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.
`

If I have upset you, please forgive me.

I believe you are and that is why I posted this topic here. I was hoping to get comments on the substance of my post.
We started with a molten ball of rock and now we have billions of loving things. I am disputing evolution as the reason.
-

BTW: when you look at these creatures consider the complexity of their design. Even a spider has hundreds of separate parts working together

See the OP
Asked and answered.
But you weren't Bright enough to look before posting.

 

[ding]

`

As I said, I brought in this one because I recognized what you were doing.
The OP will spell it out more.

`

I'm glad you are arguing against cause and effect in three threads.

 

[ding]

No, again Moron.
You have like a 12 IQ.
Just that we don't always know the cause/know it yet and that's no reason to fabricate a god you IDIOT.

By you 'reasoning' the Fire, Lightening, and Fertility gods (and 10,000) other would have been valid assumptions.
They are not and were not as we know now.
So we wait until we do know the cause.
`

You are skipping steps. Right now I am just trying to get you to acknowledge the principle of cause and effect. Stop believing that things happen magically.

 

[ding]

No, again Moron.
You have like a 12 IQ.
Just that we don't always know the cause/know it yet and that's no reason to fabricate a god you IDIOT.

By you 'reasoning' the Fire, Lightening, and Fertility gods (and 10,000) other would have been valid assumptions.
They are not and were not as we know now.
So we wait until we do know the cause.

`

I like it when you keep admitting that you don't know if cause and effect is real or not. It's like you believe in magic.

 

[abu afak]

No, again Moron.
You have like a 12 IQ.
Just that we don't always know the cause/know it yet and that's no reason to fabricate a god you IDIOT.

By you 'reasoning' the Fire, Lightening, and Fertility gods (and 10,000) other would have been valid assumptions.
They are not and were not as we know now.
So we wait until we do know the cause.

`

 

[ding]

No, again Moron.
You have like a 12 IQ.
Just that we don't always know the cause/know it yet and that's no reason to fabricate a god you IDIOT.

By you 'reasoning' the Fire, Lightening, and Fertility gods (and 10,000) other would have been valid assumptions.
They are not and were not as we know now.
So we wait until we do know the cause.

`

I'm not the one who created a thread in the science forum to discuss the existence of God, dummy. You did.

And why do you keep repeating yourself?

 

[ding]

Everything is made manifest by mind. George Wald said, "The physical world is entirely abstract and without ‘actuality’ apart from its linkage to consciousness. It is primarily physicists who have expressed most clearly and forthrightly this pervasive relationship between mind and matter, and indeed at times the primacy of mind." Arthur Eddington wrote, “the stuff of the world is mind‑stuff. The mind‑stuff is not spread in space and time." Von Weizsacker stated what he called his “Identity Hypothesis; that consciousness and matter are different aspects of the same reality. In 1952 Wolfgang Pauli said, "the only acceptable point of view appears to be the one that recognizes both sides of reality -- the quantitative and the qualitative, the physical and the psychical -- as compatible with each other, and can embrace them simultaneously . . . It would be most satisfactory of all if physis and psyche (i.e., matter and mind) could be seen as complementary aspects of the same reality.”

 

[Seymour Flops]

It is true that attributing every gap in understanding and knowledge to a deity is a fallacy.

But that doesn't mean that pointing out gaps that actually exist is also a fallacy.

The worst thing for the pursuit of scientific knowledge is for that pursuit to become politicized.

 

[abu afak]

It is true that attributing every gap in understanding and knowledge to a deity is a fallacy.

But that doesn't mean that pointing out gaps that actually exist is also a fallacy.

The worst thing for the pursuit of scientific knowledge is for that pursuit to become politicized.

No matter what the gap is, the sin is to make up a diety for it instead of looking for a Real and tangible explanation.
that IS how science has progressed/we got all our knowledge.
`

 

[Seymour Flops]

No matter what the gap is, the sin is to make up a diety for it instead of looking for a Real and tangible explanation.
that IS how science has progressed/we got all our knowledge.
`

True, that is A sin. Another sin is to pretend that the gap isn't there, or to attack anyone who points out the gap.

 

[abu afak]

True, that is A sin. Another sin is to pretend that the gap isn't there, or to attack anyone who points out the gap.

There will always be gaps in knowledge, and evolution PREDICTS them in their branch of science, and fills them in regularly.
If it was creationism there would be no gaps just as is.
`

 

[Seymour Flops]

There will always be gaps in knowledge, and evolution PREDICTS them in their branch of science, and fills them in regularly.
If it was creationism there would be no gaps just as is.
`

That is interesting.

Can you link me to to some quotes from Darwinists acknowledging a gap and them to some later quotes filling in those gaps?

I only ask because what you say sounds like a Pollyanna view of Darwinism, based on wishful thinking.

 

[abu afak]

That is interesting.

Can you link me to to some quotes from Darwinists acknowledging a gap and them to some later quotes filling in those gaps?

I only ask because what you say sounds like a Pollyanna view of Darwinism, based on wishful thinking.

Why do you Double/triple space?
To add the illusion of volume/substance in your No response/NO fact posts.

I have posted this Numerous times in the last week. Once in Each of Your Duplicate "Evo/Predictability" threads, destroying your attempts with them.
Again from
15 Answers to Creationist nonsense
(YOUR nonsense)

"... For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one Should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is Indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago).
Evolutionary biology routinely makes Predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly."..."

`

 

[Seymour Flops]

Why do you Double/triple space?
To add the illusion of volume/substance in your No response/NO fact posts.

I have posted this Numerous times in the last week. Once in Each of Your Duplicate "Evo/Predictability" threads, destroying your attempts with them.
Again from
15 Answers to Creationist nonsense
(YOUR nonsense)

"... For instance, evolution implies that between the earliest known ancestors of humans (roughly five million years old) and the appearance of anatomically modern humans (about 200,000 years ago), one Should find a succession of hominin creatures with features progressively less apelike and more modern, which is Indeed what the fossil record shows. But one should not—and does not—find modern human fossils embedded in strata from the Jurassic period (65 million years ago).
Evolutionary biology routinely makes Predictions far more refined and precise than this, and researchers test them constantly."..."

`

I'm not going to debate your cut and paste.



Because I know that you would only say, "Take it up with the author, then . . . "











That's not debate at all.


But since you like cut and paste quotes, can you link me to to some quotes from Darwinists acknowledging a gap and then to some later quotes filling in those gaps?

 

[abu afak]

I'm not going to debate your cut and paste.



Because I know that you would only say, "Take it up with the author, then . . . "








That's not debate at all.

You can't debate me on topic with my words or anyone else's.
It's quite a short excerpt and easy to reply to if you have any substance but you do NOT.

Just


Quintuple spacing to distract from your grievous and Fraudulent inability.

`

`

 

[Blues Man]

An assumption that runs along with the god of the gaps argument is that we will one day be able to explain everything.

The fact is we won't.

Our brains may be incapable of the thought processes needed to understand the entire universe.

My dog will never understand prime numbers because her brain is incapable of that type of thought process. There is no reason to assume our brains also have a limit to what we can comprehend.

 

[ding]

Punctuated equilibrium is based on long periods of stasis followed by rapid changes. It's literally based upon the gaps which dominate the fossil record.

 

[ding]

That is interesting.

Can you link me to to some quotes from Darwinists acknowledging a gap and them to some later quotes filling in those gaps?

I only ask because what you say sounds like a Pollyanna view of Darwinism, based on wishful thinking.

You might as well be speaking Martian. He doesn't understand anything you are saying.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You can't debate me on topic with my words or anyone else's.
It's quite a short excerpt and easy to reply to if you have any substance but you do NOT.

Just


Quintuple spacing to distract from your grievous and Fraudulent inability.

`

`

Ok, since it's a slow morning.

If you will positively state that you agree with everything in that excerpt, I will debate it.

 

[Seymour Flops]

An assumption that runs along with the god of the gaps argument is that we will one day be able to explain everything.

The fact is we won't.

Our brains may be incapable of the thought processes needed to understand the entire universe.

My dog will never understand prime numbers because her brain is incapable of that type of thought process. There is no reason to assume our brains also have a limit to what we can comprehend.

That's a good point for someone who truly uses the "god of the gaps" argument.

I'm struggling to educate some of the posters on here who think that anyone who even mentions the gaps is guilty of the "god of the gaps" fallacy.

My point is only this: So long as there are gaps in the knowledge, we have no business bullying people who state simply that there are gaps in the knowledge, and that we should examine that knowledge - including those gaps - with an open mind and critical thinking.