God of the Gaps

[abu afak]

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg bods.
"Well then, how did all this stuff just appear?"
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.'

God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Usage in referring to a type 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]​

ie

+​

 

[Boss]

This is probably THEE #1 rationale for those arguing for a god on msg bods.
"Well then, how did all this stuff just appear?"
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.'

God of the gaps - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Usage in referring to a type 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]​

ie

+​

Okay, let's walk through this slowly because I want to make sure I follow.......

You admit that we don't things. We are searching for answers but don't know.... Correct?

So.... Some people say "If we don't know, then God!" ...Right?

Okay... now, explain to me again how God answers the question we were searching for?

In other words, so what if I claim God is responsible? Does that answer the question we were seeking an answer to? And let's flip this around... if you come up with a theory or hypothesis of what you believe might have happened... does that answer the question we were seeking an answer to?

You see... Science was invented by man to explain things we don't understand about our universe. Whenever we say things like "Science has proved it!" OR... "God did it!" those are proclamations of faith. Science stopped happening the instant we began practicing our faith in a belief we concluded. It literally has no explanatory power over a conclusion.

 

[abu afak]

Okay, let's walk through this slowly because I want to make sure I follow.......

With you it Has to be slowly.

You admit that we don't things. We are searching for answers but don't know.... Correct?

Yes I "admit we don't know things".
Is that something one needs to "admit" or is it patently obvious?

So.... Some people say "If we don't know, then God!" ...Right?
Okay... now, explain to me again how God answers the question we were searching for?

"GodDidIt" IS the answer for religionists for 10,000 years.
Of course, ALL gods on which we have a verdict have been proven False as there was a Natural explanation for what was thought impossible.

In other words, so what if I claim God is responsible? Does that answer the question we were seeking an answer to? And let's flip this around... if you come up with a theory or hypothesis of what you believe might have happened... does that answer the question we were seeking an answer to?

Apparently it does for you. It explains for YOU how species form/diverge other than from Evolution you say is impossible.
There is No alternative to that other than a god. They musta been 'Created' as is, barring a few 'micro' pimples, according to YOU.
Ooops.
Let's stop beating around the bush with you trying to play science while Hiding your real objection to evo.. The Abrahamic god, and more specifically Jesus.
YES or NO?
Come Clean Pilgrim.

You see... Science was invented by man to explain things we don't understand about our universe. Whenever we say things like "Science has proved it!" OR... "God did it!" those are proclamations of faith. Science stopped happening the instant we began practicing our faith in a belief we concluded. It literally has no explanatory power over a conclusion.

Ahh, [what I call] the "everything is just a belief" FALLACY.
That's right, your BLIND FAITH in Voodoo/Haysoos/Baal is just as good as acknowledging Hard EVIDENCE on which science is based.. ie, Gravity.
No.
Gotcha.
There's always is a Premise error or disingenuous twist. It Has to be in there.

It's really a question of IQ or Brainwashing or Both.
Godists whole lives are based on Myths (most contradict one another too) and necessarily have to try to twist the language, lest their whole world and social networks collapse.
In this case, the old attempt at FALSE equivalence of [Blind] Faith, with EVIDENTIARY science.
You're just not semantically clever enough to play this game with me: especially from the wrong side.
+

 

[Boss]

"GodDidIt" IS the answer for religionists for 10,000 years.
Of course, ALL gods on which we have a verdict have been proven False as there was a Natural explanation for what was thought impossible.

But we both agreed that "GodDidIt" doesn't answer any questions, has no explanatory value. It's a conclusion. Now... "all gods proven false?" Not sure where your scientific evidence is but I'd kind of like to look at that if you can post it. Yes, science does explain how things happen in physics. It has explanatory value. That's why man invented it.

Have you ever curiously asked yourself why physics works the way it does? Or chemistry? I mean the nuts and bolts of universal order that we can even rationally base science around? It's pretty fucking impressive to me. Dozens of cosmological constants, gravitational constants, things at the root level of our atoms, the observer effect, uncertainty principle, entangled particles.... I mean, at some point you have to be amazed.

As amazed as I may be, it doesn't answer any questions. I always laugh when I hear an Atheist complain about the "God Did It" thing... did you expect a believer in God to say God didn't? Of course God did it... God did everything, that kind of goes without saying, if you believe in God.

So God is not an answer in science. It is a conclusion based on faith. It has no explanatory power. It's important that you understand this and know that we're on the same page. "God Did It" is never an answer.

Apparently it does for you. It explains for YOU how species form/diverge other than from Evolution you say is impossible.
There is No alternative to that other than a god. They musta been 'Created' as is, barring a few micro pimples according to YOU.

Well, I have not said evolution is impossible, it's just not the explanation for diversity of life or origin of life. I've also not pledged allegiance to any particular theory on those things as I believe we don't really know at this time and that's kind of where Science needs to stay.

Okay... so now, you are saying that your hypothesis, or "explanation" is valid on faith because you believe it is so. And if your belief isn't so, it must be my belief and it's not possible for us both to be completely wrong? Am I getting this right so far?

Ahh, [what I call] the "everything is just a belief" FALLACY.
That's right, your BLIND FAITH in Voodoo/Haysoos/Baal is just as good as acknowledging Hard EVIDENCE on which science is based.. ie, Gravity.
No.
Gotcha.

What IS gravity? Do you know?

Why does gravity exist in our universe and why is it's constant so precisely set?

I Love fucking Science man! I just DO!

We've already established that believing in a God doesn't answer any science questions. You blathered some apologetic crap about how you can't support your hypothesis with actual facts but it's "the best explanation" like we're in a fucking 6th-grade gossip circle. Your opinion of an explanation without any real science backing you up is not "HARD EVIDENCE!"

You're just not semantically clever enough to play this game with me: especially from the wrong side.

Is that what this is? A clever semantics game? I thought we were talking about Science and Faith?

 

[abu afak]

But we both agreed that "GodDidIt" doesn't answer any questions, has no explanatory value. It's a conclusion. Now... "all gods proven false?" Not sure where your scientific evidence is but I'd kind of like to look at that if you can post it. Yes, science does explain how things happen in physics. It has explanatory value. That's why man invented it.

I did NOT say "all gods proven false"
DISHONEST Misquote
I said "ALL gods on which we have a verdict have been proven False as there was a Natural explanation for what was thought impossible."

In any case, Proving something doesn't exist is impossible. That's why we have things like FSM/Flying Spaghetti Monster, because logicians want to show how empty claims like yours are.
You can't prove I'm not god, but that doesn't make it a serious proposition.. either.

Have you ever curiously asked yourself why physics works the way it does? Or chemistry? I mean the nuts and bolts of universal order that we can even rationally base science around? It's pretty fucking impressive to me. Dozens of cosmological constants, gravitational constants, things at the root level of our atoms, the observer effect, uncertainty principle, entangled particles.... I mean, at some point you have to be amazed.

Clearly YOU are inferring god/dog again.
You just can't help your true beliefs coming thru, yet can't admit them
Persistently Dishonest.

As amazed as I may be, it doesn't answer any questions. I always laugh when I hear an Atheist complain about the "God Did It" thing... did you expect a believer in God to say God didn't? Of course God did it... God did everything, that kind of goes without saying, if you believe in God.

There's an inferred/implied god in ALL Your posts.
You simply can't be straightforward about it.

So God is not an answer in science. It is a conclusion based on faith. It has no explanatory power. It's important that you understand this and know that we're on the same page. "God Did It" is never an answer.

Again:
There's an inferred/implied god in ALL Your posts.
You simply can't be straightforward about it.

Well, I have not said evolution is impossible, it's just not the explanation for diversity of life or origin of life. I've also not pledged allegiance to any particular theory on those things as I believe we don't really know at this time and that's kind of where Science needs to stay.

The Theory and Fact of Evolution does NOT depend on the Origin of Life. Though one can take inferences about 'abiogensis', Evolution starts after the first spark and explains how it progressed. No matter the first spark, Evolution, again, does not depend on it.
Another Fallacious boner of Ignorant godists.

Okay... so now, you are saying that your hypothesis, or "explanation" is valid on faith because you believe it is so. And if your belief isn't so, it must be my belief and it's not possible for us both to be completely wrong? Am I getting this right so far?

Now, er Again, you're Trolling.
Faith is belief without Evidence. Science is belief Because of evidence.
Dishonest Juvenile trolling.
Again, you just aren't smart enough to debate me.
This trolling is admitting it.

Is that what this is? A clever semantics game? I thought we were talking about Science and Faith?

I am always talking science while you are Dishonestly equating science with Faith.

Evolution is Established fact and the very heart of modern Biology.
Yes, Like Gravity, something can be fact and theory.
Theories don't get "proven", they get affirmed over time.
Evo is consistent with, or Confirmed by Every new science of the last unbelievably Rigorous 150 years, and has Overwhelming EVIDENCE.
Tens of Thousands of gods have NO evidence after 10,000 years.

You're a Clown who can't admit you're just a Jesus Freak playing semantic games... but Losing badly. A few days ago it was 'Fruit Flies,' until I posted the world's foremost Genetic expert, who just happens to also be foremost expert on Fruit Flies.

AND you had no answer to Anatomical Remnants either, of which there are many on humans alone, and thousands more on many other species of animals and plants. Explained only Evo/Common Descent.
`

 

[Boss]

I did NOT say "all gods proven false"
DISHONEST Misquote
I said "ALL gods on which we have a verdict have been proven False as there was a Natural explanation for what was thought impossible."

In any case, Proving something doesn't exist is impossible. That's why we have things like FSM/Flying Spaghetti Monster, because logicians want to show how empty claims like yours are.

First you claim ALL gods on which we have a verdict have been proven false, then you say it's not possible to prove something doesn't exist. What you show with FSM is called an "appeal to ridicule" and it's a tactic used often when someone doesn't have the facts on their side.

Clearly YOU are inferring god/dog again.
You just can't help your true beliefs coming thru, yet can't admit them
Persistently Dishonest.

I simply asked you a question, I didn't realize I inferred anything in asking a question,

The Theory and Fact of Evolution does NOT depend on the Origin of Life. Though one can take inferences about 'abiogensis', Evolution starts after the first spark and explains how it progressed. No matter the first spark, Evolution, again, does not depend on it.
Another Fallacious boner of Ignorant godists.

The theory of evolution doesn't explain origin of life. And if you are still interested in Science, evolution remains a theory. Otherwise, you've stopped practicing Science and have adopted a faith in your conclusion of fact. "Evolution Did It" has no more explanatory value than "God Did It!"

Faith is belief without Evidence. Science is belief Because of evidence.

You're not presenting any evidence... other than your proclaiming facts and expressing your beliefs in said facts.

I am always talking science while you are Dishonestly equating science with Faith.

No, I am very much NOT doing that. You're not talking about science when you proclaim things are fact and appeal to ridicule, which is all you've done in this thread so far.

Evolution is Established fact and the very heart of modern Biology.
Yes, Like Gravity, something can be fact and theory.
Theories don't get "proven", they get affirmed over time.
Evo is consistent with, or Confirmed by Every new science of the last unbelievably Rigorous 150 years, and has Overwhelming EVIDENCE.
Tens of Thousands of gods have NO evidence after 10,000 years.

Such a flurry of contradiction here... settle down! Let's sort through this...

If you are stating evolution is a fact, you're no longer practicing Science. Just like with "God Did It" ...science can't do anything with a conclusion. It has no explanatory power.

Now, I have read the scientific method and I didn't pick up any part that said theories get affirmed into facts over time. First I've heard of that.

The kind of evolution you are talking about (common ancestry) is not confirmed and is not consistent with biology. You're failing to show evidence and proclaiming your faith based belief in a conclusion... that has no explanatory value and isn't science.

And what kind of physical evidence do you imagine a spiritual God might have? Can you explain that?

A few days ago it was 'Fruit Flies,' until I posted the world's foremost Genetic expert, who just happens to also be foremost expert on Fruit Flies.

AND you had no answer to Anatomical Remnants either, of which there are many on humans alone, and thousands more on many other species of animals and plants. Explained only Evo/Common Descent.

Well you presented someone who claims to be a foremost expert on fruit flies. IF he is, I am sure he is familiar with the quote: "Fruit flies refuse to become anything but fruit flies under any circumstances yet devised." -Francis Hitching

I also answered you on your so-called anatomical remnants. I specifically challenged you to provide the science showing evidence to support your hypothesis and you never did. You consistently run from science and cling to faith. But this is understandable now that you've tipped your hand as to what you think Science is all about.... You come up with an idea... proclaim it as a fact and wait... over time, after repeating it's a fact for so long, it eventually becomes accepted as a fact.

 

[abu afak]

I did NOT say "all gods proven false"
DISHONEST Misquote
I said "ALL gods on which we have a verdict have been proven False as there was a Natural explanation for what was thought impossible."
In any case, Proving something doesn't exist is impossible. That's why we have things like FSM/Flying Spaghetti Monster, because logicians want to show how empty claims like yours are.

First you claim ALL gods on which we have a verdict have been proven false, then you say it's not possible to prove something doesn't exist. What you show with FSM is called an "appeal to ridicule" and it's a tactic used often when someone doesn't have the facts on their side.

It IS possible to show these events had Natural Explanations, and did not need a god.
Is it possible there is a 'fire' or 50,000 other gods, .. er.. OK.
See the OP!
It debunks your whole/only dishonest objection.

Clearly YOU are inferring god/dog again.
You just can't help your true beliefs coming thru, yet can't admit them
Persistently Dishonest.

I simply asked you a question, I didn't realize I inferred anything in asking a question,

Lying again.
ALL your so-called science objections are just the stupid ole goddidit.

The Theory and Fact of Evolution does NOT depend on the Origin of Life. Though one can take inferences about 'abiogensis', Evolution starts after the first spark and explains how it progressed. No matter the first spark, Evolution, again, does not depend on it.
Another Fallacious boner of Ignorant godists.

The theory of evolution doesn't explain origin of life. And if you are still interested in Science, evolution remains a theory. Otherwise, you've stopped practicing Science and have adopted a faith in your conclusion of fact. "Evolution Did It" has no more explanatory value than "God Did It!"

Stupid and LYING again.
'Theory' in Sceince is not just conjecture you Dope.
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
UNANSWERED
I also have said Many timnes Evolution doesn't clain to explain the origin of life (aka 'abiogenesis') and is NOT dependent on it to be true.
Not knowing this makes you too stupid to debate.,

Faith is belief without Evidence. Science is belief Because of evidence.

You're not presenting any evidence... other than your proclaiming facts and expressing your beliefs in said facts.

I've presented tons of evidence ghere.
ALL evidence points to evolution.. or .. god is trying to fools us by planting evidence.
ALL new sciences since evo was proposed (and could have proven it wrong), are either consistent with it or indeed help confoirm it. (ie, Paleontology/Fossils/DNA, etc.)

I am always talking science while you are Dishonestly equating science with Faith.

No, I am very much NOT doing that. You're not talking about science when you proclaim things are fact and appeal to ridicule, which is all you've done in this thread so far.

See above.

Evolution is Established fact and the very heart of modern Biology. Yes, Like Gravity, something can be fact and theory.
Theories don't get "proven", they get affirmed over time.
Evo is consistent with, or Confirmed by Every new science of the last unbelievably Rigorous 150 years, and has Overwhelming EVIDENCE.
Tens of Thousands of gods have NO evidence after 10,000 years.

Such a flurry of contradiction here... settle down! Let's sort through this...
If you are stating evolution is a fact, you're no longer practicing Science. Just like with "God Did It" ...science can't do anything with a conclusion. It has no explanatory power.
Now, I have read the scientific method and I didn't pick up any part that said theories get affirmed into facts over time. First I've heard of that.
The kind of evolution you are talking about (common ancestry) is not confirmed and is not consistent with biology. You're failing to show evidence and proclaiming your faith based belief in a conclusion... that has no explanatory value and isn't science.

15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense
John Rennie, Editor in Chief
Scientific American - June 2002
15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense

1. Evolution is 'only' a theory. It is not a fact or a scientific law.

Many people learned in Elementary school that a theory falls in the middle of a hierarchy of certainty--above a mere hypothesis but below a law.
Scientists do NOT use the terms that way, however.
According to the National Academy of Sciences (NAS), a scientific theory is "a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses[/u\]." No amount of validation changes a theory into a law, which is a descriptive generalization about nature. So when scientists talk about the theory of evolution--or the atomic theory or the theory of relativity, for that matter--they are NOT expressing reservations about its truth.

In addition to the theory of evolution, meaning the idea of descent with modification, one may also speak of the Fact of evolution.​

[......]

A few days ago it was 'Fruit Flies,' until I posted the world's foremost Genetic expert, who just happens to also be foremost expert on Fruit Flies.
AND you had no answer to Anatomical Remnants either, of which there are many on humans alone, and thousands more on many other species of animals and plants. Explained only Evo/Common Descent.

I also answered you on your so-called anatomical remnants. I specifically challenged you to provide the science showing evidence to support your hypothesis and you never did. You consistently run from science and cling to faith. But this is understandable now that you've tipped your hand as to what you think Science is all about.... You come up with an idea... proclaim it as a fact and wait... over time, after repeating it's a fact for so long, it eventually becomes accepted as a fact.

I have provided strings full of such evidence.
Splat # 489.

 

[IndependantAce]

Evolutionary theory is just "science of the gaps" - there's more physical evidence that Elvis is still alive than there is for man evolving from apes.