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="Edx" data-source="post: 16216473" data-attributes="member: 106585"><p>Like I said, realistically we will probably never know. Theoretically we might. Many things are possible, after all. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I think those qualities are debatable, as it is still in realm of philosophy. And "God" is self defined depending on your belief. Since your belief is in a Biblical God, that is quite a bit different.</p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>I didnt say utter nothingness, and I dont think Quantum Mechanics suggests utter nothingness. I simply said that since there is a gap, and if, as you your self claim, we can never know, then filling it with a god is a god of the gaps argument. </p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Except your own reasoning fails your argument. If we can never know, then it cant be so obvious to postulate a god-like entity, can it?</p><p>Then again like I said, "god" means different things to different people. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Assuming that is correct, thats not the point. You seem to think that god of the gaps stops at a certian point where after you are logically free to make up whatever you like simply because you believe science wont be able to explain whatever it is. God of the gaps refers to a gap in knowledge, it doesnt matter if we will ever fill that gap scientifically. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>I dont kid myself actually. In fact I said realistically you are probably correct. The point is talking in absolutes that 'we will never figure out how to understand the universe' in this way is just used to support your religious conviction. But its irrelevant anyway. <strong>Even</strong> if it is impossible to know, filling it with a god is just like the ancients who thought the stars were gods. Its a gap, and you fill it with god. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>It wasnt an insult I hope you realise? Quantum Mechanics seems to be the most "scientific" study of the universe that can answer this question. Much of it isnt science in the strictest sence however and everyone involved that I have heard has admitted this, so you have to take some of it with a pinch of salt. However, aside from QM there is no way of real way of knowing at least at this point. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>I know you are going to hate this, but this is not just that theyve been wrong in the past, but that they are incapable of ever teaching us anything, unlike science, enabling us to really know things. All they would have is logic, and as I said a logically consisent argument is doable for just about anything. It doesnt mean its valid. Theology is trying to back up its religious beleif, but philosophy tries and use logic to try and figure out the most reasonable, logical, conclusion. In that respect philosophers are far more reasonable using logic than Theologians, but that doesnt mean philosophers can ever know either.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Exactly, that is why all we have is logic for those things but all that means is the idea <strong>can</strong> be <strong>logically</strong> consistent. It doesnt mean its reality.</p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p>Logic is just reasoning abilities, but as I said it can be abused. </p><p> </p><p> </p><p> </p><p><span style="color: black">Hey look, I dont know that much about Quantum Theory so Im not going to argue for it or. The difference is however that it is based on things about the universe that rest far more on reality than simply a will to put a religious belief bible-god where the gap lies. Your faith requires you to believe regardless, but you cant say the same for Quantum theorists who are trying to use reason and logic in the correct way and they certianly dont claim certainty in their ideas.</span></p><p> </p><p></p><p> </p><p>Creationist means a belief in a god that created the universe literally as is described in one of their holly scriptures, so no that wouldnt make me a creationist even if I did believe in branes and strings</p><p> </p><p>Ed</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Edx, post: 16216473, member: 106585"] Like I said, realistically we will probably never know. Theoretically we might. Many things are possible, after all. I think those qualities are debatable, as it is still in realm of philosophy. And "God" is self defined depending on your belief. Since your belief is in a Biblical God, that is quite a bit different. I didnt say utter nothingness, and I dont think Quantum Mechanics suggests utter nothingness. I simply said that since there is a gap, and if, as you your self claim, we can never know, then filling it with a god is a god of the gaps argument. Except your own reasoning fails your argument. If we can never know, then it cant be so obvious to postulate a god-like entity, can it? Then again like I said, "god" means different things to different people. Assuming that is correct, thats not the point. You seem to think that god of the gaps stops at a certian point where after you are logically free to make up whatever you like simply because you believe science wont be able to explain whatever it is. God of the gaps refers to a gap in knowledge, it doesnt matter if we will ever fill that gap scientifically. I dont kid myself actually. In fact I said realistically you are probably correct. The point is talking in absolutes that 'we will never figure out how to understand the universe' in this way is just used to support your religious conviction. But its irrelevant anyway. [b]Even[/b] if it is impossible to know, filling it with a god is just like the ancients who thought the stars were gods. Its a gap, and you fill it with god. It wasnt an insult I hope you realise? Quantum Mechanics seems to be the most "scientific" study of the universe that can answer this question. Much of it isnt science in the strictest sence however and everyone involved that I have heard has admitted this, so you have to take some of it with a pinch of salt. However, aside from QM there is no way of real way of knowing at least at this point. I know you are going to hate this, but this is not just that theyve been wrong in the past, but that they are incapable of ever teaching us anything, unlike science, enabling us to really know things. All they would have is logic, and as I said a logically consisent argument is doable for just about anything. It doesnt mean its valid. Theology is trying to back up its religious beleif, but philosophy tries and use logic to try and figure out the most reasonable, logical, conclusion. In that respect philosophers are far more reasonable using logic than Theologians, but that doesnt mean philosophers can ever know either. Exactly, that is why all we have is logic for those things but all that means is the idea [b]can[/b] be [b]logically[/b] consistent. It doesnt mean its reality. Logic is just reasoning abilities, but as I said it can be abused. [color=red] [/color] [color=black]Hey look, I dont know that much about Quantum Theory so Im not going to argue for it or. The difference is however that it is based on things about the universe that rest far more on reality than simply a will to put a religious belief bible-god where the gap lies. Your faith requires you to believe regardless, but you cant say the same for Quantum theorists who are trying to use reason and logic in the correct way and they certianly dont claim certainty in their ideas.[/color] Creationist means a belief in a god that created the universe literally as is described in one of their holly scriptures, so no that wouldnt make me a creationist even if I did believe in branes and strings Ed [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Discussion and Debate
Discussion and Debate
Physical & Life Sciences
Creation & Evolution
God of the gaps
Top
Bottom