Is every version of God a God-of-the-gaps?

[sojourner]

Evolution.

evolution from what?

 

[sojourner]

Um, what? I'm saying conceptually, let's bracket the physical universe- now what of God is left over? I'm just asking what else is God, since you said that God is the physical universe, but is also in some sense more than that. I'm just curious what that something more consists in.

I said God is embodied in the universe. God is not the universe. Besides the physical universe, God is spirit.

 

[sojourner]

Probably non-intelligent matter, intelligence has to start somewhere. What good is saying intelligence requires intelligence when infinite regress would then be the issue?

I don't think intelligence requires intelligence. I'm not a proponent of "intelligent design." It's a cop-out, IMO.

 

[Windwalker]

So, is there anything God does, has done, or can do, that is truly divine (ie. inherently unexplainable by science today and forever)

Why is this the criteria for understanding what God is? Who made up this definition, and why should we consider that to be what God is?

or are all suspected such interventions just of the God-of-the-gaps type - a simple explanation and an easy way out to explain stuff we do not yet understand?

Who is defining God as an "intervening" God, as though God were some Sky Magician? Are you asking if mythological interpretations of the world, or God, stand up to rational inquiry?

That's an entirely different question.

And if God cannot affect the physical world, what reason is there to believe that it is real?

Because God is not this incredibly simplistic version you are painting here?

I find no incompatibility between belief in God and accepting science. Maybe it's your views that are suspect?

 

[George-ananda]

Because God is not this incredibly simplistic version you are painting here?

I call it the Straw God.

 

[BSM1]

From a gap in your knowledge about biology, which you choose to fill with God?

I think you're missing the point (while at the same time really thinking too small-no pun intended). I would never argue for or against the existence of the/a God. However when you reduce such things as this living organism to it's lowest common denominator you are still left with the question of origin-and the ubiquitous "why?". Science will never answer the why and this is where you find the divine.

 

[ruffen]

[...] you are still left with the question of origin-and the ubiquitous "why?". Science will never answer the why and this is where you find the divine.

Sounds like yet another God-filled gap of scientific ignorance to me. Just because we don't understand the exact mechanics behind the origin of the Universe or life within it, doesn't mean that an omnipotent intelligent mind thought it into existence or that the "why"-question is even meaningful in the sense of conscious intention behind it all. It's just another simple and convenient non-explanation for the as-of-yet poorly understood aspects, or "mysteries" of nature.

 

[idav]

Sounds like yet another God-filled gap of scientific ignorance to me. Just because we don't understand the exact mechanics behind the origin of the Universe or life within it, doesn't mean that an omnipotent intelligent mind thought it into existence or that the "why"-question is even meaningful in the sense of conscious intention behind it all. It's just another simple and convenient non-explanation for the as-of-yet poorly understood aspects, or "mysteries" of nature.

At some point we run into ignorance even in science. A gap is just a hypothesis to fill with a solid theory unless you happen to have any omniscience handy there should always be some mystery. I do at least believe the question is answerable.

 

[fantome profane]

I think you're missing the point (while at the same time really thinking too small-no pun intended). I would never argue for or against the existence of the/a God. However when you reduce such things as this living organism to it's lowest common denominator you are still left with the question of origin-and the ubiquitous "why?". Science will never answer the why and this is where you find the divine.

There is an assumption made here that is often made. That is the assumption that if a question cannot be answered by science therefore it can be answered by religion or spirituality. Perhaps science cannot answer this question, perhaps science will never be able to answer this question. But it does not follow that the answer will come from spirituality.

 

[sojourner]

There is an assumption made here that is often made. That is the assumption that if a question cannot be answered by science therefore it can be answered by religion or spirituality. Perhaps science cannot answer this question, perhaps science will never be able to answer this question. But it does not follow that the answer will come from spirituality.

I've found that spirituality is better at providing space to question than it is at providing answers.

 

[ruffen]

At some point we run into ignorance even in science. A gap is just a hypothesis to fill with a solid theory unless you happen to have any omniscience handy there should always be some mystery. I do at least believe the question is answerable.

Of course there will always be gaps in humanity's knowledge. Even though anything is open for skeptical scientific scrutiny, there will probably never be a day when everything there is to know is known.

What I question is whether it is wise to assume God in such gaps, and whether every claimed physical action that God is supposed to have done is in reality a simple explanation for such a gap. And whether a God that is not claimed to ever having done any physical action can be called a God, or just an imaginary friend inside the mind of the believer.

 

[sojourner]

Of course there will always be gaps in humanity's knowledge. Even though anything is open for skeptical scientific scrutiny, there will probably never be a day when everything there is to know is known.

What I question is whether it is wise to assume God in such gaps, and whether every claimed physical action that God is supposed to have done is in reality a simple explanation for such a gap. And whether a God that is not claimed to ever having done any physical action can be called a God, or just an imaginary friend inside the mind of the believer.

I don't think "God-of-the-gaps" is good theology. It seeks to use God as a utility for answering questions whose realm is science. Theology and science are two completely different disciplines whose aims are completely different.

 

[idav]

Of course there will always be gaps in humanity's knowledge. Even though anything is open for skeptical scientific scrutiny, there will probably never be a day when everything there is to know is known.

What I question is whether it is wise to assume God in such gaps, and whether every claimed physical action that God is supposed to have done is in reality a simple explanation for such a gap. And whether a God that is not claimed to ever having done any physical action can be called a God, or just an imaginary friend inside the mind of the believer.

When it comes to cosmology, god is a decent hypothesis because even science is searching for this origin, the origin many refer to as god. Because god by definition would be the source for existence being.

 

[ruffen]

When it comes to cosmology, god is a decent hypothesis because even science is searching for this origin, the origin many refer to as god. Because god by definition would be the source for existence being.

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I read this as "origin is a gap we don't expect to close scientifically any time soon, therefore God". Which confirms my idea that every God is a Gid of the gaps.

 

[ruffen]

I don't think "God-of-the-gaps" is good theology. It seeks to use God as a utility for answering questions whose realm is science. Theology and science are two completely different disciplines whose aims are completely different.

Every single claim about physical work God is supposed to have done, is in principle a scientific claim. Every religious idea about origins, miracles, resurrection of christ, virgin birth, immortal/immaterial soul, etc. is within the realm of science to give us answers to. The fact that we have gaps in our knowledge about how these things work or if the stories are historically bogus, makes every single of them a God-of-the-gaps argument.

If gap-type arguments are the best there are in favour of the existence of God, why shouldn't we expect them to face the same demise as all of history's failed God-of-the-gaps concepts? Because throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic.

And if God didn't create the Universe and has never physically affected any part of it, where is the reason to assume that God is anything more than a psychiatric concept wirhin the mind of the believer?

 

[idav]

I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I read this as "origin is a gap we don't expect to close scientifically any time soon, therefore God". Which confirms my idea that every God is a Gid of the gaps.

Well if science cant figure it out why should a spiritualist be expected to. Still even if science found how the mechanics were does that say anything about an agent behind it. What I am saying is the gaps can always exist even with the knowledge. You can say an earthquake happened with plates shifting, we know how but we cant disprove some invisible hand behind it. But if it is going by the same knowledge of science then I don't see a problem. I think it can be confirmed and not dependent on ignorance.

 

[sojourner]

Every single claim about physical work God is supposed to have done, is in principle a scientific claim. Every religious idea about origins, miracles, resurrection of christ, virgin birth, immortal/immaterial soul, etc. is within the realm of science to give us answers to. The fact that we have gaps in our knowledge about how these things work or if the stories are historically bogus, makes every single of them a God-of-the-gaps argument.

If gap-type arguments are the best there are in favour of the existence of God, why shouldn't we expect them to face the same demise as all of history's failed God-of-the-gaps concepts? Because throughout history, every mystery ever solved has turned out to be not magic.

And if God didn't create the Universe and has never physically affected any part of it, where is the reason to assume that God is anything more than a psychiatric concept wirhin the mind of the believer?

Just because it's a scientific claim with a scientific explanation doesn't discount God. God is science.

 

[Iti oj]

Could God really be found in a gap?

 

[sojourner]

Could God really be found in a gap?

God is found in the spaces between us...

 

[Iti oj]

God is found in the spaces between us...

what do you mean?