• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

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

D

Deadtroopers

Member
leibowde84 said:
I merely said that the most reliable source of objective information is the scientific method. It is certainly not the only one.
Click to expand...

What other sources of objective information would there be then? have they proven to be objectively reliable? How have they been so proven? and would they pass the "I would get in that car or be launched in that rocket" test? I think you will find that you are proving these other so-callled "reliable" sources by nothing other than the scientific method and so they are redundant qua Ockham's Razor.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Deadtroopers said:
What other sources of objective information would there be then? have they proven to be objectively reliable? How have they been so proven? and would they pass the "I would get in that car or be launched in that rocket" test? I think you will find that you are proving these other so-callled "reliable" sources by nothing other than the scientific method and so they are redundant qua Ockham's Razor.
Click to expand...
I meant that it is not the only source of information in general. Sorry.
 
D

Deadtroopers

Member
leibowde84 said:
I guess ... doesn't do too much for theoretical or abstract (philosophical) concepts.
Click to expand...
Religion is what we do when we do not have Philosophy. Philosophy is what we do when we do not have Science. I have answered my own interjections. Philosophy's musings may prove to have an objective viability but you would not get in that car much less that rocket. Platon and Marx were philosophers; many got in their rockets. They only succeeded in killing themselves and millions of others.
 
D

Deadtroopers

Member
leibowde84 said:
That's the thing. Information doesn't have to be "verified" to be beneficial, imho. Even using the scientific method, we have been wrong about many things.
Click to expand...
Being wrong about many things is the very definition of a scientist. All science is provisional. We know most of what scientists posit is wrong now. All of it will be wrong in the future. Newton was wrong but is still close enough for Jazz. The map can never be the territory.
 
Unification

Unification

Well-Known Member
leibowde84 said:
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.
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    187.8 KB · Views: 100
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    18.3 KB · Views: 106
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    14.5 KB · Views: 108
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    15.2 KB · Views: 93
  • image.jpg
    image.jpg
    38.5 KB · Views: 96
Unification

Unification

Well-Known Member
leibowde84 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Deductive logic. Eliminate all of the things that "God" is not.

A study of the human brain and comparing it the cosmos is pretty interesting. It's like the cosmos has been duplicated in our brains. Mini-universe brains to ginormous universe brain.
 
Bunyip

Bunyip

pro scapegoat
Unification said:
Deductive logic. Eliminate all of the things that "God" is not.

A study of the human brain and comparing it the cosmos is pretty interesting. It's like the cosmos has been duplicated in our brains. Mini-universe brains to ginormous universe brain.
Click to expand...
That is just re-stating the 'god of the gaps' fallacy.
 
BilliardsBall

BilliardsBall

Veteran Member
leibowde84 said:
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.
Click to expand...

1. As a Christian, I do not believe in a god who reveals Himself to everyone, always. I believe God reveals Himself to people are who seeking truth. Therefore, He hasn't left any giant stele like a pyramid-sized stone in the middle of NYC with His name on it.

2. What evidence would constitute a gap argument that you would accept as a non-gap argument? In other words, can YOU name a type of non-personal, non-scripture evidence that YOU would HAVE to say is God? God could appear to you tomorrow and then leave and you can tell your friends you were hallucinating... and?

3. WHY isn't personal experience valid? Do you have a BETTER way to empirically prove that you exist, or that I exist?

4. WHY isn't scripture evidence valid? The rabbis have known for millennia that secret prophecies and predictions appear both in the text and secretly encoded in the text. The NT alone has a dozen authors talking about Jesus, not one unverifiable author.
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
Deadtroopers said:
Being wrong about many things is the very definition of a scientist. All science is provisional. We know most of what scientists posit is wrong now. All of it will be wrong in the future. Newton was wrong but is still close enough for Jazz. The map can never be the territory.
Click to expand...
I agree. But, if science is OK with being wrong, why not philosophy/theology?
 
leibowde84

leibowde84

Veteran Member
BilliardsBall said:
1. As a Christian, I do not believe in a god who reveals Himself to everyone, always. I believe God reveals Himself to people are who seeking truth. Therefore, He hasn't left any giant stele like a pyramid-sized stone in the middle of NYC with His name on it.

2. What evidence would constitute a gap argument that you would accept as a non-gap argument? In other words, can YOU name a type of non-personal, non-scripture evidence that YOU would HAVE to say is God? God could appear to you tomorrow and then leave and you can tell your friends you were hallucinating... and?

3. WHY isn't personal experience valid? Do you have a BETTER way to empirically prove that you exist, or that I exist?

4. WHY isn't scripture evidence valid? The rabbis have known for millennia that secret prophecies and predictions appear both in the text and secretly encoded in the text. The NT alone has a dozen authors talking about Jesus, not one unverifiable author.
Click to expand...
1. So, why are members of other faiths who sincerely are "seeking truth" not able to find Jesus, in the way you describe. It seems like an unreasonable request for people not coming from Christian communities.

2. Any argument claiming that a lack of explanation from the opposing side is somehow proof for its own validity is an argument from ignorance or a "God of the gaps argument." They attempt to get around reasoning by merely disregarding the fact that, just because the scientific method has not provided an explanation for something, it is completely reasonable to assume that some day it might be able to.

3. The question of existence is a tough one, but one that is not worth getting held up on too much. We know what we see, and we can verify our experience objectively by verifying it with the experience of others (the cup is there because we both see it and can describe it in detail). Subjective experience that is not objective (visible to anyone else) can only be taken seriously to the extent that you trust the person claiming it. On this site, I don't know anyone personally and, thus, am not fond of taking anyone's word for it on anything. I am constantly searching for answers, and I am not willing to settle on what might be an illusion when the truth might be attainable later on.

4. The Bible, for example, is not written by 1 unverified authors, it is written by many unverified authors, each working off the Gospels written before it. Comparing Gospel to Gospel does not provide validity because it is completely reasonablee to assume that they used each other for information. There is no concrete evidence pointing to any of the Gospels being written by anyone with first hand knowledge of Jesus.
 
viole

viole

Ontological Naturalist
Premium Member
BilliardsBall said:
1. As a Christian, I do not believe in a god who reveals Himself to everyone, always. I believe God reveals Himself to people are who seeking truth.
Click to expand...

Do you think that only Christians are truth seekers, or do you think that Hinduism, for instance, is the result of God revealing Himself, as well?

In case of the former: why are truth seekers so unequally distributed geographically?

In case of the latter: why is God doing such a poor job in revealing Himself in a consistent way?

Ciao

- viole
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top