Arguments for the existance of God that don't fall into the "God of the Gaps."

[leibowde84]

I have been listening to a lot of debates regarding arguments for the existance of God. I have yet to hear one that goes beyond the "God of the gaps" in any way. Basically, the theist argument comes down to this ... if science and our limited brains/minds cannot fathom an explanation for something, it is reasonable to assume that God had something to do with it. The Ontological Argument is a striking example of this. For a long time there was no explanation for what initiated the Big Bang. Now, however, quantum physics has shown us that causation is not needed when looking at extremely small particles.

So, does anyone have an argument for the existence of God apart from personal experience, scripture, faith, or "the God of the gaps" rationale? I look forward to some interesting responses.

1. God-of-the-gaps arguments use gaps in scientific explanation as indicators, or even proof, of God's action and therefore of God's existence. Such arguments propose divine acts in place of natural, scientific causes for phenomena that science cannot yet explain.

 

[rusra02]

The simple truth found at Hebrews 3:4; "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God."
Of course, no reasonable person denies that a house has a builder. Yet many deny that DNA, far more complex and functional than anything man could build, is dismissed as the product of random events. And DNA is only one part of a world filled with engineering marvels. The effects (creation) prove the Cause (the true God), to me and to millions of others.
Science has no answer for how life arose, but the Bible does. (Genesis 1:1)

 

[Altfish]

Which creation story in the Bible do you think is best???

In the first creation story, humans are created after the other animals.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:25-27
In the second story, humans were created before the other animals.
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 2:18-19

 

[leibowde84]

The simple truth found at Hebrews 3:4; "Of course, every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God."
Of course, no reasonable person denies that a house has a builder. Yet many deny that DNA, far more complex and functional than anything man could build, is dismissed as the product of random events. And DNA is only one part of a world filled with engineering marvels. The effects (creation) prove the Cause (the true God), to me and to millions of others.
Science has no answer for how life arose, but the Bible does. (Genesis 1:1)

I made it very clear that scripture and "the God of the gaps" arguments were not what this post was about. I am looking for a real argument that can stand on its own, without scriptural support or reliance on the "God of the gaps" argument.

Also, the mere fact that we don't know how something comes out of nothing should not immediately direct one to a belief in the supernatural. Scientists are just more comfortable with saying that they simply don't know YET.

But, please, provide a proof that does not rely on scripture or a lack of scientific knowledge, and I would be happy to discuss. The point of the post was that the God of the gaps is not a sound argument, as a lack of understanding from one side in no way proves the other sides point. Also, reliance on scripture is nothing but circular logic, as it is pretty much saying, God exists because he told us that he exists and how he made us exist in the Bible.

For the purposes of this conversation alone, please assume that the Bible is not a valid source for evidence. Thanks for your input. I look forward to discussing this with you.

 

[leibowde84]

Which creation story in the Bible do you think is best???

In the first creation story, humans are created after the other animals.
And God made the beast of the earth after his kind, and cattle after their kind, and every thing that creepeth upon the earth after his kind: and God saw that it was good. And God said, Let us make man in our image, after our likeness: and let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the fowl of the air, and over the cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creepeth upon the earth. So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them. Genesis 1:25-27
In the second story, humans were created before the other animals.
And the LORD God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. And out of the ground the LORD God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. Genesis 2:18-19

This board is restricted to proof of the existance of God without using any kind of scriptural or "God of the gaps" kind of reasoning. Thanks for complying with the topic/subject of this post. I look forward to your input.

 

[rusra02]

I made it very clear that scripture and "the God of the gaps" arguments were not what this post was about. I am looking for a real argument that can stand on its own, without scriptural support or reliance on the "God of the gaps" argument.

Also, the mere fact that we don't know how something comes out of nothing should not immediately direct one to a belief in the supernatural. Scientists are just more comfortable with saying that they simply don't know YET.

But, please, provide a proof that does not rely on scripture or a lack of scientific knowledge, and I would be happy to discuss. The point of the post was that the God of the gaps is not a sound argument, as a lack of understanding from one side in no way proves the other sides point. Also, reliance on scripture is nothing but circular logic, as it is pretty much saying, God exists because he told us that he exists and how he made us exist in the Bible.

For the purposes of this conversation alone, please assume that the Bible is not a valid source for evidence. Thanks for your input. I look forward to discussing this with you.

I think you missed the point of my post. The evidence in what exists points to a supremely intelligent designer. A computer program does not spring into existence without a maker. Neither does the programming evident in DNA.

 

[leibowde84]

I think you missed the point of my post. The evidence in what exists points to a supremely intelligent designer. A computer program does not spring into existence without a maker. Neither does the programming evident in DNA.

No, I got your point. It is a God of the gaps argument. You are saying that, because we have not yet discovered how (if even possible) something could come into existence without a creator/designer, we should assume that one exists. I would argue that it merely proves that we simply don't know yet, and that science discovers what we thought impossible all the time. See how that is using God to "fill in the gaps?" So, that is exactly what I'm trying to avoid in this board. I am searching for a substatiated argument.

 

[George-ananda]

So, does anyone have an argument for the existence of God apart from personal experience, scripture, faith, or "the God of the gaps" rationale? I look forward to some interesting responses.

I'm a non-dualist (God and creation are not-two). My personal argument for believing in God does not come from scientific analysis but from human experiences. It comes from my analysis of the many types of paranormal phenomena, the masters of the great East Indian/Vedic wisdom traditions, and the experiences of many saints and mystics who I believe have seen beyond what our mundane mind can reach.

 

[leibowde84]

I'm a non-dualist (God and creation are not-two). My personal argument for believing in God does not come from scientific analysis but from human experiences. It comes from my analysis of the many types of paranormal phenomena, the masters of the great East Indian/Vedic wisdom traditions, and the experiences of many saints and mystics who I believe have seen beyond what our mundane mind can reach.

Fair enough. It is extremely subjective though. But it sounds likeep you are comfortable with that.

 

[SkylarHunter]

No, I got your point. It is a God of the gaps argument. You are saying that, because we have not yet discovered how (if even possible) something could come into existence without a creator/designer, we should assume that one exists. I would argue that it merely proves that we simply don't know yet, and that science discovers what we thought impossible all the time. See how that is using God to "fill in the gaps?" So, that is exactly what I'm trying to avoid in this board. I am searching for a substatiated argument.

There are some God of gaps arguments, and there are also evolution of gaps arguments.

We have to accept that there are questions unanswered. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It also doesn't mean we have any idea of the processes that were used in creation.

Either way, people believe what they want and what suits them better. That's the only explanation I can find for nutcase religions that believe aliens are coming to get them or that homosexuals should be murdered (just to give a couple of examples).

 

[leibowde84]

There are some God of gaps arguments, and there are also evolution of gaps arguments.

We have to accept that there are questions unanswered. That doesn't mean God doesn't exist. It also doesn't mean we have any idea of the processes that were used in creation.

Either way, people believe what they want and what suits them better. That's the only explanation I can find for nutcase religions that believe aliens are coming to get them or that homosexuals should be murdered (just to give a couple of examples).

So, would you say that there actually is no substantial reasoning for the existance of God apart from the faulty "God of the gaps" theory or those based on assumptions that the Bible is accurate? I think I am starting to think this way.

 

[leibowde84]

Because I listened to Dinesh Dasouza last night in a debate and he was pathetic. He was debating a scientist, and Dinesh refused to acknowledge that his entire argument was based on the assumption that if science can't explain something now, it will never be able to.

 

[SkylarHunter]

So, would you say that there actually is no substantial reasoning for the existance of God apart from the faulty "God of the gaps" theory or those based on assumptions that the Bible is accurate? I think I am starting to think this way.

No. There are plenty of good reasons to believe in an extremely intelligent and creative brain behind the universe.

Some people believe in God because that's what makes sense to them (myself included), some people allegedly believe in God because whatever culture they were born into says so and others don't believe at all.

Saying that God doesn't exist based on science is dumb. Saying that because science hasn't found all the answers means that they don't exist, is just as dumb.

Science and the existence of a creator are not incompatible. People just decided that every time a new question comes up they should make up their own answer, tag it under "it must have been like that", and sell it as a fact. Both theists and atheists do that.

 

[leibowde84]

No. There are plenty of good reasons to believe in an extremely intelligent and creative brain behind the universe.

Some people believe in God because that's what makes sense to them (myself included), some people allegedly believe in God because whatever culture they were born into says so and others don't believe at all.

Saying that God doesn't exist based on science is dumb. Saying that because science hasn't found all the answers means that they don't exist, is just as dumb.

Science and the existence of a creator are not incompatible. People just decided that every time a new question comes up they should make up their own answer, tag it under "it must have been like that", and sell it as a fact. Both theists and atheists do that.

I never said anything of the sort. I believe in God for my own personal reasons. I was merely curious to see whether anyone here had an objective argument for the existane of God that wasn't flawed in the usual ways. Apparently, you are saying that one does not exist.

 

[SkylarHunter]

I never said anything of the sort. I believe in God for my own personal reasons. I was merely curious to see whether anyone here had an objective argument for the existane of God that wasn't flawed in the usual ways. Apparently, you are saying that one does not exist.

As long as there are people who only believe what they can see or demonstrate in a physical way, I don't think there will ever be a perfect argument. that's what faith is about.

 

[leibowde84]

As long as there are people who only believe what they can see or demonstrate in a physical way, I don't think there will ever be a perfect argument. that's what faith is about.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[jeager106]

I never said anything of the sort. I believe in God for my own personal reasons. I was merely curious to see whether anyone here had an objective argument for the existane of God that wasn't flawed in the usual ways. Apparently, you are saying that one does not exist.

Me too. My own personal reasons, which will negate any argument I might be
inclined to present.
Faith.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have been listening to a lot of debates regarding arguments for the existance of God. I have yet to hear one that goes beyond the "God of the gaps" in any way. Basically, the theist argument comes down to this ... if science and our limited brains/minds cannot fathom an explanation for something, it is reasonable to assume that God had something to do with it. The Ontological Argument is a striking example of this. For a long time there was no explanation for what initiated the Big Bang. Now, however, quantum physics has shown us that causation is not needed when looking at extremely small particles.

So, does anyone have an argument for the existence of God apart from personal experience, scripture, faith, or "the God of the gaps" rationale? I look forward to some interesting responses.

1. God-of-the-gaps arguments use gaps in scientific explanation as indicators, or even proof, of God's action and therefore of God's existence. Such arguments propose divine acts in place of natural, scientific causes for phenomena that science cannot yet explain.

Basically, the atheist argument comes down to this ... if science and our limited brains/minds cannot fathom an explanation for something, it is reasonable to assume that it was a fluke.

So they are both arguments from a gap that cannot be directly observed

The difference being- one side acknowledges personal faith, that it can't be proven, the other denies any belief and assumes intellectual superiority
one side allows forces of nature and design working together, the other forbids one without cause
one predicted the universe had a specific creation event, the other predicted it was static/eternal
One is the common conclusion of the vast majority of free thinking humanity that has ever lived, the other has only gained majority acceptance where every other belief is forcibly oppressed

 

[leibowde84]

Basically, the atheist argument comes down to this ... if science and our limited brains/minds cannot fathom an explanation for something, it is reasonable to assume that it was a fluke.

So they are both arguments from a gap that cannot be directly observed

The difference being- one side acknowledges personal faith, that it can't be proven, the other denies any belief and assumes intellectual superiority
one side allows forces of nature and design working together, the other forbids one without cause
one predicted the universe had a specific creation event, the other predicted it was static/eternal
One is the common conclusion of the vast majority of free thinking humanity that has ever lived, the other has only gained majority acceptance where every other belief is forcibly oppressed

That isn't true. The scientific argument (not sure why you coined it an "atheist" argument, as many theists use it) is that if science and our limiited brains/minds cannot fathom an explanation for something, we simply haave not discovered the answer yet. It is basically a lack of assumption, in that science is OK with not knowing YET. Which is a lot better than assuming the supernatural, because science keeps on trying to find the answer instead of settling on God.

In short, science doesn't attempt to fill in the gaps until it actually has a substantial position.

 

[leibowde84]

Basically, the atheist argument comes down to this ... if science and our limited brains/minds cannot fathom an explanation for something, it is reasonable to assume that it was a fluke.

So they are both arguments from a gap that cannot be directly observed

The difference being- one side acknowledges personal faith, that it can't be proven, the other denies any belief and assumes intellectual superiority
one side allows forces of nature and design working together, the other forbids one without cause
one predicted the universe had a specific creation event, the other predicted it was static/eternal
One is the common conclusion of the vast majority of free thinking humanity that has ever lived, the other has only gained majority acceptance where every other belief is forcibly oppressed

It seems so obvious to me that science hasn't come anywhere close to figuring out all of the answers, but it is the best method of doing so. It is alright to say, I don't know, as long as you keep on trying to find the answer.