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

[abu afak]

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.
`

The New 'God of the Gaps' champ/chump.

Perhaps you can sell your philosophy that the universe naturally created itself from NOTHING,

or that fish morphed into Human Beings over billions of years. As for Me...........I have been endowed with "Common Sense" and taught to

"TEST EVERYTHING and HOLD ONTO THAT WHICH IS GOOD and PROVEN TO BE TRUE." (1 Thes. 5:21)

`

 

[ding]

It's sad that the OP is discussing religion in the S&T forum. Socialists will use every available opportunity to subordinate religion.

 

[abu afak]

why is there something rather then nothing?​

Space has background temperature to it from having its own density when void of matter and energy. If nothing existed at all then the heat and density of space would have to expand infinitely fast, and even if that was possible the temperature and density of space could always be less. So though you can measure infinity by large and small you can't have an infinite negative temperature or density or 'nothing at all' because there could always be something less.

 

[ding]

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?"

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit. If the material world were not created by spirit, then everything which has occurred since the beginning of space and time are products of the material world. Everything which is incorporeal proceeded from the corporeal. There is no middle ground. There is no other option. Either the material world was created by spirit or it wasn't. All other options will simplify to one of these two lowest common denominators which are mutually exclusive.

 

[Grumblenuts]

So an electromagnetic field is which then, spirit or material? Idiot.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It's sad that the OP is discussing religion in the S&T forum. Socialists will use every available opportunity to subordinate religion.

What is even sadder is that this is still a problem with religious nutters in 2022. So it beomes a topic in a science section.

Time to put away the childish toys, nutters.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

At the heart of this debate is whether or not the material world was created by spirit

Great! First, define the terms. So there can be no confusion.

Material world: delineate it. What it is and what it is not.

Spirit: same

 

[ding]

What is even sadder is that this is still a problem with religious nutters in 2022. So it beomes a topic in a science section.

Time to put away the childish toys, nutters.

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

 

[ding]

Great! First, define the terms. So there can be no confusion.

Material world: delineate it. What it is and what it is not.

Spirit: same

Material: corporeal; consisting of material objects; tangible; relating to a person's body, especially as opposed to their spirit.

Spirit: incorporeal; not composed of matter; having no material existence; having no physical existence.

 

[ding]

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What is good for the goose is good for the gander.

Oh, so you're a sheep. Got it.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Material: corporeal; consisting of material objects; tangible; relating to a person's body, especially as opposed to their spirit.

Spirit: incorporeal; not composed of matter; having no material existence; having no physical existence.

So,

Something

And

Nothing

Got it.

 

[ding]

Oh, so you're a sheep. Got it.

Not sure how you made that leap in logic, but if it helps you feel better to believe that, be my guest.

 

[ding]

So,

Something

And

Nothing

Got it.

No. Some thing and no thing.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. Some thing and no thing.

Nope. Sorry. Something and nothing.

If you want to rule those out, you will need to be more specific.
.

Hard, isn't it?

Yeah, it's tough when you have to give up your wiggle room and obfuscation.

 

[ding]

Nope. Sorry. Something and nothing.

If you want to rule those out, you will need to be more specific.
.

Hard, isn't it?

Yeah, it's tough when you have to give up your wiggle room and obfuscation.

Not according to the definitions I posted earlier, dummy.

Material: corporeal; consisting of material objects; tangible; relating to a person's body, especially as opposed to their spirit.​

​

Spirit: incorporeal; not composed of matter; having no material existence; having no physical existence.​

 

[ding]

Hard, isn't it?

Not really. You aren't much of a challenge.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No. Some thing and no thing.

Nope. Sorry. Something and nothing.

If you want to rule those out, you will need to be more specific.
.

Hard, isn't it?

Yeah, it's tough when you have to give up your wie room and obfuscation.

Not according to the definitions I posted earlier, dummy.

Material: corporeal; consisting of material objects; tangible; relating to a person's body, especially as opposed to their spirit.​

​

Spirit: incorporeal; not composed of matter; having no material existence; having no physical existence.​

So the universe was created by the ghost of my pet rabbit.

Got it.

 

[ding]

If you want to rule those out, you will need to be more specific.

I was more specific, dummy.

Material: corporeal; consisting of material objects; tangible; relating to a person's body, especially as opposed to their spirit.​

​

Spirit: incorporeal; not composed of matter; having no material existence; having no physical existence.​

 

[ding]

So the universe was created by the ghost of my pet rabbit.

Got it.

No. You don't got it.

Going back to the two possibilities; spirit creating the material world versus everything proceeding from the material, the key distinction is no thing versus thing. So if we assume that everything is just an accidental coincidence of the properties of matter, the logical conclusion is that matter and energy are just doing what matter and energy do which makes sense. The problem is that for matter and energy to do what matter and energy do, there has to be rules in place for matter and energy to obey. The formation of space and time followed rules. Specifically the law of conservation and quantum mechanics. These laws existed before space and time and defined the potential of everything which was possible. These laws are no thing. So we literally have an example of no thing existing before the material world. The creation of space and time from nothing is literally correct. Space and time were created from no thing. Spirit is no thing. No thing created space and time.