On disproving religion.

Post Reply New Topic

The "God-of-the-gaps argument" in modern usage

The term God-of-the-gaps argument usually refers to an argument that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, and is a variant of an argument from ignorance. Commonly such an argument can be reduced to the following form:

* There is a gap in scientific knowledge.
* The gap is filled by acts of a god (and therefore also proves, or helps to prove, the existence of said god).

One example of such an argument, demonstrating how God is supposed to explain one of the gaps in biology, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." This example is widely used in the debate of "intelligent design vs. evolution", since the religious side of intelligent design often tries to discredit the theory of evolution for not accounting for the origin of life.

The God-of-the-gaps argument is the target of frequent criticism, often over the fact that the so-called "explanation" it provides for unexplained phenomena is not really an explanation, but rather an argument from ignorance. Such criticism is usually related to the use of the God-of-the-gaps-argument as proof of the existence of God. A common argument is that the lack of scientific knowledge about an unexplained phenomenon does not mean that it is an act of God, but rather that scientific research has not yet found an answer.

Creationism or ID are also crocks of s**t. I dunno how we came to be, I won't even begin to guess. It's irrelevant to where we're at now anyways though.

Man wasn't "created" from "nothing." We emerged as the result of the workings on physical laws. Given the right environment self-replicating chemical systems, life, will emerge. give life enough time and the right kind of environment sapient species will emerge on occasion.

yeah but where'd all the parts come from? huh? huh?

it musta been god's work!

/god of the gaps

I have never met -anyone- who shares this view and calls them self a christian.




You take one little part of what i said (which granted you haven't met the people i've met and so isn't the best piece of evidence but is still relevant none the less) and then what...the whole thing is discounted? You've completely ignored what i said about church collection plates, Evangelists etc.



NEW PIECE OF EVIDENCE.
People claim to see apparitions of religious figures or hear the voice of their god. They are not specific to one religion. So what we can gather from this is that if there was one true creator then there would only be apparitions/voices of that creator or things relating to that one religion, since this is not the case then we cannot take any apparition or "voice of god" to be true, thereby discounting every single religion as their stories are based on these apparent occourances.

Argue with creationists or pass a kidney stone...huh...tough call.

...

...

...

...

...

...

...

I'll be in the men's room.

You could try leaving Tennessee and perhaps you could find different kinds of Christians. I've not been confronted by many "rabid crusaders." I know of some who are into missionary and we get into discussions. It might be them, but they're not wise enough to convince me. I appreciate some the discussions.


The Catholic church my mom attends does charity work, social care, etc. The donation is needed for these things, as well as to pay bills.


Because you "disprove" one belief system does not mean that other beliefs are disproved.

Frankly, people have very little understanding of religion to make such an accusation. Take the Gitopanishad. If "rationalists" 'claim/discover' that the battle did not take place, would it discredit the religion? No. Why? Because the words have more value than if the event ever took place. It is best summed up in this quote:

"Krishna is an avatar of God and one should not ask any question or doubt his existence. One should blindly follow His teaching, which is given to us as Bhagavad-Gita. This is a matter of belief, faith and trust. There is no room for science or logic in this. You either believe in Krishna and accept everything without questioning OR remain as a non-believer. It is not possible to become a believer by asking questions."

but dat's da debbil!! ! always misleading people aways from the one true lord and savior.

Disproving religion cannot work, by definition.

Religion is a set of beliefs that you accept on faith - without proof. A religion that offers proof is not a religion. If you require proof to accept a religion, then you obviously don't believe in that religion - and never will.

An atheist might see religion as being incorrect, dangerous, and perhaps even morally wrong, but there is no logic that will make someone not believe. A Christians may see the atheist's soul in danger and their actions as going against the Bible, but you will never be able to force people to have faith, especially in a logically questionable position. Religious discussions are always futile because of this - in the end, you just have to accept that there's nothing you can do and that you have to accept other people's differences. Even the ones you disagree with.

I have had arguments where both people are trying to demonstrate logical flaws in reasoning and justify their own position. Either one person admits defeat and changes their views then argues their new position from now on, using the new reasoning and evidence they have gathered about the subject, or we agree to disagree. I have also had religious arguments. There is no overlap between the two and I'm certain there never will be.

BTW, I was brought up Presbyterian, turned atheist, and am considering Discordianism. Disorganized religion looks like a lot of fun, and it fits my personal philosophy. Although I don't believe in Eris, I'm not sure this is a good idea - apparently she gets really bitchy when people don't believe in her.

Or perhaps don't choose a religion?

And as far as the whole "faith" thing goes:
What if you were to go to your doctor and tell him you have a slight cough, and he just turns to you and says "you have lung cancer" without running any tests or checking you in any way.
He's a medical professional. Should you have faith and believe him even though so many things are wrong with what he is saying?

Hmm. Interesting, is the doctor a Shaman? How does this tie up to religion?


What if you had put down your wallet on your desk. You then had to tend to other tasks. When you returned you couldn't see your wallet because it was away from your periphery. Does this mean the wallet is not before you?



Silly questions.

Richard Dawkins has proven Christianity and all religions are complete nonsense.

You can come at it however you like.

I'll try and argue both sides of this to demonstrate the point.

Believer: Well, how did life begin in the first place?

Well, you're assuming time isn't an illusion. Considering that time is relative according to Einstein, it is likely that it is an illusion. Terms like "before" and "after" are meaningless on the quantum level if this is true. In that sense, life always existed and did not exist all at the same time in a singularity that constantly contracts and expands unto itself over the course of what we perceive as time.

Believer: Someone had to design all of us, and I believe it was my perfect God.

Really? Did your perfect God perfectly design, for instance, indigenous Americans to be so susceptible to European diseases as to be nearly wiped out by them when the Europeans arrived? How about species of male insects that must have their genitals ripped off to successfully mate? That design, is, in fact, exceedingly poor.

Believer: My religion gives me comfort.

So? This does not make it true.

Believer: People need religion to be moral, even if it isn't true?

What people you condescending elitist jerk? People inherently less moral than yourself? Besides, that still wouldn't mean it was true, stay on topic. It's a good thing no one actually follows Biblical morality or we'd have to put to death anyone who worked on the sabbath.

Believer: There are things science can't explain, therefore my religion is correct.

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're saying an invisible man in the sky created everything. Scientists are saying they don't know how the universe was created, but they have some pretty interesting theories. Which of you is making a more extraordinary claim and therefore has the burden of proof? Without science, religion would have us believing that up is literally where heaven is, down is literally where hell is, insanity is possession by demonic spirits, and the Earth is only about 6,000 years old, a figure that would come as quite a surprise to the Sumerians who about 1,000 years earlier invented glue.

Did I leave anything out?

Well, maybe one thing.

Believer: I have faith

You lack evidence. When you say to me I have faith, I know in my heart, all I hear is that you lack evidence and are trying to substitute emotional wishful thinking for real evidence primarily and perhaps exclusively because you lack any real evidence. I reject your faith because it's intellectually devoid and has no place in an enlightened society that cares about the truth.

-Frank

You are arguing Christianity and Christian "Science." You are not arguing against world religions. Therefore neither you nor your idol Dawkins has disproved anything.



Good day, sir.

so you're thinking of becoming a chaote?

i'm satanic in so far as i believe i am my own god and i loathe ignorance and stupidity. don't believe in anything supernatural but the philosophy is very interesting.

To disprove region don't look to the stars look toward the study of human nature though the study of the theory of evolution.