Have we a gap-dwelling God?

[Spirithound]

How does one defend against the charge of believing in the God of the gaps?

 

[LilyM]

How does one defend against the charge of believing in the God of the gaps?

If you told us what the heck ‘the God of the gaps’ means we might be able to answer.

 

[buffalo]

Science was confident that as we learned more there would be less and less gaps. The reality is is that as we explore more the gaps are actually increasing.

Bottom-line - there will always be a least one gap or we would be God.

 

[reggieM]

The gaps which are present in our understanding of nature have actually grown larger with the study of bio-chemistry.

DNA Unravelled

Just four years after scientists finished mapping the human genome - the full sequence of 3 billion DNA “letters” folded within every cell - they find themselves confronted by a biological jungle deeper, denser, and more difficult to penetrate than anyone imagined.

As for the remaining 95 percent of the genome? “There’s this weird lunar landscape of stuff we don’t understand,” Lander said. "No one has a handle on what matters and what doesn’t."

**“The picture that’s emerging” of how living cells actually operate and evolve “is so immensely more complicated than anyone imagined, it’s almost depressing,” Rigoutsos said. **

The “God of the gaps” argument assumes that science will fill all of the “gaps of knowledge” that we have about the development of nature.

But when we encounter these many “gaps” that exist already – something must fill them. For Darwinian theorists, “evolutionary processes” fill all the gaps.

So, we have a “Darwin of the gaps” idea – where evolution is assumed as the answer for all of the mysteries that science cannot explain.

Those who assume that science is capable of answering all of the mysteries of nature, the universe and of human life do not realize that the gaps are actually getting larger.

 

[Mersenne]

None of you apparently know what a “god of the gaps” is. It is a criticism of justifying god with the argument “well we don’t understand something, therefore god exists.” It’s a logical fallacy. Evolution isn’t a god of the gaps, it actually has a lot of evidence supporting it. Nor does “gaps increasing” have anything do to with it or really make much sense at all.

 

[reggieM]

None of you apparently know what a “god of the gaps” is. It is a criticism of justifying god with the argument “well we don’t understand something, therefore god exists.” It’s a logical fallacy. Evolution isn’t a god of the gaps, it actually has a lot of evidence supporting it. Nor does “gaps increasing” have anything do to with it or really make much sense at all.

Evolution is, indeed, a god of the gaps. There are many gaps in our knowledge. Please read the article I posted. The assumption is “evolution did it”, even when the evidence is lacking.
This is exactly the same as saying “God did it” when encountering a mystery that science cannot answer.

You claim that increasing gaps have nothing to do with it – ok, how large are the gaps right now?

 

[LilyM]

None of you apparently know what a “god of the gaps” is. It is a criticism of justifying god with the argument “well we don’t understand something, therefore god exists.” It’s a logical fallacy. Evolution isn’t a god of the gaps, it actually has a lot of evidence supporting it. Nor does “gaps increasing” have anything do to with it or really make much sense at all.

Well I don’t know anyone who’s ever argued that the fact that we don’t understand things is actual evidence of the existence of God - of course it’s no more than evidence of the fact that we don’t understand things

The most we can say is that the existence of gaps in our understanding is consistent with the existence of a God who is beyond our understanding.

Just read Aquinas’ five proofs for one - there are plenty more positive arguments of the existence of God. And if you ask people who believe in God why they do so, I’d be willing to be that it will always be because of positive reasons - versions of the argument from design, or the argument from contingency, for example.

 

[Spirithound]

If you told us what the heck ‘the God of the gaps’ means we might be able to answer.

Well, from an apologetic standpoint, I think this might be part of the problem. As I understand it, “the God of the gaps” is the explanation for phenomena that we don’t understand, or that doesn’t seem natural. For example, to the ancients, sunrise, lightning, and the changing of the seasons.

So, I welcome all your (name removed by moderator)ut firstly to determine what exactly “god of the gaps” means, whether we do (or can be seen to) worship this type of god, and then, finally, how to refute the accusation.
Peace

 

[e61iuser]

Sure we have a God of the gaps!

He’s also the god of spaces, corners, planes, angles, torques, weights, silences, organics, inorganics, motion, reason, time, thought…

He’s the God of everything. What’s wrong with that?

 

[Mersenne]

Evolution is, indeed, a god of the gaps. There are many gaps in our knowledge. Please read the article I posted. The assumption is “evolution did it”, even when the evidence is lacking.

Give me one example.

You claim that increasing gaps have nothing to do with it – ok, how large are the gaps right now?

Do you want that in feet or meters? Your question makes no sense.

 

[Mersenne]

Well I don’t know anyone who’s ever argued that the fact that we don’t understand things is actual evidence of the existence of God - of course it’s no more than evidence of the fact that we don’t understand things

The argument from design is a “we don’t understand it, therefore it was god” argument. “It’s complex, we don’t know how it got to be complex, therefore, for no reason, believe god must have done it”

Which is especially silly now that we know how it got to be that complex.

 

[LilyM]

The argument from design is a “we don’t understand it, therefore it was god” argument. “It’s complex, we don’t know how it got to be complex, therefore, for no reason, believe god must have done it”

Which is especially silly now that we know how it got to be that complex.

Rubbish - for mine it’s an argument of ‘it’s complex, and yes we know how it got to be that complex - it got that way because God made it!’

 

[SimonArizona]

We have a Jesus is the answer God

 

[reggieM]

Give me one example.

Give you one example of what? I already showed an article that explains just some of the “gaps” that scientists face. They are very far from answering all the mysteries of life and of God’s actions in the universe. A claim that they “already understand it all” is a perfect example of the arrogance of science and the “evolution of the gaps” idea I mentioned. In other words, “whatever we don’t have evidence for, we claim that evolution did it anyway”.

Do you want that in feet or meters? Your question makes no sense.

Interesting – a scientific notion (gaps) that you cannot measure or define. So, you’re refuting the God of the gaps already.

But there are “gaps” between so-called fossil transitions. There are gaps in the so-called evolutionary paths of the bacterial flagellum, or even a simple carnivorous plant like the pitcher plant.

 

[Thing]

Assuming there are gaps to be filled assumes there is some type of ultimate logical overall understandable answer or reason to the universe, life and everything which is yet to be found.
An ‘understandable’ or sensible reason for everything is one with a human dimension at its core and somehow we know this is fact as we expect the universe, life and everything to finally answer to us in human terms.
The only humanly understandable reason for everything is one from a cause which is itself human or acts in a manner compatable with human thought.
A universe created to appeal to human sense and reason and be understandable to both must be a universe created by human thought or else be a universe created through a cause which has human attributes, a cause which created humanity and placed us, with some of the attributes of itself, the creator of the universe.

 

[twosweetgirls]

And see, the first thing that came to my mind was the Pentecostal/Charismatic action of “standing in the gap” for someone. . . that is, praying to God on their behalf. What our Pentecostal brethren don’t realize is, there’s a nice little word for that: intercession. Something that Catholics have been doing for a loooooong time.

 

[reggieM]

Assuming there are gaps to be filled assumes there is some type of ultimate logical overall understandable answer or reason to the universe, life and everything which is yet to be found.
An ‘understandable’ or sensible reason for everything is one with a human dimension at its core and somehow we know this is fact as we expect the universe, life and everything to finally answer to us in human terms.
The only humanly understandable reason for everything is one from a cause which is itself human or acts in a manner compatable with human thought.
A universe created to appeal to human sense and reason and be understandable to both must be a universe created by human thought or else be a universe created through a cause which has human attributes, a cause which created humanity and placed us, with some of the attributes of itself, the creator of the universe.

Excellent point.

 

[buffalo]

And Quantum Physics is showing that the universe is “porous” (gappy) allowing many places for God to act in His creation. So maybe the God of the Gaps euphemism is closer to the truth than the guys who came up with it thought.

 

[Mersenne]

Rubbish - for mine it’s an argument of ‘it’s complex, and yes we know how it got to be that complex - it got that way because God made it!’

That’s not an argument, that’s just assertion.

 

[Mersenne]

Give you one example of what?

You claimed that scientists make “god of the gaps” arguments. Show me an example. It’s a simple request, The article is not an example of a “god of the gaps” argument that scientists make.

A claim that they “already understand it all” is a perfect example of the arrogance of science and the “evolution of the gaps” idea I mentioned.

Science doesn’t claim that. That’s a perfect example of the delusion of some religious people.

In other words, “whatever we don’t have evidence for, we claim that evolution did it anyway”.

Give me one example of that.

Interesting – a scientific notion (gaps) that you cannot measure or define. So, you’re refuting the God of the gaps already.

Such gaps are a philosophic notion, not a scientific one. And just because it isn’t measured with a ruler doesn’t mean it’s not defined. Your question was stupid, that doesn’t make science stupid or the idea of a “god of the gaps” stupid. Which you still don’t seem to understand the idea at all. It’s just a way of saying that you’re making an argument from ignorence.

But there are “gaps” between so-called fossil transitions. There are gaps in the so-called evolutionary paths of the bacterial flagellum, or even a simple carnivorous plant like the pitcher plant.

Of course we don’t have a fossil for every organism who ever lived. Would you expect there to be? What’s your point?