jump to last post 1-3 of 3 discussions (15 posts)

Why is God of the gaps not a valid argument?

  1. DavyCrockett profile image76
    DavyCrockettposted 4 years ago

    Why is God of the gaps not a valid argument?

    Athiests say God of the gaps is not a valid argument. Why? IF there is a god, and this god made us different, then we COULDN'T figure out the gaps. We create computers which exist as logical machines. Do they understand emotion? Computers cannot understand us as humans because we made them as pure logical machines. Thus, we the same as computers, cannot understand everything about god. So, I ask how is the God of the gaps argument faulty?

  2. M. T. Dremer profile image95
    M. T. Dremerposted 4 years ago

    The problem with god filling the gaps of science is that they have a tendency to be filled. For example, gravity was once a gap in our understanding, but we figured it out. Now it is no longer a gap. Countless things have been discovered in the name of science, in places where there was once no information. And, yet, for every filled gap there has been no evidence of a divine being. While it is true that there will always be gaps in our understanding, the track record doesn't favor a god. Past discovery suggests that there are answers to hard questions, but we just haven't found them yet.

    1. DavyCrockett profile image76
      DavyCrockettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I see where you are coming from, but like the computer example, are we in error in thinking we can actually figure out all gaps? If we were created for a specific purpose like a computer, not given the ability to understand emotions.

    2. M. T. Dremer profile image95
      M. T. Dremerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Until scientific discovery hits a wall, we have no reason to think we are in error. And, if we're a computer responding to an invisible hand, it could just as likely be Zeus, aliens or unknown laws of science.

    3. DavyCrockett profile image76
      DavyCrockettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      If we say we can try to figure out everything, then we will try. But, if that is our premise, well then, we have a problem indeed. To what end? Many will never stop trying. That is why forming a different premise from what we already know is vital.

    4. M. T. Dremer profile image95
      M. T. Dremerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Exploration and learning can be a good premise, with understanding and acceptance as the end game. Great things come from people who aren't content with what we already know.

    5. DavyCrockett profile image76
      DavyCrockettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      I agree, continuing to learn and grow is very important. Based on the natural laws though, we shouldn't blindly go out searching with a mentality that we will figure everything out. Our desire of figuring out will become our end game, not reality.

    6. M. T. Dremer profile image95
      M. T. Dremerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Couldn't an un-ending search for answers be reality? Even theists are constantly searching for divine answers. What does god want me to learn from this? How can I do more in his name?

    7. DavyCrockett profile image76
      DavyCrockettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      My only concern is that we will falsely create something we call reality. We can go on searching, but if there is a wall and we don't want there to be, we will make up reality, be it real or fake.

    8. M. T. Dremer profile image95
      M. T. Dremerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Some would describe theism as a fake reality, designed to deal with the harsh realization of our insignificance in the universe. Who, or what, fills the gaps of creationism?

    9. DavyCrockett profile image76
      DavyCrockettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      Theists say god has a higher understanding. The computer example I think forms a good premise. Not everything in the physical world can understand each other. And if we can't reach understanding then there has to be something outside of the physical.

    10. M. T. Dremer profile image95
      M. T. Dremerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      If human understanding cannot reach beyond our programming, then our notions of god are also wrong. The unknown of which you speak is neither god nor science. It is simply unknown.

    11. DavyCrockett profile image76
      DavyCrockettposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      The unknown is god. Because science is the known. If science can't figure something out, then all there is left is god.

    12. M. T. Dremer profile image95
      M. T. Dremerposted 4 years agoin reply to this

      But how can we attribute the unknown to god, if our knowledge of god is within the realm of human understanding? And how can we attribute it to God over Zeus? It comes with no labels, making any attribution equally right and wrong.

  3. profile image0
    christiananrkistposted 4 years ago

    the problem with God of he gaps is it suggest theists are just inserting a God in every unknown situation. I personally dont like to use the term "God did it". Unless we are like the prophets of old(which we are not) or pray for a very specific thing we cant know that.

 
working