Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
Forums
New posts
Forum list
Search forums
Leaderboards
Games
Our Blog
Blogs
New entries
New comments
Blog list
Search blogs
Credits
Transactions
Shop
Blessings: ✟0.00
Tickets
Open new ticket
Watched
Donate
Log in
Register
Search
Search titles only
By:
Search titles only
By:
More options
Toggle width
Share this page
Share this page
Share
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Menu
Install the app
Install
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
God of the gaps
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="grmorton" data-source="post: 16206494" data-attributes="member: 85112"><p>The term God of the GAps refers to putting god into a gap in scientific knowledge, where that gap can later be closed by science, causing God to retreat further. Since the means by which the universe obtained existence, can not be determined by science, it is not a gap in the usual sense. Science has no capacity for determining how existence came to be. Thus it is not in a temporary gap in science's knowledge, it is a fundamental failure are for science. Now, if you can provide a means by which the scientific method can determine how the universe obtained existence, I would be glad to hear about it. If you can't, I would say it bends my direction that this is not a gap in science's knowledge or program at all.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Now, the term 'formed', is not the term I used. We know how the universe formed--big bang, evolution etc. We don't know how it obtained existence. One must be very careful in terminology or one will get all balled up. My point in all this is that whatever was the first cause of the universe, it had to be self-created (or existent), have the informational content to create what we see, it had to have the power to create what we see, it also had to have somehow the mathematical logic which appears in the world, unless one presumes that logic itself came into existence at the big bang. To start with absolute nothingness, no time, no space, to logic, no math, no matter and then end up with something--a vacuum, an inflaton field, a HIggs particle, whatever, is the deepest mystery of all. </p><p> </p><p>And it isn't making it up to say that whatever it was which pre-existed had self existence/self creation, power, information and maybe math/logic. This last two things, information/math/logic is really interesting in my mind. INformation in this world requires matter. This was Rolf Landauer's big insight--Information if physical. If you want to store information (Shannon's definition), you need to manipulate particles. Computers use a few thousand electrons for a bit. Quantum computing will reduce that to one particle per qubit. But the same thing applies, information requires matter. And mathematics and logical formalism IS information. So, prior to when we had matter that could be arranged to store information, how were the equations which governed the vacuum/inflaton field/whatever stored? Absolute nothingness stores absolutely nothing. Given all this, why is it verboten to say that something like the pre-existing is not too far from our conventional concept of at least the deist's god? I didn't make up those concepts, the theologians did and logic leads us to them again.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="grmorton, post: 16206494, member: 85112"] The term God of the GAps refers to putting god into a gap in scientific knowledge, where that gap can later be closed by science, causing God to retreat further. Since the means by which the universe obtained existence, can not be determined by science, it is not a gap in the usual sense. Science has no capacity for determining how existence came to be. Thus it is not in a temporary gap in science's knowledge, it is a fundamental failure are for science. Now, if you can provide a means by which the scientific method can determine how the universe obtained existence, I would be glad to hear about it. If you can't, I would say it bends my direction that this is not a gap in science's knowledge or program at all. Now, the term 'formed', is not the term I used. We know how the universe formed--big bang, evolution etc. We don't know how it obtained existence. One must be very careful in terminology or one will get all balled up. My point in all this is that whatever was the first cause of the universe, it had to be self-created (or existent), have the informational content to create what we see, it had to have the power to create what we see, it also had to have somehow the mathematical logic which appears in the world, unless one presumes that logic itself came into existence at the big bang. To start with absolute nothingness, no time, no space, to logic, no math, no matter and then end up with something--a vacuum, an inflaton field, a HIggs particle, whatever, is the deepest mystery of all. And it isn't making it up to say that whatever it was which pre-existed had self existence/self creation, power, information and maybe math/logic. This last two things, information/math/logic is really interesting in my mind. INformation in this world requires matter. This was Rolf Landauer's big insight--Information if physical. If you want to store information (Shannon's definition), you need to manipulate particles. Computers use a few thousand electrons for a bit. Quantum computing will reduce that to one particle per qubit. But the same thing applies, information requires matter. And mathematics and logical formalism IS information. So, prior to when we had matter that could be arranged to store information, how were the equations which governed the vacuum/inflaton field/whatever stored? Absolute nothingness stores absolutely nothing. Given all this, why is it verboten to say that something like the pre-existing is not too far from our conventional concept of at least the deist's god? I didn't make up those concepts, the theologians did and logic leads us to them again. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
God of the gaps
Top
Bottom