Bible Humper

Hello David, I'm posting this in order to continue our debate from the "Welcome David Mathews" thread.

**************************************************

There seems to have been some sort of mistake with this answer, because it is not a "yes or no" question. Please clarify.

I was not critiquing religion here at all! I was critiquing the "god in the gaps" argument alone, and the dark ages is just particularly relevant because of the sheer quantity of phenomena that was presented in those days as "obvious" manifestations of the supernatural. I am well aware that your theology is much different than the theology of a dark age theist, but you are relying on the same "God in the gaps" argument that served your dark age counterpart so poorly!!

I was also showing how a dark age skeptic would be at a complete loss to explain rain, disease, insanity, stars, etc., simply because he didn't have the slightest idea how such phenomena could indeed be natural. The dark age skeptic has been vindicated nonetheless.

It is difficult to even imagine an equally unreliable line of argumentation as "God in the gaps", because this line of argumentation has a notorious track record of never, in its tens of thousands of years of regular use by billions upon billions of believers, of being right even once when the mystery of the phenomenon in question was at last unraveled.

Everywhere knowledge shines, religion recoils from.

It would be less of a gamble to give away my house tonight for free based on the chance that I am going to win the lottery later this week than to base a worldview upon a line of argument that has utterly failed literally trillions of times without even a single success.

If you disagree that "God in the gaps" is all that theism has in the way of anything even remotely resembling empirical evidence, I would like to hear what that evidence is.

Having explored the viewpoints of all these myriad faiths, did you never wonder about the believers who have as much faith as you do in their completely incompatible "truths", and what this implies about the reliablility of "faith" and "intuition"? I know you don't believe that one religion holds a monopoly on theistic "truth", but when you see something like UFO cults, doesn't the unreliability of "faith" and "intuition" as being sufficient means of discerning what is true become painfully apparent?

Since faith, intuition, and "God in the gaps" are all woefully unreliable, a belief that has nothing more than these is no more grounded that Brain-In-A-Laboratoryism. Explore why you feel confident in rejecting B.I.A.Lism as truth, despite the fact that it is not falsifiable, and you will discover that the same reasons for this rejection apply to your theism equally if not more.

We can only speculate on what can and can't be ultimately proved empirically, imagine the amazement of a dark age barbarian regarding the current state of science if he could be brought to the present!

My point still stands in any case, there is not a single piece of evidence that suggests that human consciousness, abiogenesis, nor the origin of universe will prove to be supernatural phenomena.

The theistic claims that these are supernatural phenomena are as groundless as the B.I.A.List claim that these phenomena will prove that we are living in a virtual reality, and only serve to allow the believer to convince himself that his belief is more than fantasy.

Whether or not scientists will be able to unravel all of these mysteries has nothing to do with my question.

If abiogenesis, human consciousness, and the origin of the universe were all proven to be naturalistic phenomena tomorrow, it would not be proven that God does not exist anyway. What evidence suggests that these phenomena are supernatural?

There is no evidence at all that actually suggests this, but the theist wants to find something, anything, that is evidence of the truth of his beliefs, so he points somewhere just beyond the borders of what is currently known about reality and asserts that the proof "must" be there, because there "must" be proof somewhere or other, even if it is totally imperceptible to man, for he has already presupposed what the "truth" is. "God in the gaps" is the only hope for the theist, despite its notorious record of 100% complete and utter failure, of convincing himself or others that there is indeed some sort of evidence of his assertions, if only we could unravel the mysteries where this evidence lies, and thus ultimately prove that his religious belief is more than pure fantasy with origins in the efforts of primitive man to explain and influence the unknown.

If your assertion that human consciousness, abiogenesis, and the origin of the universe being supernatural phenomena is based on evidence that suggests that the answers to the mysteries of these phenomena are indeed supernatural, rather than an attempt to assure yourself of the truth of your belief, please present your evidence!

You do indeed need and believe in "God in the gaps" arguments, because if there was anything else there would be no rational atheists left!

You have already asserted many times in this thread that your God lies beyond the known, and perhaps even beyond the knowable. This is indeed reliance upon "God in the gaps", that argument most notorious for complete and utter failure.

Please David, tell me exactly, in your own words, why you don't accept B.I.A.Lism since it cannot be refuted. It will be instructive to us both.

Religious people never question the fundamental "answers". The existence of supernature in general, and their deity in particular, are the "answers that may never be questioned".

There is no way to arrive at the conclusion that the "answer" = Yahweh unless it is accepted as the answer before you even look at the "questions".

A "naturalistic explanation of the universe" is an explanation that does not invoke magic to "fill in the gaps".

Through discovering the underlying physics, I would think, and making naturalistic predictions about the universe that prove to be true by looking at the theory and saying "If this theory is true, if we test 'x', we will find that 'y' is true", and then verifying it.

You missed the point here, the point was to discover what facts lead you to believe that there isn't a naturalistic answer to the origin to the universe.

I am in fact eager to explore the relevance that B.I.A.Lism has to theism. I have indeed "started the ball rolling" up above in this post, as well as in most of my previous posts, and you are, of course, welcome and encouraged to present me with your own view of the relevance between theism/atheism and B.I.A.Lism.

You might like to know that the current issue of Scientific American has "the brain and consciousness" as its theme.

I have no clue how the brain works, beyond the basics, so I can't answer this until perhaps I read this months Scientific American, though even then I won't know even close to everything because the premier neurologists of the world don't even know everything about it!

My point is that there is nothing known that suggests that consciousness is a trait of a "soul", and much that suggests that it is a phenomenon of the brain. Even though many of the mysteries of the brain are yet to be unraveled, you have come to the conclusion somehow that consciousness is a supernatural phenomenon.

I'm asking what leads you to believe that consciousness is a supernatural phenomenon, since consciousness is a mystery as yet not fully unraveled, and nothing of what has been unraveled points to the supernatural.

Well, I have yet to see a scientist assert that consciousness is a phenomenon of any part of the body other than the brain, so I fail to see how my toe lacking consciousness is evidence against naturalism of any kind.

Indeed, if our consciousness is independant of our brain, a phenomenon of a "soul", a cadaver should still be conscious if it loses its head but the rest of the body is sustained artificially. If not, why not?

Maybe, maybe not. Is your assertion that consciousness cannot be a naturalistic phenomenon grounded in the hope that you cannot be proved wrong in your lifetime?

Are "god in the gaps" arguments a crutch to prop up a faith that can't stand on its own legs?

This seems to confirm my last statement. It isn't relevant to you what naturalism accomplishes after your death, because you will no longer need a crutch to prop up a groundless faith, and there will no longer be any danger of that faith collapsing without one of its vital crutches.

Throw away all of the "God in the gaps" crutches you have that prop up that dead old thing that is your faith, and we would see it waver and fall!

I do not pretend to solve even many of the questions related to the nature of consciousness either. All I know is that it seems to be a phenomena of the brain, rather than a "soul".

Ahha! So the members of UFO cults, who hold beliefs irreconcilable with yours, not to mention the myriad christians that have a faith as strong as yours but who disagree wholeheartedly with most of your theology, are animated in their contrary belief by a "religious impulse" rather than the truth since you cannot all be right at the same time!

There are almost as many beliefs as there are believers, thus you can agree that almost all of them are dead wrong about many of the beliefs they hold because most of them believe, for example, in the exclusive truth of their particular religion. Since you see so much error all around you from those who are animated by the "religious impulse" to trust their intuition and faith as vehicles for discerning truth, you better be sure that your own intuition and faith have lead you true!

Looking at your faith though, I see a sick old man who must place his crutches deep beyond the known and knowable, because there is no room to place his crutches within the known, and if he doesn't place crutches somewhere, he would be sure to fall with much wheezing and gasping!

I see an island that is "God in the gaps", surrounded by the energetic waves of inquiry, and the inexorable tides of knowledge. This island used to be gigantic, with plenty of space for its inhabitants, but over time the waves and tides have shriveled this island to a fraction of it's former size.

The inhabitants of this island are sick old men who are all named "Faith", each one of them incapable of standing without his crutches firmly upon the island known as "God in the gaps". None of these sick old men dare suggest that the crutches be fashioned into a raft, and thus allow a glorious exodus into the sea and unto new lands, for they are terrified of the sea, and have forgotten how to sail.

"The island shall never be washed into the sea!" they exclaim, even as the waves of inquiry break off yet another yard, and the tide of knowledge washes away a few more of the sick old men.

"Back from the coast, back!" they exclaim to those sick old men who had braced their crutches too close to the edge of the island.

"Alas, we have lost some of our neighbors!" they lament, for with every tide that inundates the island, those who cannot shuffle out of its path lose their crutches. The sick old men of the island who lose their crutches cannot stand on their own, and thus fall headlong into the sea and are lost.

"A curse upon the sea, a curse!" squawk those who for a terrifying moment found the piece of the island where they braced their crutches sinking.

"Come further inland!" shout their fellows, as the refugees of the inundation teeter along looking for somewhere new to brace their crutches.

"Let us toss away our crutches!" shouts a bold one "that we need not fear them becoming washed away, surely we may stand upon our own two legs!"
This bold one is jeered, but still he continues.

"My name is Faith, as is all yours, my neighbors, and I declare that I can stand, upon my own two legs!"

"Aye, so can we, that is indeed what we're doing!" they howl "there are no crutches to hold us up, what accusation is this?"

"I see them now with my own eyes!" exclaims the bold one "and I shall toss mine away!"

The bold one throws his crutches aside, and a great howl of freedom escapes from his throat.

"I stand upon the island of 'God in the gaps', I stand upon my own legs!" he shouts, even as he tumbles into the sea.

"There are no crutches to prop us!" they exclaim, as they shuffle and wheeze "the bold one was wrong." even as they brace their crutches, and look fearfully at the sea.

I would prefer social factors to play no role at all in judging the truth of theistic assertions. I would not hypocritically turn around and copy theistic methods of indoctrinating children in order to propagate atheism.

Let the truth stand upon its own two legs, and do not cripple the children so that they ever after need crutches!

The truth of a belief is not a fine wine. It neither improves nor degrades with age. If B.I.A.Lism is not true of reality today, it will not become true of reality later. Ditto for theism.

Atheism has no positive assertions whatsoever.

Positive qualities are a different matter indeed.

I don't think that the outcome is doubtful at all. Let's assume for the sake of argument that Yahweh exists, if all belief and knowledge of him vanished tomorrow, how would knowledge and belief in him redevelop through observation and deduction?

Remarkable, thus whether or not Yahweh exists in this reality is imperceptible, just like the B.I.A.L scenario. Indistinguishable in every way from a scenario in which both of these are not true.

So there is nothing other than "faith and intuition", which no believer can rationally deny is woefully inadequate because of the plethora of beliefs that have irreconcilable differences with one another, as well as their own belief, and propped up on crutches grounded in "God of the gaps".

Is this not a fair description of your belief?

Please elaborate on what you mean by "transcendant matters".

Actually, not at all. Naturalistic origin scenarios can easily be refuted by the discovery of evidence that doesn't match the scenario.

B.I.A.Lism and your theism are irrefutable because they both posit that all naturalistic discoveries are consistent with their "truth", while their "ultimate truths" are beyond the ability of humans to perceive or even comprehend.

A single piece of evidence that is not of the "God in the gaps" or "B.I.A.Lism in the gaps" type, would refute naturalism in its entirety completely, utterly and irrevocably.

Mysteriously, this single piece of evidence is always claimed to be "just over the horizon of what is now known", or "somewhere within the realm of the unknowable", always scurrying deeper into the dark of human ignorance as the light of human discovery shines upon where it was hidden.

-------------------------------------------------

Supernaturalism has theology
Naturalism has science

Theology has theologians
Science has scientists

Theologians declare that faith can move mountains, but nobody believes them.
Scientists declare that science can level mountains, and nobody doubts them.

David Mathews

Hello Splashing,

Thanks for continueing that discussion. I will comment:

David: A Universe created by Yahweh may or may not be indistinguishable from a Universe created by another god or no god at all. This is a matter of pure speculation which no amount of investigation will resolve.

A Universe in which Yahweh is Creator is indistinguishable from a Universe without a Creator in the sense that theists and atheists do live in the same Universe, and therefore our Universes are identical in every respect except for our belief or lack of belief in a God.

David: The "God of the gaps" argument is ineffective and that is why I do not rely upon such arguments. For natural phenomena natural causes are to be expected even when they are not yet known.

Natural explanations are perfectly legitimate and even compatible with Theism. Even the Biblical authors were aware of natural explanations for some phenomena.

There are other phenomena which are apparently unnatural, such as the origin of the Universe, and phenomena which are extraordinarily, such as the origin of life, and finally phenomena which are mystifying, such as the origin of consciousness and self-awareness. These phenomena might or might not have a natural explanation, but I would not take it for granted that a natural explanation will ever successfully explain their occurrence.

I suppose that even if all phenomena are found to have natural causes, God is still not excluded from the Universe. God could still remain the ultimate cause and author of nature, designing the Universe in such a manner that it can self-originate, matter so that it could become life, and life in such a manner that it eventually leads to intelligence. God could do this though we would never be able to know that He did so.

Given that all of the above mentioned phenomena are historic and therefore unavailable for direct investigation, humans may never know how all of these things happened.

David: I must disagree. There are billions of religious people in the West and the East, all who live with an abundant wealth of knowledge.

David: Those who look for empirical evidence for God are bound to fail because God is not available for empirical examination. God does not reveal Himself in that manner for anyone.

David: Religions differ on particulars but once you get beyond these there does seem to be universal agreement about some things. UFO cults and other cults are in error because they have become so devoted to the particulars that they have lost sight of the transcendent. They are harmful to the extent that they limit the freedom of thought and self-expression of their members.

David: This argument is convincing to you but of little use to me.

David: I do not accept the classification of theism as "fanstasy" comparable to your own Brain-in-a-laboratory scenario. The analogy that you are drawing here is merely a product of your own imagination, and therefore serves only to make theism appear absurd. What I must point out is that if you did have any defensible atheistic alternative to theism, you would be presenting that as the alternative to theism. You do not have that, so you have created your own creation myth.

I must say that even those naturalistic scenarios of origins which atheists invent are creation myths, serving the same purpose as Brain-in-a-laboratoryism and all of the creation stories, and equally speculative as well as equally unverifiably by any empirical methods.

The analogy that you are drawing applies with equal force to atheistic origin accounts. Therefore, you are not proving anything.

David: Once naturalistic explanations for these phenomena are found, if they are found, the question will still remain: Why? All answers to this question are speculative and therefore not subject to empirical investigation. It is futile to search for evidence regarding matters of philosophical speculation. In the final analysis, all answers to these sorts of questions are resolved by faith.

David: I must point out that during the period in which natural phenomena were attributed to God these explanations were not presented as a "God of the gaps" argument because at that time philosophical atheism did not exist or was so rare as to not merit any response. The "God of the gaps" argument is of recent origin in response to scientism and the devotion of some people to explaining everything naturalistically. The gaps are pointed out not so much as a proof of God's existence as they in reality serve only as a refutation of naturalism.

The form of the argument that theists were responding to was: "Science explains everything, therefore there is no need for God." The argument in response was: "Science has not explained everything, there are all these phenomena which science has not yet explained." The argument is powerful and that is why it has received the derisive title, "God of the gaps."

However, the reality of human ignorance and our inability to solve every problem has been validated by the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics and the principles of chaos theory. In the final analysis there are questions which science cannot answer because the Universe's natural laws forbid it.

The gap is real, objectively verified and beyond dispute. Human knowledge does have a limit, there are questions which science will never be able to answer.

David: Technically speaking, God's nature as unknown and unknowable is not the "God of the gaps" argument. From the standpoint of the history of religion and philosophy, God's nature as unknown and unknowable is a common feature of all theistic religions from the polytheistic Hindus to the monotheistic Muslims, Jews and Christians. There is a wealth of evidence from the scriptures of all these religions that God is unknown and unknowable.

David: I don't accept B.I.A.L.ism because you are the only person that I have ever met who presented the belief, and you don't even believe it.

David: You are mistaken. I have read many of the writings of the religious and these sort of questions are present therein. Religious scholars, philosophers and mystics have all approached these types of questions and they have come away from them with a multitude of answers.

David: I don't believe you. Please present such an argument so that we can examine it.

David: It is a guess on my part, based upon my own observation of the inanimate and unconscious nature of my own atoms, molecules, cells and even organs. The lungs are not conscious, so how is it that the brain is conscious?

David: That is a good question. All these comments on consciousness, its origin and nature, are purely speculative on my own part. I don't pretend to have an answer.

David: I am merely stating an expectation. If scientists prove me wrong, I will appreciate their discovery.

David: What happens after my death is irrelevant because I won't ever know. Those things that I don't know and will never know are naturally not relevant to my beliefs. I suppose that the same is true for you, although you might have invested some of your beliefs with the hope that naturalism will actually settle some of these fundamental philosophical questions.

David: I don't consider people whose beliefs are different from mine dead wrong. I just consider such people different. I don't make any claim of exclusive possession of the truth, nor do I claim that my faith is better or more correct than anyone else's.

David: Your parable is quite creative though not an accurate representation of the situation that believers are confronting.

David: Therefore, you do allow your children to learn, examine and explore religion and do not insist that they not believe in God?

David: If Yahweh existed, He would reveal Himself to mankind. As He has.

David; Brain-in-a-laboratoryism is a true description of your beliefs.

David: You are mistaken. The origin of the universe is not observable, therefore no evidence is available to either support or refute naturalistic origin scenarios.

David: Atheism is not science, science is not atheism. Atheists are not scientists, scientists are not atheists.

There are scientists who are atheists, and there are also scientists who are theists.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

The Other Michael

David, you said:

David: God could still remain the ultimate cause and author of nature, designing the Universe in such a manner that it can self-originate, matter so that it could become life, and life in such a manner that it eventually leads to intelligence. God could do this though we would never be able to know that He did so.

David: Those who look for empirical evidence for God are bound to fail because God is not available for empirical examination. God does not reveal Himself in that manner for anyone.

David: Once naturalistic explanations for these phenomena are found, if they are found, the question will still remain: Why? All answers to this question are speculative and therefore not subject to empirical investigation. It is futile to search for evidence regarding matters of philosophical speculation. In the final analysis, all answers to these sorts of questions are resolved by faith.

David: Technically speaking, God's nature as unknown and unknowable is not the "God of the gaps" argument. From the standpoint of the history of religion and philosophy, God's nature as unknown and unknowable is a common feature of all theistic religions from the polytheistic Hindus to the monotheistic Muslims, Jews and Christians. There is a wealth of evidence from the scriptures of all these religions that God is unknown and unknowable.

David: If Yahweh existed, He would reveal Himself to mankind. As He has.

To recap:

We can't know if God did something,

God is not revealed to the senses,

All answers to philosophical speculation are resolved by faith,

There is a "wealth of evidence" that God is unknown and unknowable,and

God has revealed himself to mankind.

This seems to boil down to: we can't know anything about God, he can't be perceived, there is evidence that he is unknown and unknowable, and yet he's revealed himself in spite of all of the preceding.

There seems to be an awful lot of contradictory statements there, as well as some statements that are basically senseless (evidence that he is unknown and unknowable).

Why don't you just cut all the excess verbiage and use a stock reply of "because I say so" when answering questions about your "God"?

You could even shorten that reply to "because".

It would be just as satisfying, and would make your posts a lot more concise.

cheers,
Michael

[ July 09, 2002: Message edited by: The Other Michael ]</p>

David Mathews

Hello Other Micheal,

David: You have read & understood my post.

David: Contradictions when talking about God are necessary and unavoidable. Incidentally, contradictions are not unknown from science: Consider the wave/particle duality of light and the extraordinary properties of matter in the quantum state.

David: As a matter of fact, that it is a perfectly legitimate answer and it does have the virtue of conciseness. I don't answer these questions so concisely because I know that a certain amount of effort was expending in writing the post and so I expend a similar amount of effort in responding.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

The Other Michael

You also said

<strong>Once naturalistic explanations for these phenomena are found, if they are found, the question will still remain: Why?</strong>

I hope you'll be satisfied when we reply "because" to your question "why?" about life, the universe and everything.


Michael

David Mathews

Hello Other Micheal,

David: That answer does satisfy me as it is an acknowledgment on your part of the ineffable mystery.

Atheists may either not know this or acknowledge it even if they know it, but whenever the meet with the ineffable mystery they are meeting God.

"Gopis and Krishnas say,
Shivas say, Siddhas say,
Innumerable Buddhas say,
the demons say, the gods say,
the virtuous, wise and devout say.
How many speak and begin to speak,
many have spoken and gone,
and if their numbers were doubled again,
still no one could say.
That One is as great as It chooses to be,
Nanak says, only the True One knows Itself,
that babbler who presumes to say,
is marked as the fool of fools."
(Japji, The Name of My Beloved: Verses of the Sikh Gurus. Translated by Nikky-Guninder Kaur Singh)

That is how the Sikhs speak about the ineffable mystery. The book of John expresses it in a different manner:

"There are many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written."
(John 21:25)

The book of Job speaks of the same, as Job addresses God:

"I know that You cna do everything, and that no purpose of Yours can be withheld from You. You asked, 'Who is this who hides counsel without knowledge?' Therefore I have uttered what I did not understand, things too wonderful for me, which I did not know. Listen, please, and let me speak; you said, 'I will question you, and you shall answer Me.' I have heard of You by the hearing of the ear, but now my eye sees You. Therefore I abhor myself, and repent in dust and ashes."
(Job 42:2-6)

The mystery is also present in the Qur'an, such as the following words:

"Say: None in the heavens
or on the earth, except Allah,
knows what is hidden:
nor can they perceive
when they shall be raised
Up (for Judgment).

Still less can their knowledge
comprehend the Hereafter: nay,
they are in doubt and uncertainty
threeanent; nay, they are blind
thereunto."

(Surah 27:65-66. The Meaning of the Holy Qur'an. Translated by 'Abdullah Yusuf 'Ali)

And so forth. The greatest men that humankind has every produced are aware of the ineffable mystery, they all know that the inspired word fails to encompass the concept and they all agree that there is something transcendent.

The reality which we see and know is provisional and transient. The life that you hold dear is a gift, not a possession. All the things that you treasure will belong to someone else before too long.

All that exist and remains is the great mystery, the God of this Universe. You may not acknowledge Him and you may reject His existence, but after all is said and done you still have not released yourself from the mystery.

That is why religion is a vital force in the world even today. That is why religion will always remain a vital force in the world.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

The Other Michael

Hello David,

No, you are wrong.

That answer is an acknowledgement on my part that you appear unable (or unwilling) to engage in a reasonable discussion in which you put forth a proposition and defend it in an honest and logical fashion.

cheers,
Michael

David Mathews

Hello Micheael,


David: Well, if that is what your answer means, that is fine.

Sincerely,

David Mathews

Bible Humper

Hello David

But you have somehow come to the conclusion that Yahweh is indeed responsible in some way for the creation of the universe. I am attempting to coax the reasons you hold this belief out of you, because you deny that you are resorting to "God in the gaps" in order to be able to point to something that with sufficient imagination can be proclaimed evidence. Each time I bring this up you remind me that aspects of hypothetical univeses are matters of pure speculation, instead of discussing our own universe.

You have already rejected my conclusion that there is no rational way to identify aspects of the universe as evidence that points to Yahweh, but then neglect to identify any aspects that do indeed point to Him. Is there any aspect of this universe that you feel that atheists must rationalize away before they can deny the existence of Yahweh or not?

We reside in the same universe, but the universe is different for you than it is for me? Only in the mind, David.

If Yahweh created the universe, I am in a created universe whether I believe it or not. If the universe is a naturalistic phenomenon, it was not created by Yahweh whether you believe it or not. Belief does not change the universe in any way, only the way we perceive it.

The "gaps" in the "God in the gaps" argument are "gaps" in human knowledge. Since you have already argued that there is a "wealth of evidence that God is unknown and unknowable", your God is indeed a "God in the gaps". Maybe this isn't a line of argument that you use elsewhere, but it is all I have seen so far. Please show an argument for God that is not "in the gaps", if possible.

I agree with this completely, there is no room for supernature here. Since humanity has yet to discover a single supernatural phenomenon, it appears that the above accounts for everything.

It seems to me that if you applied the above quote to the question of the universe itself, you would find that the presumption that the origin of the universe is naturalistic is the rational one.

Many natural explanations are only compatible with theism after the mysteries of the phenomenon in question have been unraveled, and the claim that the phenomenon in question is supernatural becomes undefendable.

Rain, stars, disease and insanity are just a few examples of phenomena that were given supernatural explanations by biblical authors who were allegedly inspired by an omniscient deity. Once a phenomenon is shown to be naturalistic, the theist retreats back into the "gaps"


This quote seems incompatible with your statement that "natural explanations can be expected for natural phenomena."

For what reasons do you "not take it for granted that natural explanations will ever successfully explain their occurence."? It seems that it would be rational to take it for granted that there is a naturalistic explanation, unless and until there is an aspect of the universe that proves to be supernatural, by your own words. Comments?

This is the ultimate of all "God in the gaps" argument in all its glory. Since "God" could be replaced with "B.I.A.Lism" in this statement, and B.I.A.Lism actually fits better, this gets us nowhere.

Sure, so since we have yet to find a single supernatural phenomenon, and all of the mysteries of all phenomena unraveled to date have proven to be naturalistic, would you say that it is logical to work under the assumption that these modern mysteries have naturalistic solutions until a reason to believe otherwise becomes apparent???

God is in the "gaps" no matter how much any believer knows. No believer who understands photosynthesis declares that it works by magic, only the phenomena that they, and the rest of humanity, cannot yet explain.

[quote]If you disagree that "God in the gaps" is all that theism has in the way of anything even remotely resembling empirical evidence, I would like to hear what that evidence is.

David: Those who look for empirical evidence for God are bound to fail because God is not available for empirical examination. God does not reveal Himself in that manner for anyone.[QUOTE]

Exactly!!!!!! This is once again "God in the gaps", in fact you have asserted that God is [i]completely[I] in the gaps, and any attempt to find him outside of the gaps is doomed to failure.

The only reason christianity hasn't limited your "freedom of thought and self-expression" is because you have rejected their claims of exclusive truth and explored alternative religions. For the bulk of religious people, their religious "shepherds" do indeed limit their thought and self-expression to thoughts and expressions consistant with their particular dogma.

My point is that faith, intuition, and "God in the gaps" cannot be rationally seen to be reliable means of discerning truth.

Won't you take the challenge in order to refute me? How can you choose theism over B.I.A.Lism when they both are at least equally likely, more likely if you take into account that we can see how B.I.A.Lism could be accomplished, even though we cannot yet do so, whereas theism has yet to even present their first piece of evidence for supernature, much less evidence of their interpretation of it?



From Merriam-Webster's collegiate dictionary:

Main Entry: 1fan·ta·sy
Pronunciation: 'fan-t&-sE, -zE
Function: noun
Inflected Form(s): plural -sies
Etymology: Middle English fantasie -- more at FANCY
Date: 14th century
1 obsolete : HALLUCINATION
2 : FANCY; especially : the free play of creative imagination
3 : a creation of the imaginative faculty whether expressed or merely conceived: as a : a fanciful design or invention b : a chimerical or fantastic notion c : FANTASIA 1 d : imaginative fiction featuring especially strange settings and grotesque characters -- called also fantasy fiction
4 : CAPRICE
5 : the power or process of creating especially unrealistic or improbable mental images in response to psychological need &lt;an object of fantasy&gt;; also : a mental image or a series of mental images (as a daydream) so created &lt;sexual fantasies of adolescence&gt;
6 : a coin usually not intended for circulation as currency and often issued by a dubious authority (as a government-in-exile)

Quote:

The analogy that you are drawing here is merely a product of your own imagination, and therefore serves only to make theism appear absurd.

It is not absurd to hold theistic beliefs because they are the result of upbringing.

The theistic beliefs themselves are indeed absurd, as I have shown by comparing B.I.A.Lism to theism, and your inability to identify anything that makes theism more probable than B.I.A.Lism.

Quote:

I must say that even those naturalistic scenarios of origins which atheists invent are creation myths, serving the same purpose as Brain-in-a-laboratoryism and all of the creation stories, and equally speculative as well as equally unverifiably by any empirical methods.

B.I.A.Lism has as much proof, and as many explanations, as theism does.

Quote:

What I must point out is that if you did have any defensible atheistic alternative to theism, you would be presenting that as the alternative to theism. You do not have that, so you have created your own creation myth.

Atheist creation myths???? Atheism no more includes a built-in creation myth or any other dogma than does aSantaism.

If you mean B.I.A.Lism, all I did was take your methodology, apply it to the question of the origin of the universe without presupposing that the "answer" was Yahweh before I even asked the "question", and discovered a scenario that fits what we know even better than your own scenario.

You know damn well that I am not a B.I.A.List, I am showing that your methodology is flawed.

Quote:

The analogy that you are drawing applies with equal force to atheistic origin accounts. Therefore, you are not proving anything.

There are no "atheist origin accounts".

If you mean naturalistic origin accounts, well, don't forget to apply what you said above regarding "natural explanations can be expected for natural phenomena". Unless and until some aspect of the universe is found to be supernatural, that advice is wise indeed.

Quote:

If abiogenesis, human consciousness, and the origin of the universe were all proven to be naturalistic phenomena tomorrow, it would not be proven that God does not exist anyway. What evidence suggests that these phenomena are supernatural? David: Once naturalistic explanations for these phenomena are found, if they are found, the question will still remain: Why? All answers to this question are speculative and therefore not subject to empirical investigation. It is futile to search for evidence regarding matters of philosophical speculation. In the final analysis, all answers to these sorts of questions are resolved by faith.

Instead of accepting that there are "Questions that may never be answered", you have decided to accept "answers that may never be questioned".

Theistic "answers" are non-answers anyway, to posit that "God" created conditions that allow the universe to originate on its own is no answer at all to anything. If they did discover the conditions that allowed the universe to self-originate naturalistically, the theist will merely say "Ah ha! but God caused the conditions that that caused the conditions that allowed the universe to self-originate naturalistically!!! Bow down!" I dealt with this earlier in my little parable.

Quote:

There is no evidence at all that actually suggests this, but the theist wants to find something, anything, that is evidence of the truth of his beliefs, so he points somewhere just beyond the borders of what is currently known about reality and asserts that the proof "must" be there, because there "must" be proof somewhere or other, even if it is totally imperceptible to man, for he has already presupposed what the "truth" is. "God in the gaps" is the only hope for the theist, despite its notorious record of 100% complete and utter failure, of convincing himself or others that there is indeed some sort of evidence of his assertions, if only we could unravel the mysteries where this evidence lies, and thus ultimately prove that his religious belief is more than pure fantasy with origins in the efforts of primitive man to explain and influence the unknown. David: I must point out that during the period in which natural phenomena were attributed to God these explanations were not presented as a "God of the gaps" argument because at that time philosophical atheism did not exist or was so rare as to not merit any response.

They didn't call it "God in the gaps", they called it "ProofofGodfearHimandbowdown". It was nonetheless the same argument no matter what name they gave it, if they named it at all.

Quote:

The "God of the gaps" argument is of recent origin in response to scientism and the devotion of some people to explaining everything naturalistically. The gaps are pointed out not so much as a proof of God's existence as they in reality serve only as a refutation of naturalism.

In what way does the fact that methodological naturalism has not yet resulted in, and might never result in, all the answers to all the mysteries of the universe a refutation of naturalism?

On the one hand, you hold naturalism to a ridiculously high standard of burden of proof, despite its record of having never been wrong when the mysteries of any particular phenomenon were unraveled!

On the other hand, you hold supernaturalism to a ridiculously low standard of burden of proof, despite its record of having never been right when the mysteries of any particular phenomenon were unraveled!

If you were to hold naturalism and supernauralism to the same standard of burden of proof, we know what would happen, don't we?

Quote:

The form of the argument that theists were responding to was: "Science explains everything, therefore there is no need for God." The argument in response was: "Science has not explained everything, there are all these phenomena which science has not yet explained."

"Science has not yet explained everything" does not lead to "Yahweh is the explanation" in any way, shape or form.

Quote:

The argument is powerful and that is why it has received the derisive title, "God of the gaps."

ROFLMAO The argument is "powerful"?

"God in the gaps" has the distinction of being a line of argument that in trillions of uses, by billions of believers throughout the entire world, of not having been right, or even close to right, even ONCE when the mysteries of the phenomenon in question were at last unraveled. A dismal record of complete, total, undeniable utter failure without so much as a single success to break the monotony of failure after failure!!!

If there is a type of argument that has the same record of 100% failure as "God in the gaps", I am at a complete loss to think of it.

If this is a powerful theistic argument, I would hate to see a weak on!!!

Quote:

However, the reality of human ignorance and our inability to solve every problem has been validated by the Heisenburg uncertainty principle, quantum mechanics and the principles of chaos theory. In the final analysis there are questions which science cannot answer because the Universe's natural laws forbid it.

Theism can take comfort in the fact that there will almost certainly always be "gaps" of some sort where it can hang its hat.

Quote:

The gap is real, objectively verified and beyond dispute. Human knowledge does have a limit, there are questions which science will never be able to answer.

...and answers that religion will never be able to question.

Quote:

You have already asserted many times in this thread that your God lies beyond the known, and perhaps even beyond the knowable. This is indeed reliance upon "God in the gaps", that argument most notorious for complete and utter failure. David: Technically speaking, God's nature as unknown and unknowable is not the "God of the gaps" argument. From the standpoint of the history of religion and philosophy, God's nature as unknown and unknowable is a common feature of all theistic religions from the polytheistic Hindus to the monotheistic Muslims, Jews and Christians. There is a wealth of evidence from the scriptures of all these religions that God is unknown and unknowable.

His nature being unknown is not "God in the gaps", I agree. His manifestations and very existence being unknown and unknowable are indeed "God in the gaps". It makes no more sense to discuss the nature of a deity whose manifestations and existence are unknown and unknowable in the first place, than it is to explore a fruitful discussion regarding whether the operating system of the computer that sustains our B.I.A.Listic universe is more similar to Windows or Linux.

Quote:

Please David, tell me exactly, in your own words, why you don't accept B.I.A.Lism since it cannot be refuted. It will be instructive to us both. David: I don't accept B.I.A.L.ism because you are the only person that I have ever met who presented the belief, and you don't even believe it.

David, you have commited a well known logical fallacy here. Is this the one and only reason?

Quote:

Religious people never question the fundamental "answers". The existence of supernature in general, and their deity in particular, are the "answers that may never be questioned". There is no way to arrive at the conclusion that the "answer" = Yahweh unless it is accepted as the answer before you even look at the "questions". David: You are mistaken. I have read many of the writings of the religious and these sort of questions are present therein. Religious scholars, philosophers and mystics have all approached these types of questions and they have come away from them with a multitude of answers.

Impossible, you have said many times that God is "unknown and unknowable".

Quote:

A "naturalistic explanation of the universe" is an explanation that does not invoke magic to "fill in the gaps". David: I don't believe you. Please present such an argument so that we can examine it.

Take a look at the "bouncing universe" theory, no magic involved at all.

[quote]I'm asking what leads you to believe that consciousness is a supernatural phenomenon, since consciousness is a mystery as yet not fully unraveled, and nothing of what has been unraveled points to the supernatural.

David: It is a guess on my part, based upon my own observation of the inanimate and unconscious nature of my own atoms, molecules, cells and even organs. The lungs are not conscious, so how is it that the brain is conscious?

This could be applied to eyes, ears, nose, tongue and nerves also. Atoms, molecules and cells cannot see, hear, smell, taste nor feel, but these are naturalistic organs anyway.

Perhaps you feel that I am not in awe of the mysteries that confront mankind, nothing could be further from the truth!

An expectation based on what? "Naturalistic answers should be expected for naturalistic phenomena"

They are relevant to your beliefs in the most fundamental way! The relevance is the truth of your beliefs, how could that be irrelevant???

Not at all, my atheistic belief comes from the utter inability of theists to present evidence of a deity.

My naturalistic beliefs are based on the success of naturalism in contrast to supernaturalism.

The theist cannot even present evidence of supernature, much less his interpretation of it!!

Well, someone's religious views are right and all the rest are wrong, or all of them are wrong.

This illustrates the extreme folly of propping faith upon "God in the gaps", intuition and faith.
You can't escape the fact that if you are right, those who believe their religion is "exclusive truth" are wrong, thus "God in the gaps", intuition and faith are proven to be unreliable tools for discerning the truth no matter which particular religious belief is actually correct, if any!

Hehe, thanks David

I disagree, of course, about whether faith needs crutches secured on "God in the gaps" to prop itself and that without those crutches, whether or not faith would waver, and fall with much wheezing!

Yes David. If my children became believers it would not bother me at all, especially, frankly, if their theistic beliefs were as open, loving, accepting and adventurous as your own.

How has He done so? I hope you have a better answer than Jesus/Mithras!!!

Show what your belief has besides "God in the gaps", faith and intuition, or at least why your faith and intuition can be trusted when it has failed so many others, and I will shut my pie-hole about this.

I present the quark as an example of something that is not obsevable, but that has evidence for its existence anyway.

The Big Bang was not observed either, but they were able to say "If the BB happened, X should be true" and discovered that x was indeed true.

There are many examples.

Naturalism, not atheism!

Theistic scientists who decide to remove a mountain
will not do so with prayer, they will use naturalistic means to do so, not their theology.

Science and naturalism do go hand in hand.

David Mathews

Hello Splashing,

David: Yes, there is an aspect of the Universe which atheists must rationalize away before they can deny the existence of Yahweh: The Universe itself.

Atheists don't have a clue as to why the Universe exists, nor can they explain its existence naturalistically or any other way. Instead, Atheists merely accept the Universe's existence as a given and make no attempt to empirically explain that existence in a manner consistent with their own atheism.

David: Yes, absolutely.

David: A "God of the gaps" is not necessary for those who attributed both known and unknown qualities of the Universe to God, who is considered ultimately responsible for the existence of everything.

I do not base my own belief in God on those things which I cannot explain. I believe in God because God's existence seems a reasonable explanation for everything-that-exists for me.

David: The laws of physics are the naturalistic explanation for naturalistic phenomona in the Universe. At the origin of the Universe those laws of physics did not exist, prior to the Universe's origin those laws of physics did not exist. What sort of naturalistic explanation is possible for phenomena which preceded the origin of nature?

David: You are far more concerned with the "gaps" that I am. Perhaps you have an atheism of the gaps more than I have a God of the gaps.

David: These phenomena which will not have a naturalistic explanation will simply not have an explanation. God has not left traces in nature which would provide evidence of supernatural causes for these phenomena.

David: Naturalism does have some limitations. Naturalism is not infallible. Naturalism is not omniscient.

David: Photosynthesis is such an amazing skill that I think it quite amazing that nature just stumbled upon it. Would you care to explain how nature came about discovering photosynthesis?

David: Perhaps so.

David: Why would I want to refute B.I.A.L.ism? If you want to believe in it, go ahead and do so.

David: Atheism does have creation myths.

David: If you are not a B.I.A.L.ist, then why would I argue with you about it? It seems pointness for us to argue about something we agree about.

David: I hate to be technical, but naturalism is not atheism, and atheism is not naturalism. Naturalistic explanations for natural phenomena are altogether consistent with theism, therefore they don't serve as an argument on behalf of atheism.

David: All of the alternatives are non-answers as well.

David: Naturalism's ability to successfully natural phenomena does not demonstrate its ability to explain all phenomena, nor ultimate phenomena such as the origin of the Universe. If you would like to offer such an explanation, I would be happy to judge its merits in comparison with theism.

David: You are absolutely correct. Science does not answer the question of God's existence either affirmatively or negatively. Science is not equipped to resolve philosphical questions.

David: Yes, there is another type of argument with a similar record of failure: Atheistic explanations for the Universe's existence. Atheism's case is so weak that it doesn't even attempt to answer these questions.

The only reasons why atheism has not had trillions of use by billions of people is because atheists are so uncommon. I suppose that the atheistic explanations have failed tens of millions of times although millions of atheists have either offered them or refused to answer the questions.

If you examined the history of atheism, you might discover that your ancestors in unbelief had some pretty extraordinary ideas. Ideas which atheists would reject at first sight.

David: You have already said that you do not believe in B.I.A.L.ism, so do I really need some logical reason to reject it again? I simply accept your own rejection of that idea.

David: Would you care to offer empirical evidence of the "bouncing universe" theory?

David: If that is why you believe what you believe, that is fine. Those reasons are not particularly convincing to me.

David: That is good news indeed.

David: I believe in Jesus, otherwise I would not be a Christian.

David: I don't reject the existence of quarks, nor do I reject the Big Bang as a valid description of the origin of the Universe.

David: As a Christian and a theist, I accept naturalism and science. Both concepts are compatible with my beliefs and therefore I accept them both.

Sincerely,

David Mathews