God of Gaps is one of God's holy names

[Clara Tea]

Yeah. To you. Now to me, if there was a God, it would not be the God of the Bible. You are doing blaspheme yourself for some other Gods than your God.

We cannot prove the existence of God, nor can we prove that we found the correct God. Or, maybe there are many Gods? Ancient Jews were polytheists. I don't see why other Gods can't still exist.

Surely the real God would be very angry and jealous if we worshipped the wrong God.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

We cannot prove the existence of God, nor can we prove that we found the correct God. Or, maybe there are many Gods? Ancient Jews were polytheists. I don't see why other Gods can't still exist.

Surely the real God would be very angry and jealous if we worshipped the wrong God.

Not certain.

 

[Clara Tea]

Miracles are just the operation of laws that the vast majority don't know about yet.

Take a 14th century person and put him in the 21st century: that strange carriage moves by miracles. Touch a wall and light appears - must be a miracle. A piece of metal flying in the sky like a bird but does not flap it's wings? That is truly a miracle.

Lets pray that the theist will understand your theory of miracles (unknown laws). If they do, it the atheists will say that it is a miracle, and the theists will say..."no it isn't."

 

[Clara Tea]

So, how does one demonstrate for you the legitimacy of these questions:

1. Why does anything exist? (Why do I exist?)
2. Why am I aware of myself existing?
3. Why does existing involve suffering and death?

Are you suggesting that we should simply not ask these questions because we don't have any answers for them that can be "demonstrated" scientifically?
I'm pretty sure I just did that.

When the coyote follows the roadrunner off the edge of a cliff, he suddenly realizes that it violates the rules of physics to float in space, so he plunges to the ground.

Based on that, I worry about asking the question "do I exist." Because, upon asking, I might poof out of existence.

The the Loch Ness movie, with Ted Dansen, Ted said that he'd have to see it to believe it. The little girl said, no sir, you'd have to believe it to see it.

Perhaps observation is about having an open mind?

It might be like Detective Monk at a crime scene. Lt. Stottlemeyer says that he sees the same evidence that Monk sees, but doesn't understand the crime scene. Monk, on the other hand, has a way of perceiving everything. Perhaps some can see more or understand more that leads to different conclusions about the reality of the universe?

 

[PureX]

When the coyote follows the roadrunner off the edge of a cliff, he suddenly realizes that it violates the rules of physics to float in space, so he plunges to the ground.

Based on that, I worry about asking the question "do I exist." Because, upon asking, I might poof out of existence.

But you have asked, and you're still here.

The the Loch Ness movie, with Ted Dansen, Ted said that he'd have to see it to believe it. The little girl said, no sir, you'd have to believe it to see it.

Out of the mouths of babes ...

Perhaps observation is about having an open mind?

Almost certainly.

It might be like Detective Monk at a crime scene. Lt. Stottlemeyer says that he sees the same evidence that Monk sees, but doesn't understand the crime scene. Monk, on the other hand, has a way of perceiving everything. Perhaps some can see more or understand more that leads to different conclusions about the reality of the universe?

No doubt.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So, the nonexistent can be proven by slight of hand and confusion....in much the way that a magician can make you think that trickery is reality.

That is what is happening since the time that a smart chap in stone age said that if he tells the tribe how to double the catch what would the tribe give him?

 

[Aupmanyav]

They are like theists....you don't dare argue with them.

Well, I like to do that, and have a page full of warnings to prove that.

Many scientists that I know (and many that I never met) are devout theists, and they have no difficulty in believing in God and doing science (though some of their relatives are praying that God doesn't zap them out of existence for peeking into God's domain).

That is not reason but tribalism - I was born a .. and I will die as ...

 

[Repox]

Are advances in science constantly pushing God into the dustbin of history?

No, the area of the unknown is expanding faster. 94 percent of matter is Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and nothing is known about them. Unknown, except for me.

The matter is of 4 types, one of them is Invisible Non-Living Matter: Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Another one - Invisible Living Matter: angels, souls of people. Scientific evidence is in the file:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356990154_To_solve_all_problems_and_Quantum_Gravity

So, learning more, mainstream science will either discover God or say: "Reality does not exist - we are in the Matrix. We are all in the Zuserberg Meta-Universe."

Physicists have no idea how Super-Massive Black Holes could appear in all galaxies in a short time. Did God do this miracle? Atheists would reply: "you are not a child to believe in fairies and gods."

I am very glad that children like fairy tales. In general, the world is very similar to a fairy tale, for example, giants and unicorns are mentioned in the Bible. In the Bible, the dead are raised. The UFOs like some flaming fast dragons fly across the sky.

A fairy tale is when both reality and illusion. Illusion is when a logical contradiction, a paradox. Illusion from God is useful and inevitable. And in science, there are such paradoxes that will never be eliminated. For example, the Hilbert's Grand Hotel with an infinite number of guests: more about it (and other illusions) is in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356587583_RIEMANN_HYPOTHESIS_AND_BASIS_OF_KNOWLEDGE

200 as well as 3000 years ago people believed in God of Gaps.
The God of Gaps is there even today - 94% of Universe.
Why today people do not believe in God of Gaps?


If there are no gaps, then the nature can be explained without introducing the idea of God.
But what about the miracles the Jesus has demonstrated?

Ballocks. God of the Gaps is an expressions coined by Professor Charles Coulson, a mathematician, theoretical chemist and Methodist lay preacher, whose lectures I attended in my first year at university. He meant by it the flimsy refuge of religious people who affect to see God in the gaps in our scientific understanding.

A century or so earlier, Cardinal Newman had already pointed out that the Christian who builds his faith on God being behind everything about nature that we don't understand is building his house upon sand. He is liable to have his faith destroyed by each advance in science! So the idea was not new. Coulson just found a pithy way of expressing it.

There is huge contrast between heaven and the universe. In heaven, you may get blinded with light. In the universe, you need a powerful light to see in the dark. Why the big difference? Oh, yes, in the universe dark matter and dark energy constitute about 94% of everything. Why is that? I propose a reason. God designed the universe as a prison for Satan. So, most of the universe is compatible with Satan's dark evil nature.

 

[setarcos]

I never claimed no deities exist, disbelieving a claim carries no burden of proof.

Cheese and crackers Your profile implies and atheistic belief. It literally says...a non-theistic belief. Now, unless you are committing the fallacy of equivocation, a theistic belief is a belief that Gods or a God exists. Ipso facto a non- theistic belief is a belief that Gods or a God does not exist. That is atheism. Regardless, you've stated a belief that you adhere to. You are not just saying that a theistic belief carries no evidence of its truth, you are saying not only that but that their IS no God or Gods. That is a claim and by your standards it requires proof. I shouldn't have to point this out to you. Your deliberately avoiding answering the issue.

 

[setarcos]

You implied a deity answers everyone, then created a sub group for atheists that implies they refuse to see it or ignore it.

I said perhaps. That's a possibility not an inevitability. I made a statement for discussion not a statement of factual belief. That is not a fallacy. You are making my words a statements of believed fact where non was intended. Now that's a logical fallacy.

 

[setarcos]

I don't need a claim to be falsified in order to disbelieve it, just the lack of any objective evidence is sufficient for me to withhold belief from a claim, any claim.

If you believe things until they are falsified, then can you tell what evidence you have for the non-existence of invisible mermaids?

The incredible fine tuning of the universe for our life to live.
The increasing realization by science of just how incredibly complex even the simplest single celled organism is making it increasingly unlikely that any method lacking purpose created such things.
The discovery by science that the universe had a beginning and That the steady state theory is almost certainly wrong. The mystery surrounding what collapses the field in Quantum science concerning the increasingly confusing belief of science that such a thing needs a conscious "observer" to do.
These things and more in scientific discovery has lead almost every Scientific Giant make nervous reference to God at some point in their career's. Either in an attempt to disprove the theory or in referencing their belief. Oppenheimer, Hawking, Einstein, Feynman, Schrodinger, Haeckel, Bacon(the father of modern scientific methods), Mendel, Galileo, Newton, Darwin.
There's plenty of "evidence" which suggests a more plausible scenario including the God hypothesis than not.
Many of modern Sciences discoveries actually makes more plausible a direction, intelligent, design to this reality than than alternative.
Some scientists have gotten so desperate to explain away the God hypothesis they've started to unscientifically develop and cling to theories such a the multiverse and string theory which have no experimental evidence what-so-ever nor any currently conceived way of testing their validity, partial or not, experimentally.
A news article, just one picked at random, from Newsweek @ (washingtonpost.com) has stated....
[FONT=verdana,arial,helvetica]Science Finds God[/FONT]

[FONT=arial, helvetica](Jim Sugar/Corbis)[/FONT]​

By Sharon Begley
The achievements of modern science seem to contradict religion and undermine faith. But for a growing number of scientists, the same discoveries offer support for spirituality and hints of the very nature of God.

You think there's no evidence? Try reading some of the peer reviewed articles some of those scientists have published. The God hypothesis is alive and well.
You tout science quite often. But it seems you don't understand the scientific process. Scientists don't disbelieve something because it hasn't been proven or lacks evidence. Things are conjectured and science devises a method of testing that conjecture. Or it discovers surprising things while testing other conjectures that those discoveries are not relevant to. Is modern science making God more plausible? I personally think so but at the very least its getting very interesting.

 

[setarcos]

How does one find proof for a non-existing entity?

Define the entity. Then prove with contradictory example or direct evidence from our reality as to why that entity cannot exist as defined.
Your an Atheist. So by definition you must have figured it out or you don't understand the concept of atheism. So tell me...what is YOUR proof of the belief you hold?

 

[exchemist]

Define the entity. Then prove with contradictory example or direct evidence from our reality as to why that entity cannot exist as defined.
Your an Atheist. So by definition you must have figured it out or you don't understand the concept of atheism. So tell me...what is YOUR proof of the belief you hold?

I can't follow this argument. Nobody, religious believer or not, has any chance of proving whether a god exists or not.

It is unreasonable to demand that anyone provide "proof" to support their beliefs.

 

[exchemist]

In consideration of the fact that we don't yet know what gravity is or how it actually does what it does how does it explain anything? How is it that evolutionary theory "explains" anything since it is scientifically untestable and the further the biological sciences develop the more untenable the contentions of the theory becomes?
Scientific "laws" are not explanations. They are collections of data subject to probabilistic analysis. You can't escape faith in science.

Evolution is scientifically testable, and has been tested over and over again. If you really think the theory is becoming untenable as biology advances, how do you account for the fact that biologists continue to develop it? Are you alleging a grand conspiracy by the science establishment to cover up the problem?

 

[setarcos]

I can't follow this argument. Nobody, religious believer or not, has any chance of proving whether a god exists or not.

It is unreasonable to demand that anyone provide "proof" to support their beliefs.

Well...I think you can agree that first you have to define the entity who's existence you are trying to prove or disprove. Then in as much as science can prove or disprove anything which "touches" our reality in some manner we may then conjecture on how to set up a testable proof or disproof. Whether or not we can come up with a testable proof is still open for debate. Unless you have solved the problem of proving you cannot prove whether or not a God exists. Have you? Until then one may have to be satisfied with probabilities as data accrues.

 

[exchemist]

Well...I think you can agree that first you have to define the entity who's existence you are trying to prove or disprove. Then in as much as science can prove or disprove anything which "touches" our reality in some manner we may then conjecture on how to set up a testable proof or disproof. Whether or not we can come up with a testable proof is still open for debate. Unless you have solved the problem of proving you cannot prove whether or not a God exists. Have you? Until then one may have to be satisfied with probabilities as data accrues.

Except that one doesn't prove anything in science. Testing of a theory is science can only be a disproof, never a proof.

There is no evidenced of the existence of God whatsoever, to any scientific standard of objectivity (reproducibility). So there's nothing to accrue and no probabilities to ascribe.

 

[setarcos]

Evolution is scientifically testable, and has been tested over and over again. If you really think the theory is becoming untenable as biology advances, how do you account for the fact that biologists continue to develop it? Are you alleging a grand conspiracy by the science establishment to cover up the problem?

I must have missed the experiment. How is evolution scientifically testable? Um....and tested over and over again?
Biologists continue to "adjust" the theory not "develop" ,so to speak, the theory as science becomes more accurate and advanced. There's no cover up...?? What cover up? The confusing issues in evolutionary theory which keep stacking up are there for anyone to read about. Scientists don't simply abandon a non-theistic view of evolution because the data is still there and they are still making sense of it. The science doesn't shout look here this is how life happened and it just so happens that it happened without a creator Gods help. Science doesn't work that way but many scientists certainly approach the issue with the presumption that an intelligence didn't have a hand in the game.
As science advances in the field of microbiology we come to see more and more complexity in the building blocks of life. To the point where evolutionary theory is looking more and more untenable as an explanation of an unintelligently directed creation.
I don't think most people understand the proposed relationship between a creative intelligence and an undirected process. They believe that its a strict dichotomy of either nature or God. If a creator intelligence exists, it may well be that science is simply discovering the processes where-by that intelligence brought about our current condition. Microevolution is tenable within a Created viewpoint in this manner. Macroevolution not so much. Science can discover how a car works and how to drive but the question of who put the car together and how in the first place hasn't been answered.

 

[setarcos]

Except that one doesn't prove anything in science. Testing of a theory is science can only be a disproof, never a proof.

That's why I said, until then we have to deal with probabilities.

There is no evidenced of the existence of God whatsoever, to any scientific standard of objectivity (reproducibility).

This is not true. For instance, Roger Penrose calculated that the odds against the fine tuning of certain aspects of our universe happening by random undirected processes is so immensely improbable that by any scientific standard of evidence it is virtually zero. And he's a pretty darn smart guy.

 

[exchemist]

I must have missed the experiment. How is evolution scientifically testable? Um....and tested over and over again?
Biologists continue to "adjust" the theory not "develop" ,so to speak, the theory as science becomes more accurate and advanced. There's no cover up...?? What cover up? The confusing issues in evolutionary theory which keep stacking up are there for anyone to read about. Scientists don't simply abandon a non-theistic view of evolution because the data is still there and they are still making sense of it. The science doesn't shout look here this is how life happened and it just so happens that it happened without a creator Gods help. Science doesn't work that way but many scientists certainly approach the issue with the presumption that an intelligence didn't have a hand in the game.
As science advances in the field of microbiology we come to see more and more complexity in the building blocks of life. To the point where evolutionary theory is looking more and more untenable as an explanation of an unintelligently directed creation.
I don't think most people understand the proposed relationship between a creative intelligence and an undirected process. They believe that its a strict dichotomy of either nature or God. If a creator intelligence exists, it may well be that science is simply discovering the processes where-by that intelligence brought about our current condition. Microevolution is tenable within a Created viewpoint in this manner. Macroevolution not so much. Science can discover how a car works and how to drive but the question of who put the car together and how in the first place hasn't been answered.

"Experiment"? You can test the predictions of a theory without having people in white coats in a lab, doing "experiments". How do you think geology works, for instance? You can't put a mountain range in a lab. But it's still science.

Every time a fossil turns up in strata of the age predicted by the theory that's another test it has passed. We do not find rabbits in the Cambrian, right?

The correlation of DNA relationships with the tree of life diagrams that evolution has put forward are successful tests, too.

The observed evolution of viruses (like now), cancer cells and phenomena such as "ring species" are successful tests of what the theory predicts.

Can you give examples of these "confusing issues in evolutionary theory" that are stacking up, according to you? And confusing to whom? To evolutionary biologists? Or just to people who don't know the subject?

 

[exchemist]

That's why I said, until then we have to deal with probabilities.

This is not true. For instance, Roger Penrose calculated that the odds against the fine tuning of certain aspects of our universe happening by random undirected processes is so immensely improbable that by any scientific standard of evidence it is virtually zero. And he's a pretty darn smart guy.

That's not scientific evidence. The most that kind of exercise can do is formulate a hypothesis. If the hypothesis is scientific, it would then have to make some sort of prediction about what observations in nature could be expected if the hypothesis were correct. This hypothesis makes no testable prediction.