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

[idea]

Arguments for the existence of God - The best one is within the nature of what currently exists, the nature of what life itself is - within the existence of free will.

Free will is the result of our eternal, uncreated spirit. We are more than our DNA (to say it all boils down to DNA - to the color of our skin, and the genealogy of our family - this is racist, and everyone knows racism is evil because a big part of who we are is not created by our genetic makeup)... Not all from DNA - then does our environment account for the rest of it? No - although our environment has some influence, it is not all controlling. Teenagers rebel against their "environment", people rise above, or sink beneath what their environment tries to dictate to them... There is part of us that comes from neither DNA, nor from environment - more than nature/nurture - there is a spirit within us. Our spirit accounts for our free will, for that part of us that did not come from nature or nurture. The spirit within each of us testifies to the existence of such things as spirits, and therefore to the existence of God.

 

[Shad]

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.

Try to use arguments from the last 2 decades maybe.

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.

No it is not no more than stating fairies started the universe. God of the gaps is a variant of an argument from ignorance Anyone can use a gap fallacy to propose anything they want. You again display you do not understand logic nor philosophy.

 

[Shad]

The cosmological argument for God's existence comes from Thomas Aquinas as explained by Etienne Gilson, not the famous 5 ways. It is based on the observation that humans have free will. This means humans are finite beings and finite beings need a cause. Hence an infinite being exists. In Western religions we call the infinite being God.
There is another argument. Some people are hardworking and thrifty. Others are lazy and have no money in the bank. They have different values. You can't say one is right and the other is wrong. But suppose on person likes to kill innocent people and another is repulsed by this. If it is true that murder is a sin, then God exists.

Outdated ideas in light of recent developments. We are in the 21st century not the 12th. Also Thomas Aquinas' arguments are based on Aristotle so this further pushes back the methodology used to 400BCE. One can say the argument is wrong when new data shows the premises are false.

 

[Midget01]

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.

If you are looking for someone to prove it too you; you may never find Him. You have to have the experience to truly believe. Man wants to think everything has an explanation and that is not a truism in science either. Yet God is obvious in right in front of everything you do, see and are. While we are not puppets we can do nothing without him. Man can not create anything on his own. One would say well he makes computers, cars etc. but all of these things began with a brain. We joke that if you put enough monkey's in a room they can create things but the spark of the original idea came from somewhere. Do you know that science began with men who priests and Monks ( Religious Thinkers trying to explain the Universe and God). Then it became secular and now science realized they can not explain anything. They have went from one extreme to another and we now realize we know less than what we thought we knew. Yet there are people with very little education who have a great sense of God. If you like reading try reading the Science before Science. It's a guide for thinking in the 21st. Century by Anthony Rizzi. Perhaps he can help your doubting soul. I myself don't need proof because I look at life and know He is present. For me it is comforting that no matter what happens He is with me Good or Bad. I have no fear I have God. I am not a religious nut; I don't go around trying to save anyone. I just try to be the best friend I can be a good daughter, sister and I smile at a lot of people on the street and they probably wish they had what I do. I will answer questions about my belief but I am not usually the first person to speak and I don't argue. I guess one could say I am at peace if that means anything to you. I just hate to hear people that there is no God because to me it means they have given up on Him while He is still there waiting for them to turn to Him. He doesn't push or want to force a belief. Perhaps some humans in churches do and that is not necessarily God. I am a member of the BIG ONE - the Catholic Church and I know like many churches we are made up of sinners.;after all would you find healthy people in a hospital. No matter what church you look at there are some who have it and others who wish they had it and then there are those who use the church to look good to others. Then the last group is those who want to mess up the church and say they don't believe in that sort of thing. Because God gave us choices and even He won't try to manipulate us He allows us to turn away from Him. So it's your choice whether to dig deeper or not; but remember you were the one who brought up the question. Peace Shalom Salaam Midget01

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

Try to use arguments from the last 2 decades maybe.




No it is not no more than stating fairies started the universe. God of the gaps is a variant of an argument from ignorance Anyone can use a gap fallacy to propose anything they want. You again display you do not understand logic nor philosophy.

Try addressing argumentation instead of huffing and puffing your authority.

 

[Shad]

Try addressing argumentation instead of huffing and puffing your authority.

No need as the argumentation contains fallacious thinking thus is invalid.

 

[Mohammad Nur Syamsu]

No need as the argumentation contains fallacious thinking thus is invalid.

...you need to actually demonstrate the error in the argumentation. Just saying it is false, or saying it is false because of some argument which does not apply to the argumentation presented, is just huffing and puffing your authority.

 

[Sapiens]

...you need to actually demonstrate the error in the argumentation. Just saying it is false, or saying it is false because of some argument which does not apply to the argumentation presented, is just huffing and puffing your authority.

In most cases I'd agree, in your case I'd make a glaring exception.

 

[Shad]

...you need to actually demonstrate the error in the argumentation. Just saying it is false, or saying it is false because of some argument which does not apply to the argumentation presented, is just huffing and puffing your authority.

You embraced the fallacy, there is not much more to say. One can use any unfalsifiable concept they wish to explain anything they wish using this fallacious thinking. People can embrace this fallacious thinkin to an absurd level. Lost your car keys? Magical gnomes which science can not prove took them. Merely asserting whatever you want into the gap resolves nothing and is a non-answer.

You also contradict yourself by claiming not everything is forced but chosen then proceed to say everything is forced by a decision thus is still forced.

 

[McBell]

Merely asserting whatever you want into the gap resolves nothing and is a non-answer.

I disagree.
It does in fact make some people feel better....

 

[Shad]

I disagree.
It does in fact make some people feel better....

Which makes it completely subjective and resolves nothing about a truth in reality. It is also an appeal to emotions.

 

[NulliuSINverba]

... it would be crazy to just assume that God made the laws and gave up on searching. Right?

 

[Bunyip]

So I guess my confusion is you talking so seriously about 'science this' and 'science that' and 'George, science would differ with you' attitude.

Example please.

I believe in science and would not hold beliefs in contradiction to science. But with experiences like you say are real and the experiences of an untold million others, I would come to the opinion that science is great but that it cannot answer any of the questions we really want to know and there must mindboggling things beyond its current reach.

Science above all other tools has a long history of answering such questions.
And I would give fair hearing (not blind acceptance) to many masters that claim knowledge of beyond the known physical dimensions.

 

[Bunyip]

Science might make ground at a snail pace through this. And this is fine because science must be rigorous. But I fairly consider if there may be other wisdom traditions that have gone way further down the road (but cannot be independently verified by all with the same rigorousness as western science). We must consider all information and argumentation then in determining our personal beliefs about all this.

Sure George, I consider those things also - you just assumed that I did not, and that I am in denial, and that I irrationally reject evidence. Those were all assumptions of yours that were erroneous.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

In terms of the OP I don't think such arguments exist. The gaps are gradually becoming smaller so God must be feeling a little claustrophobic by now.

 

[leibowde84]

If you are looking for someone to prove it too you; you may never find Him. You have to have the experience to truly believe. Man wants to think everything has an explanation and that is not a truism in science either. Yet God is obvious in right in front of everything you do, see and are. While we are not puppets we can do nothing without him. Man can not create anything on his own. One would say well he makes computers, cars etc. but all of these things began with a brain. We joke that if you put enough monkey's in a room they can create things but the spark of the original idea came from somewhere. Do you know that science began with men who priests and Monks ( Religious Thinkers trying to explain the Universe and God). Then it became secular and now science realized they can not explain anything. They have went from one extreme to another and we now realize we know less than what we thought we knew. Yet there are people with very little education who have a great sense of God. If you like reading try reading the Science before Science. It's a guide for thinking in the 21st. Century by Anthony Rizzi. Perhaps he can help your doubting soul. I myself don't need proof because I look at life and know He is present. For me it is comforting that no matter what happens He is with me Good or Bad. I have no fear I have God. I am not a religious nut; I don't go around trying to save anyone. I just try to be the best friend I can be a good daughter, sister and I smile at a lot of people on the street and they probably wish they had what I do. I will answer questions about my belief but I am not usually the first person to speak and I don't argue. I guess one could say I am at peace if that means anything to you. I just hate to hear people that there is no God because to me it means they have given up on Him while He is still there waiting for them to turn to Him. He doesn't push or want to force a belief. Perhaps some humans in churches do and that is not necessarily God. I am a member of the BIG ONE - the Catholic Church and I know like many churches we are made up of sinners.;after all would you find healthy people in a hospital. No matter what church you look at there are some who have it and others who wish they had it and then there are those who use the church to look good to others. Then the last group is those who want to mess up the church and say they don't believe in that sort of thing. Because God gave us choices and even He won't try to manipulate us He allows us to turn away from Him. So it's your choice whether to dig deeper or not; but remember you were the one who brought up the question. Peace Shalom Salaam Midget01

You are describing faith, which I have. I am more pressed to figure out why there are so many theologans who think they have a rational proof/argument for the existance of God. But I have yet to hear one that is not logically flawed.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

You are describing faith, which I have. I am more pressed to figure out why there are so many theologans who think they have a rational proof/argument for the existance of God. But I have yet to hear one that is not logically flawed.

Me neither.

I remember someone (Matt Dillahunty, I think) remark about how weird it is how many theists like to throw these arguments at atheists as reasons for belief, despite the fact that you can't really find anyone who became a theist because of the modal ontological argument or the kalam cosmological argument. Anyone who presents these arguments to atheists as reasons for faith almost always bases their own faith on something else.

 

[leibowde84]

Have you read these arguments: The Essential Arguments against Atheism « Shantanu Panigrahi's Blog . Would be interested in discussing these with you. Thanks.

I just read them, but they seem to both be flawed in that they are merely "God of the gaps" arguments. In other words, the mere fact that science doesn't have an explanation for something YET should in no way lead someone to the assumption that the cause was supernatural.

 

[leibowde84]

Arguments for the existence of God - The best one is within the nature of what currently exists, the nature of what life itself is - within the existence of free will.

Free will is the result of our eternal, uncreated spirit. We are more than our DNA (to say it all boils down to DNA - to the color of our skin, and the genealogy of our family - this is racist, and everyone knows racism is evil because a big part of who we are is not created by our genetic makeup)... Not all from DNA - then does our environment account for the rest of it? No - although our environment has some influence, it is not all controlling. Teenagers rebel against their "environment", people rise above, or sink beneath what their environment tries to dictate to them... There is part of us that comes from neither DNA, nor from environment - more than nature/nurture - there is a spirit within us. Our spirit accounts for our free will, for that part of us that did not come from nature or nurture. The spirit within each of us testifies to the existence of such things as spirits, and therefore to the existence of God.

1. Why do you think that a naturalistic view of human beings is racist. It seems very misleading to say that "if we are limited by our own DNA, of which outward appearance is a PART, we are racist." Racism requires animocity, not just classifications, so I'm not sure where you are getting this claim from.
2. You mention that we have a "spirit" seperate from our physical bodies (including our brain/mind). What evidence do you have to support this claim?

 

[Koldo]

Me neither.

I remember someone (Matt Dillahunty, I think) remark about how weird it is how many theists like to throw these arguments at atheists as reasons for belief, despite the fact that you can't really find anyone who became a theist because of the modal ontological argument or the kalam cosmological argument. Anyone who presents these arguments to atheists as reasons for faith almost always bases their own faith on something else.

To be fair, I remember reading about a few people who were indeed convinced of god's existence by some arguments ( like the teleological ), however.... all of them became deists. It must be funny to have someone accept your reasoning and yet not believe in the god you do.