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

[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

Science in no way denies the possibility of a God. Sure, certain scientists might feel they are sure, but it has in no way been scientifically proven (as that would be a logical falacy - proving a negative). Science is a study of the physical world, so it refuses to assume the supernatural unless it can be adequately proven. In other words, science will not be able to show that a God exists or is reasonable because physical evidence has not been presented as of yet. We used to think that the unmoved mover was a good proof, but that was before we saw uncaused actions in Quantum Physics/Mechanics. This is a great example too. Currently, we cannot explain why Quantum Mechanics has different laws than everything else, but I'm sure that one day we will figure it out. But, it would be crazy to just assume that God made the laws and gave up on searching. Right?

 

[Sapiens]

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)

Science has no firm answer, yet, as to how life arose and may, in fact, never reach a firm answer. The bible has an answer, but it is one the is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, but that will never change, even in the face of clearly contradictory information. I'll go with the former.

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.

The answer, example, information that you are looking for does not, will not, can not, exist. Religion as an explanation and is not seeking new data nor testing new hypothesis. That explanation does not hold up, but religion says it must be accepted "on faith." Yet, as Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

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.

Can you point to such evidence in some way or another that does not require an argument from ignorance?

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.

Your "experiences" are outside of the normal range, anecdotal and unsupportable.

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).

I'd just say that it appears extremely unlikely that god(s) exist and that they are not necessary to advance a reasonable and rather coherent cosmology and taxonomy.

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.

"God(s) of the gaps" seems to be about all there is on that side of the equation.

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.

There are lots of things through the history of man that "made sense" to people but that turned out to be dead wrong. Claiming that something "makes sense" is not a form of evidence.

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.

See my earlier Twain quote concerning "faith."

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

No, your description of the argument is quite incorrect. The argument is simply that, first of all it is illogical to attempt to prove non-existence and secondly the only arguments that have been advanced for a god's existence flounder on the shoals of logical fallacies.

 

[leibowde84]

Science has no firm answer, yet, as to how life arose and may, in fact, never reach a firm answer. The bible has an answer, but it is one the is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, but that will never change, even in the face of clearly contradictory information. I'll go with the former.

The answer, example, information that you are looking for does not, will not, can not, exist. Religion as an explanation and is not seeking new data nor testing new hypothesis. That explanation does not hold up, but religion says it must be accepted "on faith." Yet, as Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Can you point to such evidence in some way or another that does not require an argument from ignorance?

Your "experiences" are outside of the normal range, anecdotal and unsupportable.

I'd just say that it appears extremely unlikely that god(s) exist and that they are not necessary to advance a reasonable and rather coherent cosmology and taxonomy.

"God(s) of the gaps" seems to be about all there is on that side of the equation.

There are lots of things through the history of man that "made sense" to people but that turned out to be dead wrong. Claiming that something "makes sense" is not a form of evidence.

See my earlier Twain quote concerning "faith."

No, your description of the argument is quite incorrect. The argument is simply that, first of all it is illogical to attempt to prove non-existence and secondly the only arguments that have been advanced for a god's existence flounder on the shoals of logical fallacies.

Thanks, buddy. Great comment!

 

[Quintessence]

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.

So... you do recognize that with these restrictions, you've basically eliminated all other possible arguments, right? Even philosophical arguments and logical proofs rest on, to some extent, faith. Because of this, I'm really not sure what I'm allowed to post here.

 

[leibowde84]

So... you do recognize that with these restrictions, you've basically eliminated all other possible arguments, right? Even philosophical arguments and logical proofs rest on, to some extent, faith. Because of this, I'm really not sure what I'm allowed to post here.

I should have clarified. By "faith" I meant faith in the supernatural.

 

[Quintessence]

I should have clarified. By "faith" I meant faith in the supernatural.

Fair enough, though that raises some other questions, such as what "supernatural" is. Let's shelf that for the moment, though.

-*-*-*-​

I think that one's ontological philosophy plays a major role in how we approach answering these kinds of questions. To answer "does X exist" we must first answer "what does it mean for something to exist?" The manner in which people define reality and existence varies, and disagreement here perhaps forms the crux of any argumentation about the existence of god(s). What one person accepts as existing or real is not what another will accept.

In my case, I answer the question "what does it mean for something to exist" with "I can experience or know it in any fashion." If I can even ask the question "does X exist" the answer is an automatic yes. Asking about X requires one have an idea or concept of X in mind, and concepts not only exist, but have tremendous power. I don't ask questions like "does X exist," I ask questions like "in what manner can I experience and know X?" and "what is the nature of X, as I am able to experience and know it?" Although everything exists, things do not exist in the same fashion to the beholder. This cup I'm staring at on my desk exists, to me, as a physical presence and also has symbolism and ideas associated with it. Something is not less real or less existing to me if it happens to lack a physical presence; it simply exists in a different fashion.

-*-*-*-​

The other thing that plays a major role in how we approach answering the question of god(s) is how we go about defining god(s). Depending on how we go about defining god(s), we can easily box ourselves into a particular set of conclusions as they are the only thing that can follow from the premises we set up. Setting aside the ontological issues about what it means to exist, we must be explicit regarding the understanding of god(s) we're talking about in order to make a decent assessment.

My baseline definition of god(s) is that which a person or culture deems worthy of worship. And, by worship, I mean regarding as worthy - worthy of celebration, worthy of awe, worthy of value, worthy of reverence, what have you. To deify something is to make it sacred. People don't deify things that they don't believe exist. I find it perfectly reasonable to allow others to deify and worship what they want to, as these things obviously exist in some meaningful way for them. Whether or not it exists meaningfully to me is irrelevant; they to their path and me to mine. But in my case, I regard everything as worthy of worship, or as sacred and valuable. I deify everything. I don't actively worship everything, of course, but most things I worship are aspects that virtually anyone would consider real and existing, regardless of ontology. Others may not deify things like storm, sun, learning, and elements. That's fine.

-*-*-*-​

Does this qualify as an argument for the existence of god(s) that meets your criteria? I don't know. I don't even particularly care; your way of life is your affair. God(s) is just a word. The words we slap on things are far less important than the content beneath them. I know of no one that has no sacred things, no things of worth-ship in their life. I do not care if they call those things god(s) or not. That these things are there and contribute positive meaningfulness to their lives is what is important, not the labels. Pardon the lengthy drivel, and kudos if you took the time to actually read it.

 

[Sunstone]

Mystical experiences of oneness -- which some folks call, "experiences of god" -- provide weak evidence for the existence of deity. People often say that such evidence is anecdotal, and that's true in so far as it goes, but it is not logical grounds on which to dismiss the evidence outright.

An analogy might be to ask how many people have experienced Paris. Out of the seven billion or so people alive today, only a small fraction of people could attest from first hand experience to know that Paris exists. Yet, the fact the evidence for the existence of Paris is anecdotal, does nothing to suggest that Paris is a fiction.

On the other hand, there are several reasons for considering mystical experiences to amount to only weak evidence for deity. One of those reasons is that mystical experiences are apparently not intersubjectively verifiable. Some other reasons would require more technical explanations.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science in no way denies the possibility of a God. Sure, certain scientists might feel they are sure, but it has in no way been scientifically proven (as that would be a logical falacy - proving a negative). Science is a study of the physical world, so it refuses to assume the supernatural unless it can be adequately proven. In other words, science will not be able to show that a God exists or is reasonable because physical evidence has not been presented as of yet. We used to think that the unmoved mover was a good proof, but that was before we saw uncaused actions in Quantum Physics/Mechanics. This is a great example too. Currently, we cannot explain why Quantum Mechanics has different laws than everything else, but I'm sure that one day we will figure it out. But, it would be crazy to just assume that God made the laws and gave up on searching. Right?

science is great, it's atheism that has lead us astray. The big questions have clearly been battles between science and atheism

a static universe was preferred for making God redundant (no creation = no creator) the primeval atom being mocked as 'big bang' for being too theistic
similarly with steady state, Big crunch etc
classical physics similarly was embraced for 'leaving no room' for God, no 'mysterious unpredictable forces' underlying nature

It's no coincidence that Lemaitre and Planck were notable. skeptics of atheism.
we do not assume, we follow the evidence where it points, we logically deduce that an intelligent creator is more probable than fluke

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Science has no firm answer, yet, as to how life arose and may, in fact, never reach a firm answer. The bible has an answer, but it is one the is unsupported by any evidence whatsoever, but that will never change, even in the face of clearly contradictory information. I'll go with the former.

The answer, example, information that you are looking for does not, will not, can not, exist. Religion as an explanation and is not seeking new data nor testing new hypothesis. That explanation does not hold up, but religion says it must be accepted "on faith." Yet, as Mark Twain said, "Faith is believing what you know ain't so."

Can you point to such evidence in some way or another that does not require an argument from ignorance?

Your "experiences" are outside of the normal range, anecdotal and unsupportable.

I'd just say that it appears extremely unlikely that god(s) exist and that they are not necessary to advance a reasonable and rather coherent cosmology and taxonomy.

"God(s) of the gaps" seems to be about all there is on that side of the equation.

There are lots of things through the history of man that "made sense" to people but that turned out to be dead wrong. Claiming that something "makes sense" is not a form of evidence.

See my earlier Twain quote concerning "faith."

No, your description of the argument is quite incorrect. The argument is simply that, first of all it is illogical to attempt to prove non-existence and secondly the only arguments that have been advanced for a god's existence flounder on the shoals of logical fallacies.

atheism is far more based on assumption, because it's followers rarely even acknowledge their positive assertion- it is assumed to be a 'default' explanation, with no burden of proof!

Theists are always willing and able to defend their own assertions on their own merits, not simply assume 'i'm right till you prove me wrong' as atheists do

 

[Excaljnur]

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

I have a serious problem with this post and I intend to respond to it differently. What I believe is the most basic "atheist argument" is the answer to the question: Should we hold beliefs on insufficient evidence? The answer is no, unless the belief is necessary. There are beliefs that we must hold on insufficient evidence in order to live without every moment of our lives consisting of systematic reflection of global skepticism. You don't need proof that the bus will arrive to pick you up or that your car will start every morning when you turn the key, but we must assume and naturally do assume that certain things will happen despite having insufficient proof. So consider God as either a necessary or unnecessary belief. The best proof that indicates the belief in God is unnecessary is the fact that millions of people live their daily routines without even a single subtle fleeting presence of God in their mind. Also, that these people have lived entire ethical, meaningful, and even spiritual lives without the belief in God. Understanding the reason why the belief in God is unnecessary may lead you to understand why atheists have often compared the belief in God to the belief in a flying spaghetti monster. Both are unnecessary.

Understanding that the belief in God is fundamentally unnecessary, it is also important to understand how people have made religions or worldviews based on God's existence. Knowing how to live ethical and meaningful lives, even spiritual, is difficult, but putting it in the context of a religion, it becomes more structured and easier to apply to your life. For this reason, the belief that religion or God is necessary for people to live ethical and meaningful lives is epidemic. And as a result of such a widespread use of structured contexts (religions and worldviews) for how to live ethical and meaningful lives, religions and similar worldviews have become so embedded in our social lives that to merely discover a structure dependent belief is unnecessary leads to a domino effect of more discoveries of unnecessary beliefs and a consequent revelation that the culture you live in holds obscene beliefs as true facts or values.

That is how I'd explain the most basic "atheist argument".

 

[Sapiens]

atheism is far more based on assumption, because it's followers rarely even acknowledge their positive assertion- it is assumed to be a 'default' explanation, with no burden of proof!

Theists are always willing and able to defend their own assertions on their own merits, not simply assume 'i'm right till you prove me wrong' as atheists do

I understand that you find it frustrating, but the default hypothesis is "no god(s)" since it is impossible to prove, but possible to falsify. As yet, it has not been falsified and so it stands. While theists may be willing to defend their assertions, the will is strong, but the flesh is weak ... they've yet to advance any argument that is not, at it's base, "I say so" or a logical fallacy.

 

[McBell]

Theists are always willing and able to defend their own assertions on their own merits, not simply assume 'i'm right till you prove me wrong' as atheists do

Nope.
Not even close.
Though I do understand you have to convince yourself of this bold empty lie.

 

[leibowde84]

science is great, it's atheism that has lead us astray. The big questions have clearly been battles between science and atheism

a static universe was preferred for making God redundant (no creation = no creator) the primeval atom being mocked as 'big bang' for being too theistic
similarly with steady state, Big crunch etc
classical physics similarly was embraced for 'leaving no room' for God, no 'mysterious unpredictable forces' underlying nature

It's no coincidence that Lemaitre and Planck were notable. skeptics of atheism.
we do not assume, we follow the evidence where it points, we logically deduce that an intelligent creator is more probable than fluke

Why do you keep using the word "fluke?" That is incorrect, as no scientists claim this. Can you explain what you mean specifically to correct your comment?

 

[leibowde84]

atheism is far more based on assumption, because it's followers rarely even acknowledge their positive assertion- it is assumed to be a 'default' explanation, with no burden of proof!

Theists are always willing and able to defend their own assertions on their own merits, not simply assume 'i'm right till you prove me wrong' as atheists do

I am a Christian/Theist, but I would have to say that the burden should always be on those that claim the supernatural as a cause. A lack of explanation is in no way proof of the supernatural. Looking at our lack of understanding throughout history, it would seem more reasonable to assume that we just haven't figured it out yet.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

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.

I've yet to see an argument that doesn't fail in the way you describe.

I realized a while back that most of the classical arguments for God share a fatal flaw: at the end of an argument for some arcane thing, they tack on "... and we call this 'God'."

It would be more accurate to say "... and this implies the existence of at least one member of a category of things, and to the best of our knowledge, God may be a member of this category."

 

[Nakosis]

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.

No, pretty much any argument requires an assumption of experience, scripture or faith.

 

[leibowde84]

No, pretty much any argument requires an assumption of experience, scripture or faith.

Yep. Haven't seen one yet. But anything is possible.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I have a serious problem with this post and I intend to respond to it differently. What I believe is the most basic "atheist argument" is the answer to the question: Should we hold beliefs on insufficient evidence? The answer is no, unless the belief is necessary. There are beliefs that we must hold on insufficient evidence in order to live without every moment of our lives consisting of systematic reflection of global skepticism. You don't need proof that the bus will arrive to pick you up or that your car will start every morning when you turn the key, but we must assume and naturally do assume that certain things will happen despite having insufficient proof. So consider God as either a necessary or unnecessary belief. The best proof that indicates the belief in God is unnecessary is the fact that millions of people live their daily routines without even a single subtle fleeting presence of God in their mind. Also, that these people have lived entire ethical, meaningful, and even spiritual lives without the belief in God. Understanding the reason why the belief in God is unnecessary may lead you to understand why atheists have often compared the belief in God to the belief in a flying spaghetti monster. Both are unnecessary.

Understanding that the belief in God is fundamentally unnecessary, it is also important to understand how people have made religions or worldviews based on God's existence. Knowing how to live ethical and meaningful lives, even spiritual, is difficult, but putting it in the context of a religion, it becomes more structured and easier to apply to your life. For this reason, the belief that religion or God is necessary for people to live ethical and meaningful lives is epidemic. And as a result of such a widespread use of structured contexts (religions and worldviews) for how to live ethical and meaningful lives, religions and similar worldviews have become so embedded in our social lives that to merely discover a structure dependent belief is unnecessary leads to a domino effect of more discoveries of unnecessary beliefs and a consequent revelation that the culture you live in holds obscene beliefs as true facts or values.

That is how I'd explain the most basic "atheist argument".

I'd respond more if I had time but..

It's certainly debatable that religion does not aid in morals, before Christianity the most advanced civilizations considered watching people suffer and die horribly- the height of civilized entertainment.
The vast majority of modern day atheists are no more than a generation or two separated from the learning of explicitly faith based morals, i.e saying you don't need them is a little like the heir of a vast fortune boasting that they don't need to work for a living- while reducing their wealth every day

But believing in flukes is no more necessary than believing in the flying spaghetti multiverse, and no better supported, so again that argument is a wash.

We all believe in something because we are curious, that in itself is difficult to explain occurring for no reason. 'curiosity has it's own reason for being' as Einstein said..

 

[Guy Threepwood]

Why do you keep using the word "fluke?" That is incorrect, as no scientists claim this. Can you explain what you mean specifically to correct your comment?

you could ask Hawking - he considers that a practically infinite number of multiverses would be required to fluke this one into existence

 

[Guy Threepwood]

I am a Christian/Theist, but I would have to say that the burden should always be on those that claim the supernatural as a cause. A lack of explanation is in no way proof of the supernatural. Looking at our lack of understanding throughout history, it would seem more reasonable to assume that we just haven't figured it out yet.

the big bang was considered fundamentally supernatural- beyond our understanding of nature- , the idea of a beginning of time and space was considered 'repugnant' - theistic nonsense. All that didn't make steady state any more valid.

Moreover to claim the origins of nature are not supernatural by definition- is to say that the laws of nature are ultimately accounted for by.. those very same laws. Not only is that not a safe assumption, it's an inherent paradox unique to atheist belief is it not?