Questions to Atheists about God-of-the-Gaps

  • Thread starter Thread starter icamhif
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I

icamhif

Guest
Before I ask, let me make the disclaimer that I do NOT intend to start a fight. I’m NOT here to try to prove anyone wrong. It’s just some honest questions.

Now, to the questions: Do you consider that it is at least possible that a gap of knowledge has only a supernatural explanation?

If not, why not, and how is that any less a leap of faith than theism?

If so, then when we see a gap of knowledge that science does not yet have a proven explanation, is there a point in inquiry in which a supernatural explanation would at least be worth considering? Or do you implicitly trust that scientific (or otherwise secular) explanations will eventually fill in the gap? If the latter, then how is that any less a leap of faith than believing that God fills in the gaps?

Thanks.
 
icamhif said:
Before I ask, let me make the disclaimer that I do NOT intend to start a fight. I’m NOT here to try to prove anyone wrong. It’s just some honest questions.

Now, to the questions: Do you consider that it is at least possible that a gap of knowledge has only a supernatural explanation?

If not, why not, and how is that any less a leap of faith than theism?

If so, then when we see a gap of knowledge that science does not yet have a proven explanation, is there a point in inquiry in which a supernatural explanation would at least be worth considering? Or do you implicitly trust that scientific (or otherwise secular) explanations will eventually fill in the gap? If the latter, then how is that any less a leap of faith than believing that God fills in the gaps?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
There are 2 ways of approaching this.

The first is to say that supernatural explanations are fundamentally explanations that we can’t ever prove correct. I’m sure there are various different definitions of supernatural, but I think most of them are subject to this criticism. For example, suppose we thought that magnetism is just a way that a supernatural phenomenon interacts with the world. That’s fine, but it also seems reasonable to suppose that magnetism is just a property of the universe, that magnetism “is just the way things are.” So our competing hypothesis are:

There is some supernatural force which explains why magnetism exists and acts the way it does.

There is no supernatural force, magnetism is just a feature of the universe.

The problem with the supernatural explanation is that we have no way of choosing one supernatural explanation over another. For example, we could say that “Magnetism is the work of the Devil,” “Magnetism is the work of the God of Magnetism,” or “We are brains in vats and the mad scientist feeding us information invented magnetism.” But we have no reliable method for determining which of those explanations are correct. We could take and argue any number of supernatural explanations, but we could never have reliable *evidence *for it.

The second way is to simply look at past successes. Has a theologian created a microwave that uses prayer to heat food? Does your financial adviser outperform the market because he employs divine intervention? Do our medicines work because of our complete theory of ESP? Have you ever bought a car that runs on chi? No, the reality is that if you want to successfully manipulate the world (e.g. to quickly heat your food) then you had better stick to natural explanations.

It is certainly possible that we may someday find something that requires a supernatural explanation. However, as things currently stand, there are an immense number of useful explanatory successes coming from the “natural explanations” camp, while the “supernatural explanations” camp sits in absolute silence. So given some unexplained phenomenon, it may be a leap of faith to assume that the ultimate explanation will eventually turn out to be natural, however, I think it is the same sort of leap of faith we take when we tell our spouse we’ll be home in 10 minutes. Today could be the day we are killed on our way home, but the likelihood of making it home is so much higher than the likelihood of dying, we would never realistically consider it to be a leap of faith.
 
icamhif said:
Before I ask, let me make the disclaimer that I do NOT intend to start a fight. I’m NOT here to try to prove anyone wrong. It’s just some honest questions.

Now, to the questions: Do you consider that it is at least possible that a gap of knowledge has only a supernatural explanation?

If not, why not, and how is that any less a leap of faith than theism?

If so, then when we see a gap of knowledge that science does not yet have a proven explanation, is there a point in inquiry in which a supernatural explanation would at least be worth considering? Or do you implicitly trust that scientific (or otherwise secular) explanations will eventually fill in the gap? If the latter, then how is that any less a leap of faith than believing that God fills in the gaps?

Thanks.
Click to expand...
What do you mean by “supernatural”?
 
For me, I see a pattern through history of natural phenomena being explained by supernatural means. These phenomena have slowly been modeled using science, and can now be coherently explained physically and naturally. This doesn’t mean there is no supernatural realm though, which is why I don’t identify as atheist. But given history, I am fairly confident that any ‘gaps’ in models of the natural world will be filled, or if not, have some underlying natural explanation.

That being said, even if the natural world was perfectly and accurately modeled naturalisticly, I don’t think that would rule out God.
 
I get your point. Atheism is a form of fideism, since it is a belief without proof, just as all religions are.

Given the Big Bang, the atheist ultimately ends up confused.

The universe was created umpteen billions of years ago, according to science.

The universe was created according to Genesis.

Agreed, so far.

Was there a Creator? Not agreed, since science cannot prove anything supernatural.

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
 
This is certainly an interesting point and I can honestly say I have never heard this question before so before anything else props to you for asking this.

Now I would say that there is no gap of knowledge I can think of that the supernatural would fill because I do not believe there is a supernatural because there is no evidence of the supernatural. So when we say that science will likely have an answer in the future it is not a leap of faith for 2 reasons.

1.) We are currently working on getting answers to those questions so it is reasonable to assume that at some point in the future we will have an answer

2.) Now even if there is a question we don’t even know how to ask let alone answer there is still a precedent for us figuring out the answer. Thousands of years ago we didn’t even know what Lightning was let alone where it came from or how it knew where to strike or who/what created it but now we know the answers. Science has a history of learning and it is reasonable to assume that trend will continue so saying science will likely know in the future is not faith it is an educated guess based on the trend of history and the efforts of scientists today.

The reason that the supernatural is not a valid explanation in place of no explanation is because there is no evidence of the supernatural. Show me proof that the supernatural exists and then by all means say that it causes something but saying that because there is no scientific explanation currently then it MUST have a supernatural explanation is a fallacy.
 
Charlemagne_III said:
I get your point. Atheism is a form of fideism, since it is a belief without proof, just as all religions are.

Given the Big Bang, the atheist ultimately ends up confused.

The universe was created umpteen billions of years ago, according to science.

The universe was created according to Genesis.

Agreed, so far.

Was there a Creator? Not agreed, since science cannot prove anything supernatural.

Genesis, 1000 B.C. : “Let there be light.”

Carl Sagan in Cosmos, 1980 A.D.

“Ten or twenty billion years ago, something happened – the Big Bang, the event that began our universe…. In that titanic cosmic explosion, the universe began an expansion which has never ceased…. As space stretched, the matter and energy in the universe expanded with it and rapidly cooled. The radiation of the cosmic fireball, which, then as now, filled the universe, moved through the spectrum – from gamma rays to X-rays to ultraviolet light; through the rainbow colors of the visible spectrum; into the infrared and radio regions. The remnants of that fireball, the cosmic background radiation, emanating from all parts of the sky can be detected by radio telescopes today. In the early universe, space was brilliantly illuminated.”
Click to expand...
I must say Charlemagne I disagree entirely with your post. Atheism is not a form fideism because atheism requires no faith because atheism is not a belief in and of itself. I assume you are calling atheism the statement “I 100% know no god or gods exist!” in which case you would be right, but that is not what atheism is, it is the disbelief in a god or gods based on lack of evidence, much like how belief in Bigfoot is a faith but disbelief in Bigfoot is not. If you said you do not believe in Bigfoot you aren’t saying Bigfoot cannot possibly exist you are saying it is unlikely that Bigfoot exists as there is no evidence for his existence.

In regards to being confused by the big bang I also disagree while I’m not a physicist so I don’t entirely understand it I know it fairly well and it does not agree with the creation account in genesis. Here is a list of things they differ on
1.) Light existing before the sun and stars
2.)The earth existing before sun and stars
3.)the earth being the first thing created(the earth is only about 4 billion years old)
Also it was 14 billion years ago not umpteen.
 
Um…anyone care to define “supernatural”. I seriously have no idea what that word means.
 
Helpful_Atheist said:
I must say Charlemagne I disagree entirely with your post. Atheism is not a form fideism because atheism requires no faith because atheism is not a belief in and of itself. I assume you are calling atheism the statement “I 100% know no god or gods exist!” in which case you would be right, but that is not what atheism is, it is the disbelief in a god or gods based on lack of evidence, much like how belief in Bigfoot is a faith but disbelief in Bigfoot is not. If you said you do not believe in Bigfoot you aren’t saying Bigfoot cannot possibly exist you are saying it is unlikely that Bigfoot exists as there is no evidence for his existence.

In regards to being confused by the big bang I also disagree while I’m not a physicist so I don’t entirely understand it I know it fairly well and it does not agree with the creation account in genesis. Here is a list of things they differ on
1.) Light existing before the sun and stars
2.)The earth existing before sun and stars
3.)the earth being the first thing created(the earth is only about 4 billion years old)
Also it was 14 billion years ago not umpteen.
Click to expand...
You accept those scientific facts from scientists with a certain amount of faith
 
Sparkythedog said:
What do you mean by “supernatural”?
Click to expand...
Things that are beyond the natural, such as the law of physics. As JapaneseKappa correctly pointed out, it could be the work of a god, the work of an angel, the work of a demon, or any other spirit.
 
icamhif said:
Things that are beyond the natural, such as the law of physics. As JapaneseKappa correctly pointed out, it could be the work of a god, the work of an angel, the work of a demon, or any other spirit.
Click to expand...
What does it mean to be beyond natural? What is the boundary of natural?

Why are angels and demons not natural?
 
First, let’s tackle the concept of “supernatural”.

It usually means some kind of non-physical realm of existence, which realm is “active”, and can interact with the physical realm. Theoretically it is not impossible, though there is no evidence for it. When someone asserts that it is irrational to demand some “physical” evidence, since that realm is not physical, they simply shoot themselves in the foot, because they also assert that the non-physical realm physically interacts with the physical realm.

That is called the desire of “having your cake and eat it, too”.

Now the usual assertion that this realm is beyond space and beyond time AND yet it is “active” leads to a logical impossibility. If something is active, then there is a change. A “changeless” action is an oxymoron. If there is a “change”, then there is a “before” and “after” the change, therefore there is a temporal sequence - called “time”. That “time” may be different from the “normal” STEM (space, time, energy, matter) of the physical universe. but it must exist logically. A changeless existence is “stasis”, a frozen timeless existence.
Now, let’s go back to the OP. Theoretically it is possible that a non-physical realm exists, which is “active” (as proven above). As such there must be some kind of time that exists there. It is possible that the “inhabitants” of this realm could interact with our physical realm. The real trouble is that such a hypothesis has no explanatory power at all. Some unknowable being(s), using unimaginable means made something happen in our physical realm. This does not add one bit of information to our existing knowledge-base. And since there must be some kind of “time” there, the whole problem of infinite descent (regress) reappears. Where did this non-physical realm “come from”?

If someone would say that the whole “non-physical” realm simply exists, that would be asserting a brute fact. There is nothing wrong with brute facts, but to assert it for the non-physical, and deny it for the physical is illogical and irrational.

As a conclusion, if someone wishes to investigate a “non-physical” explanation, that is fine. Let them invest their time, money and resources into the research. At the end they will either find something that we can incorporate into our existing knowledge base, or not. There is no difference between investigating the “paranormal” and the “supernatural” claims. So far there are no fruitful results.
 
thinkandmull said:
Conscious
Click to expand...
So your definition of the supernatural is “non-human and personal (conscious)”. But that doesn’t really seem to really cover what’s being discussed here.

Animals are non-human and conscious. There might be aliens on other worlds that are non-human and conscious. It’s possible that we might, in the future, build machines that could be non-human and conscious.

But I’m going to guess that you wouldn’t consider any of those things to be supernatural.
 
icamhif said:
Things can’t be explained by the laws of math and science
Click to expand...
In the past there were many things that we could not explain with our (then current) scientific models. Earthquakes, lightning, planetary motion… Were those things supernatural?
icamhif said:
They are said to be spirits with no physical body.
Click to expand...
What’s a spirit?
 
Helpful_Atheist said:
I must say Charlemagne I disagree entirely with your post. Atheism is not a form fideism because atheism requires no faith because atheism is not a belief in and of itself.
Click to expand...
Fideism is the belief in a dogma without proof.

The atheist’s dogma is that there is no God, a dogma for which he has no proof.

Moreover, the Courts have defined atheism as a religion.

Guess you’ll have to learn to live with it? 🤷
 
Sparkythedog said:
. . . It’s possible that we might, in the future, build machines that could be non-human and conscious. . . . But I’m going to guess that you wouldn’t consider any of those things to be supernatural.
Click to expand...
I consider your comment to be an excellent example of science of the gaps - to fill a lacuna in the understanding of what constitutes human nature, a mechanistic, totally untestable, view of consciousness is proposed.

It seems to me that the term “supernatural” tends to conjure dark reflections of some people’s tendency to engage in wild speculations.
In the context of this discussion, I would take it to mean that the object that we are attempting to understand is not physical, like power, fame, wealth, etc.

The spirit is the fundamental aspect of human nature that enables us to engage in relationships, to love. That’s it basically, imho.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top