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

[Guy Threepwood]

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.

"]I understand that you find it frustrating, but the default hypothesis is "no naturalistic mechanism(s)" yup. it works just as well that way around, which is to say- not at all. Because we have no reference for how universes are 'usually' made, so there are no defaults, each explanation must stand on it's own merits if they have any

 

[Sapiens]

"]I understand that you find it frustrating, but the default hypothesis is "no naturalistic mechanism(s)" yup. it works just as well that way around, which is to say- not at all. Because we have no reference for how universes are 'usually' made, so there are no defaults, each explanation must stand on it's own merits if they have any

No, that is illogical because it is falsified by all the naturalistic mechanism(s) we have discovered and described. Sorry, but the playing field is no longer level, hasn't been since ancient Greece, at least.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

No, that is illogical because it is falsified by all the naturalistic mechanism(s) we have discovered and described. Sorry, but the playing field is no longer level, hasn't been since ancient Greece, at least.

if you haven't noticed, atheism isn't even on the scientific playing field any more, multiverses, M theories etc are all inherently unfalsifiable, i.e. unscientific. every remotely testable theory was debunked one by one. apologies for that, nothing personal!

 

[Sapiens]

if you haven't noticed, atheism isn't even on the scientific playing field any more, multiverses, M theories etc are all inherently unfalsifiable, i.e. unscientific. every remotely testable theory was debunked one by one. apologies for that, nothing personal!

The first thing a good scientist must learn is that there is no need to apologize for not yet having discovered the answer. The second thing is to not jump into the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance whilst waiting for a rational natural answer, for that is what the divines who are concerned about that concern themselves with such foolishness as the volume and mass of mythical beings and how many of them can dance upon 10^^22 barns.

 

[Guy Threepwood]

The second thing is to not jump into the logical fallacy of an argument from ignorance whilst waiting for a rational natural answer, .

Perhaps a brief history of science versus atheism of the gaps is in order

atheism: "there could not have been a God because the universe is static, eternal, no creation so no creator- the idea that there was a specific creation event is theistic nonsense.

science: looks like there was a specific creation event

atheism: well, it only looks like that, but really it's an illusion of 'steady state'

science: no, there really was a beginning

atheism. (eventually) OK... then it's only one beginning out of an infinite cycle, the universe will collapse in a big crunch and start again- so no God needed!

science: no, the universe looks like expanding indefinitely

atheism, dang it, OK, how about the universe came from an invisible infinite probability machine which made an infinite number of random universes so it would HAVE to make this one eventually?

science: sorry, that's not even a theory.

 

[Sapiens]

Perhaps a brief history of science versus atheism of the gaps is in order

atheism: "there could not have been a God because the universe is static, eternal, no creation so no creator- the idea that there was a specific creation event is theistic nonsense.

science: looks like there was a specific creation event

atheism: well, it only looks like that, but really it's an illusion of 'steady state'

science: no, there really was a beginning

atheism. (eventually) OK... then it's only one beginning out of an infinite cycle, the universe will collapse in a big crunch and start again- so no God needed!

science: no, the universe looks like expanding indefinitely

atheism, dang it, OK, how about the universe came from an invisible infinite probability machine which made an infinite number of random universes so it would HAVE to make this one eventually?

science: sorry, that's not even a theory.

More of your stupid strawman stuff, boring. Come back when you actually have something to say.

 

[McBell]

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

So are you saying the reason you use the word fluke is because Hawking used it?

Sad really.

 

[leibowde84]

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?

I get your point, and it's a good one. By supernatual, for all intents and purposes, I was referring to an unsubstantiated ending point. I guess I think that is the ultimate flaw or negative.

 

[leibowde84]

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

Enlighten me. What does it mean specifically?

 

[leibowde84]

if you haven't noticed, atheism isn't even on the scientific playing field any more, multiverses, M theories etc are all inherently unfalsifiable, i.e. unscientific. every remotely testable theory was debunked one by one. apologies for that, nothing personal!

Lol. Isn't that just scientific progress ... continually figuring out our assumptions are wrong?

 

[McBell]

Lol. Isn't that just scientific progress ... continually figuring out our assumptions are wrong?

Not only figuring it out something was gotten wrong, but admitting it was wrong and correcting it.

Three things religion tends to be severely lacking...

 

[Bunyip]

Interesting thread indeed.

I doubt that you will find any arguments for the existence of god that fit your criteria.

 

[George-ananda]

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

It's not 'my' experiences but those of many others. And I already said they were out of the normal range. You can support a position from anecdotal evidence by studying the data for things like quantity, quality, similarities, etc.

 

[George-ananda]

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

I am comfortable that the position I hold is based on my best fair analysis of a range of 'beyond the normal' human experiences. I'm not sure what you expect; someone to give you OBJECTIVE scientific evidence for God that you can't call 'God of the gaps'? Essentially impossible and you already know that.

 

[Bunyip]

It's not 'my' experiences but those of many others. And I already said they were out of the normal range. You can support a position from anecdotal evidence by studying the data for things like quantity, quality, similarities, etc.

That is very true. But in this case itis in studying the data that we learn it to be unreliable - those sorts of experiences are diverse and attributed to thousands of different conceptions of god. The reason why they can not be seen as evidence is precisely because they all contradict each other. And thus can not all be true.

 

[George-ananda]

That is very true. But in this case itis in studying the data that we learn it to be unreliable - those sorts of experiences are diverse and attributed to thousands of different conceptions of god. The reason why they can not be seen as evidence is precisely because they all contradict each other. And thus can not all be true.

As part of the anecdotal data analysis one considers as I said the 'quality' of the data. I don't find the 'quality' of the data to be as unreliable and random as you wish to portray it. In fact, I found it supporting the worldview of one of the great wisdom traditions of man that concerns itself with things beyond which current science can reach. It addresses the question of the nature and origin of experience.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

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.

The God of the gaps argument is actually basically correct. Science currently explains things in terms of it being forced, leaving gaps where freedom may be relevant. God the holy spirit, as well as the human spirit, choose. Without freedom, no holy spirit, and no human spirit.

The idea suggested that everything in the universe is forced, is non-sensical. In the end we will see that the existence of the entire universe is conditional. That it may be, or not be, that it is chosen. There might be a different planet, a different star. There might be no stars, there might not be anything at all, it is all chosen. What is forced is simply the consequence of a decision.

 

[McBell]

As part of the anecdotal data analysis one considers as I said the 'quality' of the data. I don't find the 'quality' of the data to be as unreliable and random as you wish to portray it. In fact, I found it supporting the worldview of one of the great wisdom traditions of man that concerns itself with things beyond which current science can reach. It addresses the question of the nature and origin of experience.

Appeal to authority?
What happens when no one else agrees with the authority you impart?

 

[Bunyip]

As part of the anecdotal data analysis one considers as I said the 'quality' of the data. I don't find the 'quality' of the data to be as unreliable and random as you wish to portray it. In fact, I found it supporting the worldview of one of the great wisdom traditions of man that concerns itself with things beyond which current science can reach. It addresses the question of the nature and origin of experience.

Sure, and that is where we differ. That is also where you and science differ.

 

[George-ananda]

Sure, and that is where we differ. That is also where you and science differ.

I don't differ from science. I'm also concerned with subjects beyond the domain of current mainstream science.