4 ms·
Why believe that a god is reponsible for the gaps rather than believe that we simply don't have the answers yet and that eventually science will give us them (a
by brankoB 7y ago
Why believe that a god is reponsible for the gaps rather than believe that we simply don't have the answers yet and that eventually science will give us them (as it has in the past, countless times)?
- eternalny1 7y agoSo we essentially arised out of (nothing, at this point) to understand why we did? Gap of logic.
- glitchc 7y agoNot at all. It’s perfectly okay in science to say we don’t know how that happens yet. Deciding that we’ll never know is an irrational leap. The “never” is a strong statement and requires proof. Can you prove never? I don’t think so. Then why assume it?
- monktastic1 7y agoWell, there's never a way for me to know whether solipsism is true, or to even calculate a (meaningful) probability of it being true. In fact, this applies to probably infinitely many strange metaphysicses. All I know is that I'm conscious (or, more precisely, that "consciousness is"). I can say that "assuming the standard scientific metaphysics is correct, science might solve it," but that assumption is enormous and untestable.
- d1zzy 7y agoThat's assuming that "arising" is done as some part of logical plan. The universe doesn't have to be logical, physical phenomena doesn't have to follow human observation and logic. It's crazy hubris to assume the opposite IMO.
- eternalny1 7y ago> So we essentially arised out of (nothing, at this point) Think about that for one second, if you can ever comprehend what this "nothing" is. There was something before you, and Einstein got it with regards to the fact you can't understand that. We're getting closer. Rest easy.
- d1zzy 7y agoI would take this further: even if we NEVER get those answers (because of some inherent physical limit in our observation and understanding of physical phenomenon, similar to how Heisenberg's uncertainty principle means it's impossible to observe accurately both momentum and position) it still doesn't mean there needs to be "god" introduced in the equation to explain that which is unexplainable. Once you accept that not everything is knowable, not everything is observable, not everything is explainable and not everything has to have a purpose, and all that is perfectly fine without the existence of a divine being, then why do we need to add a divine being in the mix?
- blackflame7000 7y agoI think the main reason is that if we reach that limit of knowledge, we will always be left with the question, "How did something come from nothing?" I don't know if humans will ever be able to explain that question as it's not something we can experience. That naturally lends itself to the conclusion that there is something greater than us in the universe that can manipulate the physical world we observe in ways we do not understand. Whether that is the colliding of multiverses or divine intervention we wouldn't and couldn't ever know.
- eternalny1 7y agoGod is less of a deity but more of a fact. Something from nothing. I am in no position to question this ... even given all my dead-end searches.