God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

[LibertyKid]

True believers say "plausible." Agnostics say "possible." Atheists say highly implausible (but still possible).

Any hypothetical creation will likely have "inner workings of physics, time, relativity, gravity, carbon, gases, etc." so you're not saying anything. Also, worrying about a creator who apparently has "no vested interest in humans" would logically be a waste of any human's time. It is. Fear of death begets irrational belief in human immortality, most often in exchange for good behavior. That's why people have wished for and insisted upon gods and creators. It's just a coping mechanism. Wishful thinking.

That last one requires no faith? That a fact, Jack? Evidence?

Perhaps try a little harder.

Note, I don't use plausible as any notion of my support for anything. You could swap it with likely, possible, not at all likely, etc., But I leave the possibility open.

As vast as our universe is, isn't it likely that a creator could create, and move on. I pose that a creator also doesn't have to be omnipresent, all knowing and maybe even all powerful. Certainly a creator would have to exist outside of our physical world or have mastership or domain over it, but does the creator have complete domain over time, physics? I don't know. Just asking. I'm of the position that if a god/creator exists, and in order for man to have free will, this god can't know the future or have it predetermined. Therefore there is some constraint to the person of god/creator, which is very outside of contemporary westernized Christian God belief. So I posit that a creator's creation doesn't necessarily have to have an eternal or even a finite purpose. As I suggested earlier, the switch could have been flipped billions of years ago and here we are, just an effect of the cause. During the last billion or so years, perhaps this creator is creating other things or has vested interest in other god/creator chores and hasn't had time to come back.

The "waisting our time" I equate that to the Christian stance of "why create us if to just die" discussion. A god/creator can do just that.

Or maybe there is something to us.

And it is likely, possible, plausible, (insert whatever term you would like here) that a creator's plan for earth isn't what man wants or dreams of. I certainly understand that a belief in a moral god sets the stage for eternal spiritual life and give's people hope in an after life. Nothing that I haven't heard before. It's possible that death is it. It's also possible that something beyond our conscience exists that isn't anything like a heaven or hell scenario. What if spirituality and the eternal plane is greater than our minds can comprehend?

I'm not going to change anyone's mind. I appreciate some of the responses. And for some of you, perhaps lighten up a bit. The tone of your responses are angry, bitter. Some like reasonable discourse, even if you don't agree or find the position absolutely wrong, there is a certain grace that can be applied. Perhaps it could do you well.

IMHO, the universe is great. It is vast. It violent, angry, and pretty much everything outside of this planet will kill us in a matter of seconds. But there is a beauty to it all. There is a synchronistic quality that exists that points to a refined and eloquent engineer. Perhaps we are the pinnacle of that engineering. Perhaps we are just a bi product of a much bigger picture. Or, we are just chance. It's all plausible

 

[Grumblenuts]

I'm of the position that if a god/creator exists, and in order for man to have free will, this god can't know the future or have it predetermined. Therefore there is some constraint to the person of god/creator, which is very outside of contemporary westernized Christian God belief. So I posit that a creator's creation doesn't necessarily have to have an eternal or even a finite purpose.

Then no supernatural "creator" is required, called for, nor even suggested. Certainly not ID nor it being about mankind. Nature suffices. I always suggest just calling it the Aether or Nature "God" if one simply must have a god. Nature is not random. It's constantly building electrical artworks from scratch. Living and non-living.

 

[Hollie]

Note, I don't use plausible as any notion of my support for anything. You could swap it with likely, possible, not at all likely, etc., But I leave the possibility open.

As vast as our universe is, isn't it likely that a creator could create, and move on. I pose that a creator also doesn't have to be omnipresent, all knowing and maybe even all powerful. Certainly a creator would have to exist outside of our physical world or have mastership or domain over it, but does the creator have complete domain over time, physics? I don't know. Just asking. I'm of the position that if a god/creator exists, and in order for man to have free will, this god can't know the future or have it predetermined. Therefore there is some constraint to the person of god/creator, which is very outside of contemporary westernized Christian God belief. So I posit that a creator's creation doesn't necessarily have to have an eternal or even a finite purpose. As I suggested earlier, the switch could have been flipped billions of years ago and here we are, just an effect of the cause. During the last billion or so years, perhaps this creator is creating other things or has vested interest in other god/creator chores and hasn't had time to come back.

The "waisting our time" I equate that to the Christian stance of "why create us if to just die" discussion. A god/creator can do just that.

Or maybe there is something to us.

And it is likely, possible, plausible, (insert whatever term you would like here) that a creator's plan for earth isn't what man wants or dreams of. I certainly understand that a belief in a moral god sets the stage for eternal spiritual life and give's people hope in an after life. Nothing that I haven't heard before. It's possible that death is it. It's also possible that something beyond our conscience exists that isn't anything like a heaven or hell scenario. What if spirituality and the eternal plane is greater than our minds can comprehend?

I'm not going to change anyone's mind. I appreciate some of the responses. And for some of you, perhaps lighten up a bit. The tone of your responses are angry, bitter. Some like reasonable discourse, even if you don't agree or find the position absolutely wrong, there is a certain grace that can be applied. Perhaps it could do you well.

IMHO, the universe is great. It is vast. It violent, angry, and pretty much everything outside of this planet will kill us in a matter of seconds. But there is a beauty to it all. There is a synchronistic quality that exists that points to a refined and eloquent engineer. Perhaps we are the pinnacle of that engineering. Perhaps we are just a bi product of a much bigger picture. Or, we are just chance. It's all plausible

I've never understood why anyone would suggest that nature requires supernatural ''designer gods'' when nothing in nature shows evidence of supernaturalism not a single event in all of human history can be attributed to any of the thousands of gods invented by humans.

 

[james bond]

As vast as our universe is, isn't it likely that a creator could create, and move on.

No, our creator created and left the our heaven of Earth and the universe due to sin.

 

[Hollie]

No, our creator created and left the our heaven of Earth and the universe due to sin.

No. Amun Ra did no such thing.

 

[LibertyKid]

I've never understood why anyone would suggest that nature requires supernatural ''designer gods'' when nothing in nature shows evidence of supernaturalism not a single event in all of human history can be attributed to any of the thousands of gods invented by humans.

Huh... Okay. Does a car have human attributes? Why would anything need to display supernaturalism attributes to prove that it was created by the supernatural?

Attribute of existence, I feel, is enough to say that it is possible/plausible/likely/not likely that something of intelligence created our universe.

 

[Hollie]

Huh... Okay. Does a car have human attributes? Why would anything need to display supernaturalism attributes to prove that it was created by the supernatural?

Attribute of existence, I feel, is enough to say that it is possible/plausible/likely/not likely that something of intelligence created our universe.

I think if you're going to posit supernatural mechanisms as an explanation for existence, you might want to identify something about existence that displays supernatural underpinnings. Is there anything you can identify in nature that requires supernaturalism as an explanation? Has there ever been an instance, at any time in history that you can point to and say, "see, without the interference of supernaturalism, that event could not have occurred"?

Feelings are not a reliable mechanism for suggesting supernaturalism as a cause. All of the gods invented by humans over history have been invented with "feelings" being used to ascribe events in nature to the hands of those gods.

None of the human inventions of gods have ever made themselves known in a way that is rationally demonstrated with supportable evidence. History shows us that with time, every conception of gods have been swept away and looked upon as myth and curiosities of human fears and superstitions.

Where is the worship of Osiris? Of Isis, (not the Islamist group), worshipped for 5,000 years. Where is Zeus, Odin, Jupiter? Where are the Druids, now as much a relic of history as Stonehenge, as cold and as silent as the Sphinx.

Relics, all. Nothing more than tales and fables. So it will be with Jehovah, Allah, Jesus, Vishnu.

As time goes by, and gods don’t return to earth to slaughter much of humanity, as gods don’t prove salvation, humanity grows further away from fantasy and fiction. And that terrifies the believers. The fact is, aside from your "feelings", you know there is only faith and belief to support the “belief”. As mankind grows in scientific knowledge, those things once ascribed to the gods are taken away, leaving the gods as little more than paper shufflers

 

[Grumblenuts]

something of intelligence created our universe

 

[james bond]

That's why we had to wait thousands of years for the secular scientific enlightenment in order to understand anything about the world.

The scientific evidence and enlightenment that you and abu afak are wrong about humans from ape-humans is that there are no bipedal apes. Never was. Never will.

 

[james bond]

No. Amun Ra did no such thing.

The falsification for creation science is evolution. Atheists have no falsification for evolution. Thus, evolution is a lie. Now, you're allowed to s&t.

 

[Hollie]

The falsification for creation science is evolution. Atheists have no falsification for evolution. Thus, evolution is a lie. Now, you're allowed to s&t.

Such religious Cult nonsense.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Attribute of existence, I feel, is enough to say that it is possible/plausible/likely/not likely that something of intelligence created our universe.

Not likely?

 

[Michael1985]

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards.
"Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?"
And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner.

If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.'
The same Bogus/Failed 'logic' used for creating Fire, Lightning, Sun, Fertility, and Ten thousand other 'gods.'

1. God of the gaps - RationalWiki

God of the gaps​

​

(or a divine fallacy) is logical fallacy that occurs when Goddidit (or a variant) is invoked to explain some natural phenomena that science cannot (at the time of the argument). This concept is similar to what systems theorists refer to as an "explanatory principle." "God of the gaps" is a bad argument not only on logical grounds, but on empirical grounds: there is a long history of "gaps" being filled and the gap for God thus getting smaller and smaller, suggesting "we don't know Yet" as an alternative that works Better in practice; naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible, especially in the future where more information may be uncovered.[1]​

​

The God of the Gaps is a didit Fallacy and an ad hoc Fallacy, as well as an Argument from Incredulity or an Argument from Ignorance, and is thus an informal fallacy...​

2. Wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of...pe_of_argument

The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy 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 fallacy.[13][14] Such an argument is sometimes 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 creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.[15]​

​

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been Discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the Leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge Increases, the dominion of God Decreases...[4][5][16][17]​

There is NO proof, or even evidence for god/s, just fallacious god-of-the-gaps inferences.
`

As long as there are gaps in human knowledge of the natural world, there will be room for belief in God to fill them. It does not constitute proof or evidence for the existence of the divine.

 

[Grumblenuts]

There will always be gaps in human knowledge. The moment scientific investigation uncovers anything the language describing it grows all the more sophisticated inviting new questions. One can wash a dirty rug with soap and water a million times. It will still contain and immediately attract more dirt. Most eventually learn to content themselves with reasonably clean. A range of within reason always exists between too little and ridiculous. Going beyond reason invites only waste and insanity.

 

[abu afak]

We had another breakout from Toofbreak
I've really covered/Destroyed all the common theist arguments with my OPs already.

but toofbreak actually claimed 'god of the Gaps' as his theme

------

I have to ask, Hollie, you DO understand that "science" is just a recent invention of man here on planet Earth about 2000 years years ago developed since in a universe nearly 14 billion years old? The Earth compared to the universe is smaller than a grain of sand on all the beaches of the planet. That makes your statement that nothing in science supports a god-created universe about as silly as wondering why a pebble on the beach hasn't affected the currents of the Atlantic Ocean!

Oh look! argument from Ignorance/Incredulity!

Truth is that science is highly flawed with huge Gaps in it.

You couldn't possibly have missed my 4 YEAR Running thread. (From July 2017 to Aug 4, 2021!
"God of the Gaps"
But I guess you felt self-conscious that your post in it would have been a fine example and Pre-Refutedas to simple logic
WTF!

God of the Gaps (well then, how did...")

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg boards. "Well then, did all this stuff just appear?".. "how did ___ if not god?" And we can see several Fallacious OPs currently employing this boner. If we can't explain it/explain it Yet, it must be 'god.' The same...

www.usmessageboard.com

`

Nothing in religion or science suggests that God waved a magic wand----- truth is that no one knows exactly how or what happened. So if you want to use the term "magic" like some primitive for anything above your understanding, fine, but the oldest records we have going back to the beginning of civilization 5,000 years ago passed down through the ages from the Vedas tells us this is how it happened and has been repeated over and over again in the historical record.

LIE.
Genesis, you know, YOUR book suggests he waved a magic wand in 6 days.
WTF!

Actually, nothing in science precludes the existence and role of God neither! When it comes down to brass tacks, the only real argument against God by science is that it or He is simply one more thing science as yet can neither prove nor disprove, explain nor dismiss, so the general consensus among scientists is to generally discount those things not at least supported by conjecture, theory or experimentation. That leaves it up to the individual, much like picking the winner of tomorrow's football to pick where their beliefs fall:

ATHEISTS fall on the side of skepticism because God has not come up and overtly revealed himself to THEM, appeared in Washington DC, nor made any overt proof self-evident that one can measure with a yardstick.

THEISTS fall on the side of belief (faith) because down through the millenniums, the holy scriptures tell us it is so and countless people report that God has revealed himself to them through the minds and hearts of people that he IS.

Take your pick.

Actually Nothing suggests god and that's it.
We just don't know what happened YET (like Fire, Lightning, and Fertility) but that's no reason to believe in a god now as it wasn't then.

The FACT is what god you believe in is a geoCULTural accident of birth, not a discernible truth, and takes Indoctrination not learning or experimentation.

God of the Gaps, again is the most common fallacious attempt and yours is as ridiculous as any and all of them.

`

 

[abu afak]

With one question, you prick.

How did the universe come to exist?

Game, set, and match.

Your question is meant to insinuate a god, but the answer is We Don't know/Know YET, not 'god.'.

They made up Fire, Lightning and Fertility gods because they didn't know YET.
But when they found out they dropped them.

IOW, it is NOT logical to make up a god for everything/anything you don't understand.
Never worked yet.

Your FALLACY (the most common logic lapse for god) is called 'God of the Gaps.'
See the OP.
Game, Set, and Match!

`

`

 

[DukeU]

Your question is meant to insinuate a god, but the answer is We Don't know/Know YET, not 'god.'

Thanks.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Thanks.

So will you admit that you don't know, either?

 

[DukeU]

So will you admit that you don't know, either?

I have admitted that Creation is what I have faith in.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I have admitted that Creation is what I have faith in.

Another dodge. Even having faith in creation does not mean you know HOW the universe was created. You are only saying you know that God did it.

So again I ask: will you now admit that you don't know, either?