Searching for GOD...

[Hope]

.. and God of the gaps (God made the self).

wiggi, over the last 10-15 years, the people I have seen resort to the 'God of the gaps' argument most regularly are those seeking to argue against the existence of God.  It does their case no more benefit than it used to do the religious case.

[Shaker]

wiggi, over the last 10-15 years, the people I have seen resort to the 'God of the gaps' argument most regularly are those seeking to argue against the existence of God.  It does their case no more benefit than it used to do the religious case.

Epic fail, as it's known in internet land. People who argue against the existence of God aren't resorting to a God-of-the-gaps argument because by definition a God-of-the-gaps argument requires a belief in a God which people who argue against the existence of a God also by definition don't possess - they're the ones correctly identifying/pointing out the God-of-the-gaps argument in those who argue for the existence of God. They're not "resorting" to it; they're saying: this is a stupid and worthless argument, don't use it if you're trying to defend theism, it's wrong for various reasons and here are those reasons. Obviously you can't tell the difference.

And yet they keep doing it anyway. Alan Burns did it yet again just earlier today. That's theism for you, it seems.

[Alan Burns]

Epic fail, as it's known in internet land. People who argue against the existence of God aren't resorting to a God-of-the-gaps argument because by definition a God-of-the-gaps argument requires a belief in a God which people who argue against the existence of a God also by definition don't possess - they're the ones correctly identifying/pointing out the God-of-the-gaps argument in those who argue for the existence of God. They're not "resorting" to it; they're saying: this is a stupid and worthless argument, don't use it if you're trying to defend theism, it's wrong for various reasons and here are those reasons. Obviously you can't tell the difference.

And yet they keep doing it anyway. Alan Burns did it yet again just earlier today. That's theism for you, it seems.

I do not see it as "the God of gaps", but the God of everything.  I believe God is intimately involved in all things - except where He has allowed free will to exist.

[bluehillside Retd.]

Hi Wiggs,

That doesn't explain why most arguments for Christian theism are so poor.  I think that once the traditional arguments in metaphysics had collapsed (since it's difficult to get from metaphysics to existence), people started scraping the barrel, and hence you get this gruesome mixture of incredulity (how could nature produce a sense of self?), and God of the gaps (God made the self).   There doesn't seem to be much else.

Quite. I'd be genuinely interested to hear an argument for an objective, "true for you too" god worthy of debate. We've seen the same broken ones countless times, but there are plenty of intelligent and nuanced theists about so some of them presumably must have something in the locker.

On the other hand, maybe not? Why for example would the believers who post here not have heard of them and deployed them accordingly? Instead we're treated to Allen's flakey five, Hope's negative proof fallacy, Vlad's not even bothering with an argument of any kind, TW's evidence denials, Sassy's green-inked ramblings etc but never anything of substance.

That can't be it can it?

Someone?

Anyone? 

[Shaker]

I do not see it as "the God of gaps"

No, of course you don't.

I believe God is intimately involved in all things - except where He has allowed free will to exist.

Yes, of course you do, because that's your permanent get-out clause. It's always free will this, free will that, despite your never once having provided a single scrap of evidence that such a thing even exists.

[bluehillside Retd.]

AB,

I do not see it as "the God of gaps", but the God of everything.  I believe God is intimately involved in all things - except where He has allowed free will to exist.

But you do argue for a god of the gaps. You don't for example understand how consciousness could have come about as an emergent property of material stuff, so you fill the gap in your understanding with "god".

That's what "god of the gaps" means.

[Shaker]

AB,

But you do argue for a god of the gaps. You don't for example understand how consciousness could have come about as an emergent property of material stuff, so you fill the gap in your understanding with "god".

That's what "god of the gaps" means.

^ This. Or ^that. Whichever suits.

[Alan Burns]

AB,

But you do argue for a god of the gaps. You don't for example understand how consciousness could have come about as an emergent property of material stuff, so you fill the gap in your understanding with "god".

That's what "god of the gaps" means.

I do try to illustrate God's power in things which are impossible to explain in human logic, but this is just part of the whole picture.  My faith is based on much more than the properties of "self awareness" and "free will".  There is the profound revelation of the gospels, the many, many witnesses to how Christ works in their lives, the amazing histories of saints and past Christians, the fellowship I share with other Christians, the prayer relationship with God, the profound answers to prayer in my life and the lives of others, the miracle of life...  I just wish I could find words to express just how wonderful it is to accept Jesus as your saviour and discover how God works in all our lives.

[Shaker]

I do try to illustrate God's power in things which are impossible to explain in human logic

God of the gaps, then. Filling up "I don't know" with "Goddunnit." Which is exactly what some of us have been saying all along.

My faith is based on much more than the properties of "self awareness" and "free will".  There is the profound revelation of the gospels, the many, many witnesses to how Christ works in their lives, the amazing histories of saints and past Christians, the fellowship I share with other Christians, the prayer relationship with God, the profound answers to prayer in my life and the lives of others, the miracle of life...  I just wish I could find words to express just how wonderful it is to accept Jesus as your saviour and discover how God works in all our lives.

Yes, so do I, because your endeavours in that regard so far have been little short of dismal.

[torridon]

Dear Torridon,

Thank you, I was hoping that you had some new insight into why we are unique, unique as no two people ( even twins ) are exactly alike.

Gonnagle.

It would be bizarre if that were not the case. Even monozygotic twins will start developing their individuality from birth and perhaps even before that. The probability of there being two identical fully developed humans is just inconceivably tiny.

[torridon]

And may I add that I have never met anyone with 99.9% of my personality.  So I wonder how such diverse, unique personalities, even between identical twins, can be explained in purely biological terms

That is interesting I agree.

Look at a herd of zebras, they all look and act identically, at least to our untrained eyes.

Take a ride on the Underground and look at the humans; they come in all shapes and sizes and styles, no two alike.

Any yet geneticists tell us that humans are very uniform in their DNA, we have nothing like the levels of genetic diversity that zebras have.

That might seem a puzzle at first, but its not a puzzle to biologists who have been down this road; it is largely about gene expression; whereas human coding regions are remarkable for their homogeneity, we have much greater diversity in expression; a slightly controversial adjunct to this being that humans are probably neotenous to some extent and diverse gene expression it is a well know characteristic of early development; thus the success of H.Sapiens is partly down to the creativity, adaptability and adventurousness of childhood.  In contrast to zebras, apes, and most other creatures, humans tend to live their entire lives as one extended childhood.

[wigginhall]

I think a while back, AB argued that evolution could not be explained purely in mechanical terms, so there must be a 'planner'.  However, when it was pointed out that this includes the catastrophic growing immunity of bugs to antibiotics, he fell silent, as how could the planner be involved here, unless he's an evil bastard?   Ah in this case, free will takes over, as it's something unpleasant.   So nice things are planned, nasty things arise via free will. 

As somebody said, God so loved the world, that he created lots of animals who eat each other.  Fun, fun, fun.

[torridon]

But the early life experiences of identical twins is not sufficient to account for the differences in personalities found in many cases.  Neither does it explain the vastly different personalities often found in siblings.  If our personality is derived from our God given soul, it would explain why every human being is so unique.

I don't see that, you cannot even define what a soul is, never mind evidence it.

Minds are unique because they are complex.  The chances of two people developing identical minds are just inconceivably remote, this is just a matter of mathematics. A human brain consists of something like 100 trillion synapses.  That is one humungously large number the like of which none of us can conceive.  The probability of any two humans having the exact same synaptic state is zero for all practical purposes.

[Shaker]

I don't see that, you cannot even define what a soul is, never mind evidence it.

Minds are unique because they are complex.  The chances of two people developing identical minds are just inconceivably remote, this is just a matter of mathematics. A human brain consists of something like 100 trillion synapses.  That is one humungously large number the like of which none of us can conceive.  The probability of any two humans having the exact same synaptic state is zero for all practical purposes.

I know.

Alan will not be satisfied.

There will still be, will always be, a "But God ..."

[Gonnagle]

Dear Blue,

Before I ask and this is my last post of 2015 I would like to say to you old son, all the best for 2016, may you and yours have a very happy, fruitful and healthy new year, lang may yer lum reek, and the same to every poster on this forum.

Now Blue old son just what are you asking here,

Quite. I'd be genuinely interested to hear an argument for an objective, "true for you too" god worthy of debate. We've seen the same broken ones countless times, but there are plenty of intelligent and nuanced theists about so some of them presumably must have something in the locker.

Are you asking for a God that you and me can believe in??

Gonnagle.

[Ricky Spanish]

What has God ever done for you?


Was it personal, or witnessed?

[Rhiannon]

.......and you resent Him for that............

I can't speak for Jeremy but if I feel resentment about anything it's the suffering that's been inflicted thanks to people believing that bullshit.

Although I do also find the mindset of people who can equate that with love quite baffling as well.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can't speak for Jeremy but if I feel resentment about anything it's the suffering that's been inflicted thanks to people believing that bullshit.

Although I do also find the mindset of people who can equate that with love quite baffling as well.

The point is though that you and Jeremy resent God. That is a pretty odd reaction for something that isn't and is a substantial difference between the reaction of God  and the reaction to other mythological figures

[Rhiannon]

The point is though that you and Jeremy resent God. That is a pretty odd reaction for something that isn't and is a substantial difference between the reaction of God  and the reaction to other mythological figures

Nope. It's impossible to resent something that doesn't exist.

I will admit to having some resentment against those Christians who damage others because of their dick-headed beliefs about their so-called God of Love. That's not all Christians, so don't bother claiming anti-Christian victimisation.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I can't speak for Jeremy but if I feel resentment about anything it's the suffering that's been inflicted thanks to people believing that bullshit.

Although I do also find the mindset of people who can equate that with love quite baffling as well.

Are you equating suffering with bullshit? I'm afraid I see far more suffering in the world due to the bullshit of acquisitive and dogmatic materialism

[Alan Burns]

.... your endeavours in that regard so far have been little short of dismal.

The cast iron proofs you ask for do not exist in the context you demand.  All I can do is open the door a touch to allow you to accept the possibility that God could exist.  Then if you can bring yourself to take a step of faith through this chink of light you will discover God as He really is.

[Rhiannon]

Are you equating suffering with bullshit? I'm afraid I see far more suffering in the world due to the bullshit of acquisitive and dogmatic materialism

I equate a huge amount of suffering with certain Christian beliefs. That the stupid greed of people - by no means the preserve of non-believers- also causes suffering doesn't magically get Christianity off the hook.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Nope. It's impossible to resent something that doesn't exist.

I will admit to having some resentment against those Christians who damage others because of their dick-headed beliefs about their so-called God of Love. That's not all Christians, so don't bother claiming anti-Christian victimisation.

Don't worry anti Christianity is still the malfunction of a screaming minority.....like yourself. Oh I am not talking of antichristianity as an idea but as a pathology caused by actual resentment of God himself . Not all non believers feel the need to hit out

[torridon]

The cast iron proofs you ask for do not exist in the context you demand.  All I can do is open the door a touch to allow you to accept the possibility that God could exist.  Then if you can bring yourself to take a step of faith through this chink of light you will discover God as He really is.

Morning Alan, and Happy New Year to you 

Nobody working in science expects cast iron proofs; such things only exist in conceptual domains such as maths and logic. More generally in science we look to the evidence and try to understand it.  So, if there is some evidence for a creator god, then fine, we have something to go on.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Morning Alan, and Happy New Year to you 

Nobody working in science expects cast iron proofs; such things only exist in conceptual domains such as maths and logic. More generally in science we look to the evidence and try to understand it.  So, if there is some evidence for a creator god, then fine, we have something to go on.

I think you are mistaking science for a life stance or world view