Quote:
Quote by: Zhavric  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 (particularly in the eyes of atheists), 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 phenomena does not mean that it is an act of God, but rather that scientific research has not yet found an answer. A commonly cited example is Thor, the Viking god of lightning. The Vikings believed that lightning was the path of Thor's hammer as he threw it across the sky at his enemies. Later on, however, scientists discovered that lightning is in fact the result of static charges building up between the Earth and clouds during a storm, resulting in movement of electrons to counteract the charge. Thor is not required to explain the existence of lightning. Other examples include disease (often thought to be punishment from a God for wrongdoing; it was later demonstrated to be linked to pathogens), the sun (often believed to be a god; later shown to be a star) and various other natural phenomena that were previously ascribed to divine intervention but were later shown to have purely natural causes. The lack of understanding about a phenomenon does not necessarily mean that a deity is responsible for its existence. Source.
Like I said, Techno. I don't see anything in your argument beyond god of the gaps reasoning. |
Here was the situation.
1. Science via physics came up with the Big Bang Theory. In that theory the universe began or exploded from one single point and then evolved from that point via random causes and effects. If one believes the physics cannot be disproved then where is the gap? The have stated it is the "first cause" if effect. A "missing link" in the theory of evolultion is not the same as a "missing beginning" for the Big Bang.
2. So the author (not me) demonstrates why that theory is logically and scientifically in error. With that theory disproved and "gone" we must have another theory to fill the Big Gap. And then the author presents another theory about how the universe began, which is (I think) the idea that space-time as a force field orginates from outside the this universe and that this momentum effected a pressure in the broundries of this universe to effect gravity. Time-space entered through a blackhole, or wormhole, whatever? The pressure of time-space then pushed things together to form matter. That is the best I can see it without reading his book and useing only parts of his webpage. The book contains the finer details about why that is scientifically possible. His new theory does not prove that God created the universe, he states the motion or momentum orginated from the unmoved or relative (absolute?) stillness.
However if this universe resulted from a factor outside of our three dimensional "contained" universe then that opens up another Big Gap for unknownable possiblities, for we cannot know what exists beyond or outside of this universe (at least not with telescopes and so forth).
Because we cannot know we can imagine the unknown is God.
This is a scientific theory to prove that the Big Gap exists, but falls short of proving what is in that Big Gap. And yet, it also demonstrates that science cannot fill that gap with the Big Bang. So now people cannot gripe about the "god-gap" because of the new theory of the Big Gap that was presented useing scientific evidence and logical speculations.
What an amazing idea. Scientific proof for the Big Gap (AKA - the Unknown). How that might "fit" the biblical explanation is more difficult to figure out and I would need to await for the anology that can make that link, or comparison.
Oddly some of his theory I likewise thought of and posted in other threads awhile back and they were debated. I forgot what the outcome of those debates were. But I had only the idea and not the scientific ablities to present the case properly.