PROBABILITY OR POSSIBILITY OR JUST IMPOSSSIBLE

[McBell]

From Wikipedia:

"God of the gaps" is a theological perspective in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence.

I am not doing that. I am just arguing for a hypothesis that includes elements beyond science's current ability to test.

Yes, you are purposely including a gap in which to put god.

Thus it is a god of the gaps.

 

[Yerda]

Since it did physically happen science (at it exists today; physical only) I don't doubt will be able to describe the events that most likely occurred. But that will still leave the WHY? question on the table (chance vs. design) and it would still be consistent with my theory of creative intelligence through nature spirit beings.

Right. I have no idea what that is, but I'd be lying if I said it doesn't sound great. Take care.

 

[McBell]

Since it did physically happen science (at it exists today; physical only) I don't doubt will be able to describe the events that most likely occurred. But that will still leave the WHY? question on the table (chance vs. design) and it would still be consistent with my theory of creative intelligence through nature spirit beings.

Why the false dichotomy?

Never mind, you have to have a gap....

 

[George-ananda]

Why is it that your signature states "Brahman Alone is Real"? It seems you are very specific about your beliefs on the subject.

Advaita philosophy (non-dual; God and creation are not two) is considered by many (myself humbly included) as the cream of Vedic (Hindu) philosophy (the highest form). Consciousness/God/Brahman is primary and the material worlds are a product of consciousness. Creation is a cosmic play/drama of Brahman in which He separates Himself from Himself and returns Himself to Himself. Creation as we understand it is considered illusion (Maya in Hinduism) in which the sense of separation is temporarily experienced. In the end Maya (illusion) is overcome and all realize; Brahman Alone is Real. We are Brahman.

This philosophy comes from those who are believed to be God-Realized; Self-Realized; Brahman-Realized sages/saints. The goal is realizing this truth. By quieting the many layers of egoic consciousness we find only Brahman remains; the One consciousness.

Well, you asked.

 

[Bunyip]

A 'god of the gaps' claim just says 'god did it' and end of story. I'm positing complex mechanisms which future science may be able to investigate (beyond the purview of our physical senses) working through causation to produce a physical affect.

Of course it is a 'god of the gaps' fallacy. You insert the supernatural into the gap.

 

[George-ananda]

You insert the supernatural into the gap.

How do we know that isn't actually the correct insertion in this case.

 

[Bunyip]

How do we know that isn't actually the correct insertion in this case.

We don't - that is why it is a fallacious argument. Because you neither know if it is or is not the correct insertion - it is pointless.

 

[George-ananda]

We don't - that is why it is a fallacious argument. Because you neither know if it is or is not the correct insertion - it is pointless.

There is nothing fallacious. I am espousing what I have concluded to be the most reasonable position. What is fallacious about that?

 

[Bunyip]

There is nothing fallacious. I am espousing what I have concluded to be the most reasonable position. What is fallacious about that?

That it is unreasoned - it is just an argument from ignorance, a 'God of the gaps' fallacy. It is a conclusion drawn from nothing more than wishful thinking - essentially; "I do not understand 'x', therefore the supernatural exists!" .

It is as fallacious as reasoning can get, it gives no logical pathway between the premis and the conclusion, only an empty assertion drawn from nothing more than a gap in our knowledge.

It is tantamount to saying; "I do not understand how anyone could have stolen my lunch! Only superman could have done it! Therefore Superman exists!

Unfortunately, there is no reasoning in a god of the gaps argument, just a hopeful insertion.

 

[ImmortalFlame]

Not necessarily. Now on with an example.

A claim is made, for instance that "there is life on Europa and Io".

Is there? All evidence suggests that Io and Europa are capable of supporting life under their ice. Available evidence supports that under that ice is H2O; that the conditions and elements necessary for aquatic life exists on Io and Europa.

So, the claim that "there is life on Europa and Io" is supported by evidence that this is a possibility. In fact, a very real and tantalizing possibility. Moreover, we have evidence that strongly suggests at least microbial life once existed on Mars. Thus, extraterrestrial life within our solar system, according to available evidence, is a claim worthy of acceptance.

But we have no evidence that there that life actually exists on Europa and Io.

As a result, the conclusion is suspension; the claim can not be rejected as the conditions seem to exist for the supporting of life; but neither is there sufficient evidence to support that claim.

Again, I don't see how this conflicts with my definition of rejection. You are still not accepting the claim, which by definition is rejection of the claim. The fact that you are still capable of admitting the possibility of something being true doesn't mean you don't reject the claim.

To say that I have "rejected" that claim because I have not "accepted" that claim, in my opinion, is in error; as to reject that claim, to me, means to hold that "there is no life on Europa and Io". That is not a claim that one can make; as evidence suggests the same is a possibility.

That is not what reject means; rejection simply means "to no accept". You can reject a claim without believing its opposite. Acceptance and rejection are entirely positions with regards to the claim posited, not statements of any kind of contrary position. Your rejection of a claim in no way indicates your acceptance of any other claim, contrary or otherwise.

"Accept" and "Reject" in terms of claims, with no other option in between, is too "black and white"/"all or nothing" for my taste. While I agree with you that these are two viable options with which once can exercise in terms of a claim, I do not agree that these are the only two options.

The only two options are that you accept a claim or you do not accept a claim. To not accept a claim, by definition, is to reject it.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Again, I don't see how this conflicts with my definition of rejection. You are still not accepting the claim, which by definition is rejection of the claim. The fact that you are still capable of admitting the possibility of something being true doesn't mean you don't reject the claim.


That is not what reject means; rejection simply means "to no accept". You can reject a claim without believing its opposite. Acceptance and rejection are entirely positions with regards to the claim posited, not statements of any kind of contrary position. Your rejection of a claim in no way indicates your acceptance of any other claim, contrary or otherwise.


The only two options are that you accept a claim or you do not accept a claim. To not accept a claim, by definition, is to reject it.

Uh ... No.

"Reject", in this sense, means to refuse to accept.

verb (used with object)

1. to refuse to have, take, recognize, etc.:
2. to refuse to grant (a request, demand, etc.).
3. to refuse to accept (someone or something); rebuff:
4. to discard as useless or unsatisfactory:
5.to cast out or eject; vomit.

I do not "refuse to accept" the claim that there is life on Io or Europa; thus I do not reject the claim.

 

[David M]

Just as well as in evolution theory it takes millions of years to gather up the beneficial mutations to form a new specie, also it takes many years to clean up the deleterious mutations, and the sums don't come out right for evolution.

If it takes millions of years then why do we see speciation occurring in much shorter timescales (such as a few human lifetimes). In fact specation can occur in a single generation, we know this because we have seen it.

 

[gnostic]

I would go with nearly impossible that evolution occurred without conscious intelligent guidance. For this and other reasons I think Nature has intelligent beings that worked for the creation of higher life forms. These beings are far beyond us in intelligence but not omniscient either. They did learn also through trial and error.

If they were at all intelligent, then you wouldn't need to go through trial and error.

The very thought that God, creator or designer was involved in biological genetics, would only show how utterly malevolent and stupid this being, when it cause a child to be born blind, death or some terribly diseases.

Does a Designer really need to be involved with two blonde and blue-eyed parents would have a child or children with blonde hair and blue eyes.

Genetics explained hereditary, but the next step up is mechanism of evolution. It doesn't take a genius for parents passing on specific gene to offspring, and from ancestors to descendants, that have better chance of survival, if any environmental changes were to occur.

Why is so hard for creationists to see that?

Evolution is not talking about creating life out of non-living matters/materials, so evolution is not talking about the origin of first life.

Evolution is about multiplying through reproduction, passing on genes to the next generations, and that some genes are better than others that will allow them to adapt to changes, not only surviving, but thrive too.

Intelligent Design advocates are just idiots, who want to use ID to teach creationism in a science classroom. Both creationism and Intelligent Design have nothing to do with science, just religious smokescreen.

Do you really want to know why Intelligent Design is not accepted among the international science communities? The reasons are really simple:

1. It is not science.
2. And it does required physical evidences to support their fairytale claims, of some silly non-existing invisible being, they called "Designer".

No one, but naive or ignorant or biased Christian creationists believe such craps that come from Discovery Institute. The Discovery Institute is living proof that stupidity and dishonesty exist among creationists.

 

[outhouse]

Consciousness/God/Brahman is primary and the material worlds are a product of consciousness.

The problem is evolution is fact, and backed by factual data.


You cannot substantiate your position in any way beyond faith.

 

[George-ananda]

The problem is evolution is fact, and backed by factual data..

You must not understand me. I believe in evolution and Brahman.

 

[George-ananda]

If they were at all intelligent, then you wouldn't need to go through trial and error.

Humans are intelligent. Didn't the design of the car go from horse and buggy to a modern Mercedes Benz through evolution with learning through trial and error? Such were the efforts of nature beings. They are intelligent but not infinitely intelligent.

 

[NewGuyOnTheBlock]

Humans are intelligent. Didn't the design of the car go from horse and buggy to a modern Mercedes Benz through evolution with learning through trial and error? Such were the efforts of nature beings. They are intelligent but not infinitely intelligent.

Comparing engineering of man-made, lifeless objects to the laws of reproduction and biology is a fallacious comparison. It's like comparing the growth of crystals to the growth of trees.

 

[George-ananda]

Comparing engineering of man-made, lifeless objects to the laws of reproduction and biology is a fallacious comparison.

How is it 'fallacious' in this case. I think the analogy works as I was pointing out how design goes through evolution in both cases.

 

[outhouse]

You must not understand me. I believe in evolution and Brahman.

You have no credible evidence at all for you a deity or thought process being in any aspect of biology.

 

[outhouse]

I was pointing out how design goes through evolution in both cases

problem is it is not credible. Its theology, not science.