Once again, I'm not omniscient, stop trying to make me fill in the gaps for you. My answer is what it has been from the beginning. I don't know, nor do I have to. My answer is I don't know, and I don't believe you do either. You just want to stubbornly "why" things into irrelevancy. It's what most religious people do, they "why" a concept until it hits the point there is no answer yet, and say "see god did it" when the truth is, it's just the childhood game of "why" until someone gives up, says, "Because" and you proudly say "God did it."

If you ask why long enough eventually you'll run out of answers. No surprise there.

originally posted by: a325nt
Wait, are you actually arguing for creationism?

The "God of the gaps" is a fancy way of saying "we don't know yet" ... Hence it's a gap.
Evolution is a series of random events- the biggest mental hurdle bible folk can't seem to grasp is the time line. Millions of years, millions of generations with millions of genetic abnormalities... The defects don't survive. Sometimes that defective gene might carry on for a hundred generations before they're killed by a storm or something that their abnormality made them more prone to death from.

You can't seriously look at all of the reality in front of you and still think the bible is more than a series of children's stories that went too far without some serious mental short comings.

So can you show me a genetic abnormality that is not a defect
The biggest mental hurdle facing atheists or evolutionists is to understand science

Now I am happy to say evolution may be right, just asking for scientific evidence and your comment is simply ignorant

You can’t seriously look at all the reality around you and think “space dust and space water”, that life is and has become from mud and electrical storms, children are not that naive. Mental shortcomings is apt self description

a reply to: Puppylove

What? This what you said:

when it is in every way plausible

IN EVERY WAY PLAUSIBLE!

Then you say, I don't know and use the I'm not omniscient nonsense.

I'm not asking you to be omniscient. I'm asking you to back up your statement.

when it is in every way plausible

How is it plausible in every way for a medium encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode the information?

Stop obfuscating. It's not that you can't know, you don't want to know. Support your assertion.

Waiting.......

a reply to: Puppylove

Well actually, if you plan on playing the “science” card, believe in evolution then it’s only fair you do answer
You are saying science or else you are claiming faith in evolution.

Creation is a faith, we don’t need answers based on science

We can say proudly God did it, you can’t and offer nothing but the meaningless words “but science” , irrelevant when you have absolutely no answers to prove scientifically the science.

Run out of answers or have none?

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Puppylove

You said:

when it is in every way plausible

Tell me how it's plausible.

How can a medium encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode the information?

Waiting........

How can it not? Saying some magical being created it really isnt an answer is it? And thats the problem your arguing that god exists because we cant explain something.

Well they used to now be able to explain lightening thought that was god. Anytime your trying to prove something exists by assuming something isnt posible you all ready lost the debate.

To say something isnt possible how can you prove this?

originally posted by: TzarChasm

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: a325nt

Tell me:

How did a series of random events encode sequence with information and also build the machinery to decode that sequence?

How did random events evolve parts that just happen to be the right size, shape and come together at the right angles to build things like molecular machines with 50 different parts?

This isn't about a gap in knowledge. Tell me how this is possible for randomness to achieve. Tell me how a medium can encode itself with information and build the machinery to decode this information without intelligence.

Waiting........

Tell me, why isn't that intelligence here to explain itself?

The intelligence does explain it, intelligence created intelligence
That’s the whole premise

You say space dust and space dirt created intelligence, not us
Then when asked for evidence to explain how nothing makes intelligence, quippy star pulling replies that have nothing relevant or valid are offered as evidence
How are people so ignorant to accept that?

a reply to: neoholographic

It's plausible you're missing a piece of information that makes what ever it is that you seem to think is impossible, possible. I never claimed to have that information, so I'm not going to provide it, as I don't have to. How is it not plausible that there's an answer to your question that neither of us know? I'm not omniscient, and neither are you. You have a squishy human meat brain, same as me, chances are, we're both completely clueless. Difference is one of us is wise enough to recognize this failing, the other stubbornly demands people bow to his limited understanding of the universe and his insistence he has properly interpreted reality with his limited human meat brain.

You're attempting to break things with logic puzzles. I get what you're doing. It's no different than the "If God is Omnipotent can he create a Rock he can't lift?" type of arguing. You're not gonna get a satisfactory answer, and you know that, it's the entire point of your argument.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: neoholographic
a reply to: Puppylove

You said:

when it is in every way plausible

Tell me how it's plausible.

How can a medium encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode the information?

Waiting........

How can it not? Saying some magical being created it really isnt an answer is it? And thats the problem your arguing that god exists because we cant explain something.

Well they used to now be able to explain lightening thought that was god. Anytime your trying to prove something exists by assuming something isnt posible you all ready lost the debate.

To say something isnt possible how can you prove this?

Ok let’s imagine there is no God, I am happy with that
Then

“How can a medium encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode the information”

The question remains, God or naught,
You just insert “God” to deny facing the question, just an excuse so you don’t have to admit that science and you don’t have an answer

You can’t admit you have no answer so just say

“You think God did it , nah nah” and that’s not an answer, that’s deflection, that’s trolling

a reply to: Puppylove

No puppy, you miss the issue

God did create a rock He couldn’t lift, He then lifted it, just as a point He created another rock unliftable, then lifted it

See you and your ilk are offering science as the answer to evolution, but you fail to offer a scientific method or explanation and then claim creation is a fairytale, myth, childs game and you, what have you, faith?

Your argument, creation is a fairytale , well your evolution is as well, sooner you wake up to that the easier it will be to get along in life

a reply to: Puppylove

You said:

I never claimed to have that information, so I'm not going to provide it, as I don't have to.

Sure you did:

when it is in every way plausible

You didn't say I don't know. You said it's plausible.

This shows your just playing ignorant because you don't want to accept that it's not possible. Do you understand that when you say something is plausible this means you can explain why it's plausible?

a reply to: Raggedyman

Demanding answers to all things is also trolling. It's as I said earlier, the "why" game. If I observe a phenomena and/or the evidence of a phenomena, I do not need to knowing everything about said phenomena down to it's most microscopic part to make inferences based upon that phenomena.

If I get burnt by a stove, I do not need to know how the stove was built, who invented the first stove, what elements each component of the stove consists of, when this particular stove was built to know that I got burnt and should be careful in the future before touching that part of the stove again or I might get burnt again. At best I need to know how to check the temperature and turn it on and off to avoid that in the future.

Evolution is a scientific theory based upon many observations and inferences made by those observations that create a system by which to make predictions and help understand how different species connect on a biological level. It is through this science that many biological discoveries and advancements have occurred. However, the theory of evolution is not perfect, there are many "whys" that remain unanswered, and as science improves the theory becomes more refined and we gain more answers to those "why's", and sometimes, we find that what we thought was an answer to a "why" is in fact wrong, and it is in fact a different answer we were missing because we lacked some of the details. There's plenty of whys and hows evolutionary theory has no answer for, it's a growing dare I say "evolving" science.

No one needed to know what the sun was, or why it raised every morning to know it did. All they needed was consistent observation to come to a pretty sure prediction that it would be there the next morning. Evolution is similar such predictions based on heaps and heaps of scientific observation and evidence gathered from the study of the natural world, both modern and in the past. Like the sun, we don't need to know every infinitesimally small aspect of evolution to know it works, but our understanding of it, as with our understanding of the sun, or my stove from earlier improves and becomes more accurate and refined as study improves.

But yes, if you ask "why" and "how" enough all scientific theories will fall apart eventually. So does God actually.

a reply to: neoholographic

Respond to what?

You haven't provided anything but random allegories and anecdotes.

This is by far the dumbest argument in favor of some intelligent creator I've yet to see on ATS. And that's really sad.

a reply to: neoholographic

I said it's plausible you don't know and there's something you're missing. Stop trying to shift my plausibility to be towards something other than that for which it was clearly directed. At no point did I insinuate I knew the answer to what you might be missing. Though I suspect it's honest discourse.

a reply to: Puppylove

You're all over the place.

When you say something is plausible, you have to provide evidence as to why it's plausible.

If I say the Holographic Principle is plausible, I can't point to the work of Bekenstein, Susskind and others to support my assertion.

I can't say it's plausible that the moon is made out of green cheese. You said:

when it is in every way plausible

You didn't just say it's plausible. You said it's plausible IN EVERY WAY.

Then you say you don't have any information or evidence to support why it's plausible.

See how ignorant that sounds?

a reply to: neoholographic

Have you every been wrong about anything in your life, or ever thought something couldn't be done to end up finding a solution later, even once in your life? If the answer is yes to either of, or more likely both of those things, then my statement is fine. Once again, my statement was about you and your limitations to find the answer you desire. Not my ability to do so. Your question is a trick question and you full well know it. Stop trying to get people to fall into your trap, no one is going to do it. The only answer to your question will result in circular reasoning no matter which way we go with it, and that's by design. It's clever word play and nothing more.

a reply to: Puppylove

Your statement is:

when it is in every way plausible

But you can't provide any information or any evidence to support this assertion.

It's not a trick question LOL!

Where's the trick question:

How is it possible that a medium can encode it's sequence with information and build the machinery to decode the information?

Where's the trick? Where's the illusion?

I understand why materialist would see it this way because a natural interpretation of evolution is pure fantasy.