God of the Gaps

quote:

---

You both are taking the hard line that God didn't exert his influence, at all, on the pathway of evolution. You say you know this is true. How do you know?

---

Not exactly.You're right; I have no way of knowing God isn't giving evolution little nudges along the way. But what I'm saying is that no one has any way of knowing that I am not actually a benevolent time-travelling member of the freakin' Q continuum, and that I have not been giving evolution little nudges along the way. We have no way of knowing that monkeys aren't playing chess and discussing European politics over a glass of port whenever our backs are turned.So my reaction is, "yeah, so what? Something completely undefinable might be involved in utterly undetectable ways?"If this is the case, for all intents and purposes God has no relevance. You might as well tell me that in a parallel universe, I'm in a polygamous marriage with Eliza Dushku and Angelina Jolie. Good to know. Sounds kinda nice, in fact. Thanks for the heads-up. But so what?

---

"It isn't faith that makes good science, it's curiosity."
-Professor Barnhard, The Day the Earth Stood Still

Look, as far as religion goes, I don't care if:a) The origin of the universe and everything that has happened since is a result of purely naturalistic processes, ORb) Every moment of our existence is a result of a Godly special creation, ORc) The truth is something somewhere in the middle.I don't believe that considerations of the above is significant in the validity or invalidity of having a Christian faith.Besides, at least some of you don't seem to know that I subscribe to an agnostic "soft" atheistic position. I believe that God doesn't exist, because I have no reason to believe that God does exist. I also believe that I might be wrong, and consider myself open to divine enlightenment.Moose

I share your opinion on religion: I don't believe, and that's the end of it. I also believe that a naturalistic explanation for a natural phenomenon is sufficient, and any 'purpose' or 'intent' someone wants to invoke is extraneous.The God-of-the-Gaps argument merely claims that naturalism is insufficient in some way, but doesn't tell us what the basis of that insufficiency is. Naturalistic explanations using mechanistic processes are either acceptable in general or not. Why wouldn't this flaw in methodology be obvious in all naturalistic reasoning, and not just in the explanations that seem overly tentative?

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

quote:

---

Can science say that God didn't do a little genetic engineering or artificial selection, to influence the path of evolution?

---

From your post number 7,I agree with your post number 17. However, science says nothing about whether God did or did not do anything. Since there is no way to test or falsify god(s) involvement in anything, science by definition has to ignore it. Science is not out to disprove or support any religious belief. You have those who live in fear that science will disprove their faith and those who live in fear that if they don't attach some type of pseudoscience to their faith, it will lack credibility. Both options suggest the most rabid fundies are actually intensely insecure about their own faith. Fortunatley, among the faithful, the majority seem to be people whose faith is neither threated by science and who do not seem to be impelled to search for validation of their faith in the wrong places.

I think I absolutely agree with you. More so, I don't think I have ever posted anything that conflicted with this agreement.A Christian faith may lead you to think that God somehow guided evolution. You may even be correct. You may even try to use science to find evidence of God's influence. BUT, there is a zero chance, that science can find an indisputable example of "God's fingerprints". Science can not prove or disprove things Godly (short of somehow pulling God out of the supernatural, into the natural), and thus it is HIGHLY questionable that there is any reason to even try to do such.All that said, my point all along has been that a Christian faith can permit God and evolution to co-exist. Even if it means that your faith tells you that God may have had little to nothing to do with the creation of the universe.I think that the truly fundamental point of a Christian FAITH, is that God created man in his spiritual image. This has nothing to do with physical image. Also, I see no reason why other life forms could not also share at least some of the "spiritual image" with God. A "God's spirit" is in everything thing. Again, just don't look for scientific evidence of this.What I have found interesting, is that even though I don't think I have said anything "pseudo-science" or "anti-science", some, of the evolution side, have chosen to think that I have. A "knee-jerk" anti-creationism reaction to something that wasn't even really creationistic.Moose

quote:

---

What I have found interesting, is that even though I don't think I have said anything "pseudo-science" or "anti-science", some, of the evolution side, have chosen to think that I have. A "knee-jerk" anti-creationism reaction to something that wasn't even really creationistic.

---

Hi Moose,
I don't think that is entirely accurate. I think that Mr. Hambre, Dan, and myself were objecting to the concept that scientists should even consider god or anything else supernatural when formulating a testable hypothesis. I don't think any of us were labelling you as anti-science.

Kenneth Miller, on God of the Gaps creationism:

quote:

---

If we accept a lack of scientific explanation as proof for God's existence, simple logic would dictate that we would have to regard a successful scientific explanation as an argument against God. That's why creationist reasoning, ultimately, is much more dangerous to religion than to science.

​

Putting it bluntly, the creationists have sought God in darkness. What we have not found and do not yet understand becomes their best - indeed their only - evidence for the divine. As a Christian, I find the flow of this logic particularly depressing. Not only does it teach us to fear the acquisition of knowledge (which might at any time disprove belief), but it suggests that God dwells only in the shadows of our understanding. I suggest that, if God is real, we should be able to find him somewhere else - in the bright light of human knowledge, spiritual and scientific.

---

---

The dark nursery of evolution is very dark indeed.
Brad McFall

would discourage you and anyone from any attempt to prove God. It simply will never happen. A thousand years from now using the technology used a thousand years from now, and it will still not be possible. The entire system of God/believer is based on faith of what is not seen - and absence of evidence of I have seen God. I have seen him in his creation. The universe did not happen by itself.

Hi George, I would follow this statement with "In My Opinion"
Otherwise someone might ask you for evidences to support this claim.

Thanks for the advice. But that is fine with me. Having said that proof is not extant and will never be, it would normally conclude that what I said is an opinion - and that based on a certain logic and some ordinary common sense. Nothing plus nothing equals nothing. However, 'nothing' also has value, meaning that nothing is something. We cannot understand how God spoke everything into existence from nothing - going round and round - we don't know what 'nothing' means to him.....and so on and so on......A circle - infinity.

Hi PecosGeorge, Like you say, there is no way to prove God. But we can push our knowledge to a point where the feasability for an omnipotent creator of everything is plausible or not. My guess is that there will be more non-believers than believers" a thousand years from now". At least who believe in the Bible, Koran or whatever holy scripture todays religious believe in.Coming from Scandinavia, our ancestors (the Vikings) also believed that their faith in Northern Mythology was the only true one, but they were proven wrong (if you can call it "proven wrong").You claim to "have seen God in his creation". You should try to undergo neurotheology experiments done by Michael Persinger. He has simulated "God like experiences" by using magnetic fields on the frontal lobes of the brain to control the perception of reality. Four out of five claim to have had extraordinary experiences, both atheists or theists out of the 1000++ that have been tested. It has been an eyeopening experience for most of them. I'm not claiming that this proves anything, I'm just saying that if we already today can create simulated God-experiences, where will we be in a thousand years.Regards,
SkepticScand

Most of us, even the atheists, would be comfortable with your statment that you can't 'prove' God. Nor can you disprove God.I certainly don't have any argument with you on that.It is with those who insist on describing the world around us in a way that is obviously wrong that I have a disagreement. They then tie this description of the world to God in some strange way. In this way they manage to make their god subject to disproof. I'm glad you don't suffer from an attachment to such poor theology.

That knowledge is here now. Watch a nuclear explosion sometime, or any science program that tells of the wonders discovered and hint of millions more yet waiting. It is all here for us to know, we are given dominion over all those things, a gift to bring us joy, to bring us discoveries.
Every time I hear a newborn baby cry.....etc....... then I know why I believe. Much, much too much is left to chance outside creation. It is simply implausible.
The simulation you mention is surely a wondrous thing. However, it still requires the word of one to be denied by another. It is an individual experience.
The God-experience is a one on one, a 'He and I'. The only time he has ever risked revelation of himself to masses, is in the form of Christ. And you know how well that went over.
And this is where it will be in a thousand years. Never other than a one on one.
Thanks for your time and your generous spirit.
George

Well then, Ned, I am glad as well. Those who insist have the right to insist their point as you have the right to insist yours. It is with profound respect I approach those who practice and preach and believe things other than I do. I have learned much that way.
Thank you for your words of wisdom and your time
George

And are you aware that in theory a quantum fluctuation can appear out of nothing? The wave function can borrow enough to manifest something? Do I believe this to be true, Yes. Not because I understand the mathmatic calculations that quantum mechanics predicts but because the Big Bang obviously happened. *edit spelling. [This message has been edited by 1.61803, 04-16-2004]

---

"One is punished most for ones virtues" Fredrick Neitzche