3 ms·

This argument is known as God of the Gaps [0] and it has serious logical and theological flaws. > Detractors argue that this perspective is problematic as it s

This argument is known as God of the Gaps [0] and it has serious logical and theological flaws. > Detractors argue that this perspective is problematic as it seems to rely on gaps in human understanding and ignorance to make its case for the existence of God. As scientific knowledge continues to advance, these gaps tend to shrink, potentially weakening the argument for God's existence. Critics contend that such an approach can undermine religious beliefs by suggesting that God only operates in the unexplained areas of our understanding, leaving little room for divine involvement in a comprehensive and coherent worldview. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps

Technotroll 3y ago
Your assumptions seems to be that there is a limit to what is knowable. Picture a spotlight shining down on an infinite field. The surface which is lit up by the spotlight represents our collective knowledge about reality, and the further up you move the spotlight, the more of the field you will light up, and thus know about. Except, how much is it left to know about outside of circle that the spotlight lights up? With that said, I think it's pointless to speak about God in the realm of science, because there is no way of scientifically proving that he's real or not. In the realm of science, we have to abide by the rules thus set, and how we define what is knowable. The rules are quite good, and they have served us well thus far, so there is no need to question it's validity or usefulness outside of strictly philosophical limits. And under those rules, God is not knowable. Thus you may believe in God, the Universe or only in the things you can scientifically prove; it matters not, because you still exist and perceive. Hopefully!
hurril 3y ago
It's not even that, it's a call to enter a never-ending recursion. How is it that that god is permitted to exist without reason where the hydrogen atoms somehow needs an origin? Please assemble your god or accept my eternal hydrogen.
namero999 3y ago
They don't really shrink. They simply move the goalpost. The unknown is infinite, so we can recursively explain something in terms of something else which is more fundamental, but we simply don't know where/when the rabbit hole ends. It's not that the discovery of quantum mechanics shrinked anything, on the contrary expanded it beyond our understanding. So we are faced with 2 choices: - we keep on playing this game forever. Effectively, we have explained nothing, but provisionally everything works due to theoretical models. We have tech, we have understanding and ability to interact with scales that are enough for human life and progress, everything is merry but we have _truly_ explained nothing. We don't know if the next "level down" will completely wrap around our understanding. And the next "level down" might as well be God, we won't know. - we consciously pick an informed primitive. The "one free miracle" philosophers (and scientists) blabber about. Now, _if_ we can build a consistent model out of that assumption, _then_ we might have a chance to actually explain something. And there God is not really needed. Nature is obviously what nature is, why can't we accept that something simply is without being created? The very question betrays an entrapment in a space-time mentality where "there must be a before where nothing was, hence divine intervention" but we already know, form physics, that that is not the case.

Technotroll 3y ago

Your assumptions seems to be that there is a limit to what is knowable. Picture a spotlight shining down on an infinite field. The surface which is lit up by the spotlight represents our collective knowledge about reality, and the further up you move the spotlight, the more of the field you will light up, and thus know about. Except, how much is it left to know about outside of circle that the spotlight lights up? With that said, I think it's pointless to speak about God in the realm of science, because there is no way of scientifically proving that he's real or not. In the realm of science, we have to abide by the rules thus set, and how we define what is knowable. The rules are quite good, and they have served us well thus far, so there is no need to question it's validity or usefulness outside of strictly philosophical limits. And under those rules, God is not knowable. Thus you may believe in God, the Universe or only in the things you can scientifically prove; it matters not, because you still exist and perceive. Hopefully!

hurril 3y ago

It's not even that, it's a call to enter a never-ending recursion. How is it that that god is permitted to exist without reason where the hydrogen atoms somehow needs an origin? Please assemble your god or accept my eternal hydrogen.

namero999 3y ago

They don't really shrink. They simply move the goalpost. The unknown is infinite, so we can recursively explain something in terms of something else which is more fundamental, but we simply don't know where/when the rabbit hole ends. It's not that the discovery of quantum mechanics shrinked anything, on the contrary expanded it beyond our understanding. So we are faced with 2 choices: - we keep on playing this game forever. Effectively, we have explained nothing, but provisionally everything works due to theoretical models. We have tech, we have understanding and ability to interact with scales that are enough for human life and progress, everything is merry but we have _truly_ explained nothing. We don't know if the next "level down" will completely wrap around our understanding. And the next "level down" might as well be God, we won't know. - we consciously pick an informed primitive. The "one free miracle" philosophers (and scientists) blabber about. Now, _if_ we can build a consistent model out of that assumption, _then_ we might have a chance to actually explain something. And there God is not really needed. Nature is obviously what nature is, why can't we accept that something simply is without being created? The very question betrays an entrapment in a space-time mentality where "there must be a before where nothing was, hence divine intervention" but we already know, form physics, that that is not the case.