God of the gaps argument
Holds up
Side Score: 14
|
 |
Falls apart
Side Score: 12
|
|
|
|
|
To say A mysterious god is responsible for X is no different than just admitting a lack of understanding as I see it. But, that isn't the way it is seen by the person who says God is responsible. Saying "God of the gaps" is the exact same thing as saying that we only have a lack of understanding. You are just phrasing it differently. Is a focus on the mysterious less intellectually lazy than focusing on living up to our best current understanding? Of course. By focusing on the mysterious you can actually come up with an explanation. Focusing on staying with our current understanding leads to nothing new. Side: Holds up
This method of 'proving' a god is just moves goal posts and changes the scope of a gods power. A god both shrinks and grows in this argument. A god shrinks because things that a god was thought to be responsible for (lightening for instance) becomes explained by a growing knowledge base. We no longer accept 'god' as an answer for many phenomenon because we have reasonable knowledge of how things work. A god is not needed in an explanation because we have an understanding of the forces that produce the phenomenon without envoking the supernatural. A gods scope of power grows in this explanation because the moving of goal posts pushes the 'god conclusion' to the edge of our growing knowledge base effectively now claiming a god to be responsible not for secondary, tertiary and so on effects of phenomenon but the fundamental forces that are govern the phenomenon. A god is no longer claimed to be responsible for lightening but now claimed to be responsible for the forces that produce lightening and so on. This has been going on since knowledge has been accumulated. Currently the god of the gaps argument is resting near things like abogenisis, flagellum and the big bang theory. If or when these ideas get some knowledge to produce a reasonable explanation for how those phenomenon work then the god of the gaps argument will just move the goal posts tacking the conclusion of 'god did it' to the end of the line of knowledge again. God of the gaps is just jumping to conclusions using god as a filler for the unknown. Not knowing the reason for something doesn't automatically mean a god did it. Side: Holds up
Ultimate scope is not the problem I mean thats kind of in the definitions people give for a god. The issue is that it is unsupported and not demonstrated, it is just tacked on the end of where knowledge stops. Saying god is responsible for the big bang, evolution, abiogenesis or the charge an electron is jumping to conclusions or an an argument from ignorance. Side: Holds up
1
point
|
2
points
This argument fails because the God is just asserted to be the explaination for the gap in our knowledge. It's never actually proven with evidence why the God is the explaination. Because of this any conceivable thing could be asserted in its place and it would be just as valid. It wasn't God who created the universe it was the magic toaster. It wasn't the magic toaster It was the mystic bagel. Any of these are just blatant assertions with no merit. Side: Falls apart
A God of the Gaps argument is not even an argument. It's just the easy way out. for the lazy and the deluded. For those who are too lazy too learn and research and attempt to answer the big Questions. How easy is it, when faced with a difficult and important question like, "How did abiogenesis begin?" or "What came before the Big Bang?"....to just sit back and fart and thump a bible and say, "No reason to learn that stuff. God did it!" Pathetic. Which is why we in science see so few religious fundamentalists in our field. It's a proven fact that the higher one's educational level, the less likely they are to believe in God. There is a reason for this, people. Wake up. SS Side: Falls apart
|
