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

[ding]

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.

Sounds reasonable to me. That will never work here.

 

[abu afak]

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.

We're doing pretty well so far!
Thousands of gods now extinct due to natural explanations.
Of course, there will always be questions on new issues as well. Always 'whys'.
The lesson here of course is there is no reason (and it has continuously failed) to make up a 'god' as an 'answer.'
Humanity would be nowhere accepting scripture as the answer to everything.
(look how many still deny Evo)


PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits. Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie, Look at his 4/5 (and counting) vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.' (nothing to shoot at in Env this AM, so he's here. He's GOT to have his hate/endless losses sated.)
`

 

[Blues Man]

We're doing pretty well so far!
Thousands of gods now extinct due to natural explanations.
Of course, there will always be questions on new issues as well. Always 'whys'.
The lesson here of course is there is no reason (and it has continuously failed) to make up a 'god' as an 'answer.'
Humanity would be nowhere accepting scripture as the answer to everything.
(look how many still deny Evo)


PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits. Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie, Look at his FOUR vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog.
`

It's important that we also recognize that we will most likely never know the answers we seek

 

[ding]

We're doing pretty well so far!
Thousands of gods now extinct due to natural explanations.
Of course, there will always be questions on new issues as well. Always 'whys'.
The lesson here of course is there is no reason (and it has continuously failed) to make up a 'god' as an 'answer.'
Humanity would be nowhere accepting scripture as the answer to everything.
(look how many still deny Evo)


PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is now on ignore due to endless stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat and already answered baits. Recently even following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie, Look at his FOUR vengeful out of control/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog.
`

You guys aren't really interested in science. If you were you would have more knowledge of science.

 

[abu afak]

It's important that we also recognize that we will most likely never know the answers we seek

Depends on which answers.
History shows we will get answers but have yet more questions. Of course.
During the last 10,000 years we've probably lost 2 or 3 times that many "gods as explanations."




PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is on ignore due to endless Stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat/already answered One-Line baits. Recently following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie,
Look at his 6, 7, 8. (now 20, 26, 32) (now 35, 40, 45) vengeful out of control/one-line/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies. Obsessed last-worder/post-coverer.

 

[ding]

PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is on ignore due to endless Stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat/already answered One-Line baits. Recently following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie,
Look at his 6, 7, 8. (now 20, 26, 32, and counting) vengeful out of control/one-line/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies.

 

[Blues Man]

Depends on which answers.
History shows we will get answers but have yet more questions. Of course.
During the last 10,000 years we've probably lost 2 or 3 times that many "gods as explanations."




PS: the OCD troll 'ding' is on ignore due to endless Stalking and gratuitous harassment of my threads/posts in Environment with repeat/already answered One-Line baits. Recently following me down here to the Sci section where he doesn't post, just to do the same. ie,
Look at his 6, 7, 8. (now 20, 26, 32) (now 35, 40, 45) vengeful out of control/one-line/No content snippets. Obsessed Mad Dog even taking third party swipes as well as nonsense one-line 'replies. Obsessed last-worder/post-coverer.

History shows no such thing

 

[ding]

I'm probably going to need more popcorn for this.

 

[abu afak]

History shows no such thing

Fire, Lightning, Fertility, Aztecs, etc x10,000, all gone by natural explanation or by the fact their 'god' didn't [even] save them or their civilizations.
`

 

[ding]

All major religions are monotheistic. Polytheism is dead.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

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?

Obviously not the topic, really.
Just your sissy strawman, because the topic steamrolled you.

 

[ding]

Obviously not the topic, really.
Just your sissy strawman, because the topic steamrolled you.

It goes to the credibility of the OP. Creating a thread about God in the science section seems odd.

How did the OP steamroll me exactly?

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

It goes to the credibility of the OP. Creating a thread about God in the science section seems odd.

How did the OP steamroll me exactly?

Good thing he didn't do that. Ding, sorry, your strawman dolly is yours and yours alone to play with.

 

[ding]

Good thing he didn't do that. Ding, sorry, your strawman dolly is yours and yours alone to play with.

We are talking about abu afuk, right?

So how did the OP steamroll me?

 

[abu afak]

Seymour Flops said:
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."..."

 

[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 inference of a divine creator may be wrong but it is not a fallacy.

LOL
`

 

[BackAgain]

LOL
`

babu speaks. Sort of.

Thankfully for babu, inaccuracy isn’t illegal.

 

[abu afak]

babu speaks. Sort of.

Thankfully for babu, inaccuracy isn’t illegal.

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]
`

 

[ding]

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]
`

This is a life‑breeding universe because the constant presence of mind made it so and imbued His creation with His attributes.

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.”

What we perceive as reality is a product of consciousness. The behavior of sub atomic particles - for that matter all particles and objects - is inextricably linked to the presence of a conscious observer. Without a conscious observer they exist in an undetermined state of probability waves. Without consciousness matter dwells in an undetermined state of probability. Any universe preceding consciousness only existed in a probability state. The universe is explainable only through consciousness. The universe is finely tuned to support consciousness because consciousness created the universe, not the other way around.

 

[badger2]

The term "gap" used in this thread is a very old concept, and it's not surprisiong that it attracts the stupidity of relgious believers: stupidity always gets the reality it deserves, and the believer will make sure that happens, because they are addicts to their notion of remaining unscathed by life. The gap for the believer equates to the same IQ level of hominds which is also the origins of religion's protection racket coercion:

'The evolutionary default is toward the integration of anthropomorphic promiscuity and sociographic prudery. In other words, human beings today are intuitively and naturally drawn into the biocultural gravitational field of the integrated tendencies in the lower left quadrant of the graph (Fig.1.1). WhY? In the environment of our early ancestors (Late Pleistocene Africa) the selective advantage went to hominids whose cognitive capabilities enabled them quickly to detect relative agents in the (natural [italics]]) environment, and whose groups were adequately protected from the dissolution that could result from too many defectors and cheaters in the (social [it.]) environment.

Prior to the pressures exerted by population expansion or by reduced access to ecological resources, hominid groups may well have been less prudish in their sociography. Whatever the unique conditions were that led some groups out of Africa, however, it seems clear that their survival was enhanced by the integration of theogonic forces.

The evolution of cognitive mechanisms like the Hypersensitive Agency Detection Device (HADD) would have helped them survive by increasing their success by avoiding predation and finding prey, protectors, and partners. However, it would have also made our ancestors prone to perceptual mistakes, such as interpreting a noise in the forest as a tiger when it was only the wind.

When it comes to detecting potential potential agents in the environment It is bettter to be safe than sorry; better overly sensitive and often wrong than insensitive and eaten once. Despite the many false positives, natural selection would have rewarded this perrceptual strategy. The interpretation of ambiguous phenomena increasingly defaulted to "intentional force." If no physical tiger could be found, this default would have contributed to the likelihood of guessing "animal spirit" or some other invisible power like "ancestor ghost."

Such guesses would have been reinforced as other cognitive processes kicked in, such as the Theory of Mind Mechanism (ToMM) and intuitive dualism, further strengthening the tendency to postulate the existence of disembodied agents with mental and emotional states when confronted with ambiguous phenomena.'
(Shults, Iconoclastic Theology: Gilles Deleuze and the Secretion of Atheism, pp. 11-12)

See www. for Alan M. Leslie, Core Mechanisms in Theory of Mind: '....one response to this challenge has been to suppose that we are born as "little scientists" who discover belief and desire through experimentation, observation, and theory-building.'

Agent Detection

Agent detection - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org