Total Posts:6|Showing Posts:1-6
Jump to topic:

1 flaw with God of the Gaps

SNP1
Posts: 2,403
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 6:05:01 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I might be wrong on this, so correct me if I am.

Let's say that God of the Gaps was just invented to explain A, B, C, D, E, and F.

Let's say that God of the Gaps has a 50% chance of being right on any position.

When A is explained without god, with empirical evidence to back it up, the probability of the God of the Gaps being correct on B, C, D, E, and F becomes lower than 50%.

The God of the Gaps, in reality, has been used for many "gaps" that have since been filled. This means that the probability of the God of the Gaps being correct for any gap is considerably low.
#TheApatheticNihilistPartyofAmerica
#WarOnDDO
Wylted
Posts: 21,167
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 6:14:00 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 6:05:01 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I might be wrong on this, so correct me if I am.

Let's say that God of the Gaps was just invented to explain A, B, C, D, E, and F.

Let's say that God of the Gaps has a 50% chance of being right on any position.

When A is explained without god, with empirical evidence to back it up, the probability of the God of the Gaps being correct on B, C, D, E, and F becomes lower than 50%.

The God of the Gaps, in reality, has been used for many "gaps" that have since been filled. This means that the probability of the God of the Gaps being correct for any gap is considerably low.

The God of the gaps is like the logical fallacy of moving the goal posts. I don't think anybody intentionally picks up this position but it's just how it works out without them realizing it.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 6:26:39 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 6:05:01 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I might be wrong on this, so correct me if I am.

Let's say that God of the Gaps was just invented to explain A, B, C, D, E, and F.

Let's say that God of the Gaps has a 50% chance of being right on any position.

When A is explained without god, with empirical evidence to back it up, the probability of the God of the Gaps being correct on B, C, D, E, and F becomes lower than 50%.

The God of the Gaps, in reality, has been used for many "gaps" that have since been filled. This means that the probability of the God of the Gaps being correct for any gap is considerably low.
Mathematics (a branch of scientific knowledge) cannot determine an existent solution to any equation which attempts to apply an even index to a negative radicand - except with complex numbers, which are imaginary (not real numbers).

If god is the solution/predetermined explanation to this problem, then he is imaginary per the above. I have disproven god's existence.

..I find myself funny.. hah.. or maybe not..
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Mhykiel
Posts: 5,987
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 7:37:46 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 6:05:01 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I might be wrong on this, so correct me if I am.

Let's say that God of the Gaps was just invented to explain A, B, C, D, E, and F.

Let's say that God of the Gaps has a 50% chance of being right on any position.

When A is explained without god, with empirical evidence to back it up, the probability of the God of the Gaps being correct on B, C, D, E, and F becomes lower than 50%.

The God of the Gaps, in reality, has been used for many "gaps" that have since been filled. This means that the probability of the God of the Gaps being correct for any gap is considerably low.

I hate this turn of phrase. It's churned out as if it an accurate description of any argument I'm making. But at it's core it claims the God is an overall hypothesis, accepted as the conclusion when a naturalistic one is unavailable.

1. The argument is based in from a position of circular reasoning. The anti-theist says they are a naturalist and flat out deny the existence of anything like God. If the conclusion of any argument is God, then the argument is wrong. This is fallacious because it does not address the argument it is only concerned with the conclusion.

2. It assumes that if science can explain something that it removes God. It's a misrepresentation of theist rational belief. But explaining how something happens does not remove a who or why. I thank God for the rain, the tides, ect.. even tho I have a good understanding of how forces generate such conditions. If someone accepts the conclusion from the fine tuning argument the next logical step is to accept all events as being contingent on God's foresight.

3. It assumes God is an imaginary concept like a band aid to put over areas of limited evidence. Every hypothesis is imaginary until it's proven to be compliant with reality. It immediately makes the assumption that God is not a conclusion drawn from evidence but one applied to a lack of. Anyone holding this as truth as above will not address the evidence or argument, they will reject it outright on no other facet than because the answer is God.

Same reason why they reject idealism or any other concept that allows for a god like or spiritual entity. This of course in under the disguise of science. but science does not reject God, or the transcendental. When a solution to a problem appears to be supernatural Science refuses to answer further and relinquishes the problem to the realm of philosophy until at time it comes back into the arena of falsification.

Everyone wants what they say to be scientific. Which has lead to a huge disparity in understanding what is science and what is not. But there are other tools, like math, astronomy, ect..

A collection of tools are used to investigate a problem or question the results are weighed on reliability and reasonableness.

Which is why belief in God can be a reasonable conclusion; From the evidence and/or arguments.

ultimately god of the gaps is a straw man.
jodybirdy
Posts: 2,089
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 8:13:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 6:05:01 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I might be wrong on this, so correct me if I am.

Let's say that God of the Gaps was just invented to explain A, B, C, D, E, and F.

Let's say that God of the Gaps has a 50% chance of being right on any position.

When A is explained without god, with empirical evidence to back it up, the probability of the God of the Gaps being correct on B, C, D, E, and F becomes lower than 50%.

The God of the Gaps, in reality, has been used for many "gaps" that have since been filled. This means that the probability of the God of the Gaps being correct for any gap is considerably low.

God of the gaps eventually becomes the God of nothing. That's why it's futile. It is absolutely probable that is all that any God has ever been. God of gaps has to evolve with our understanding or he will cease to exist.
A rock pile ceases to be a rock pile the moment a single man contemplates it, bearing within him the image of a cathedral."
s-anthony
Posts: 2,582
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
12/28/2014 8:17:55 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 12/28/2014 6:05:01 PM, SNP1 wrote:
I might be wrong on this, so correct me if I am.

Let's say that God of the Gaps was just invented to explain A, B, C, D, E, and F.

Let's say that God of the Gaps has a 50% chance of being right on any position.

When A is explained without god, with empirical evidence to back it up, the probability of the God of the Gaps being correct on B, C, D, E, and F becomes lower than 50%.

The God of the Gaps, in reality, has been used for many "gaps" that have since been filled. This means that the probability of the God of the Gaps being correct for any gap is considerably low.

That's the only place God can exist; for, the moment something is known it ceases to be God.