God of the gaps?

[Senor Hoint]

The rational (and honest) thing to say is "I don't know". To say "God did it" is not a justified position. To say "if infinite universes exist it has to happen somewhere" is equally unjustified. They are both arguments of ignorance.

I'm sorry, but I don't think that your position that the multiverse theory is an argument from ignorance is founded in any sort of knowledge of the mathematics of quantum physics.

[LetThereBe]

I'm sorry, but I don't think that your position that the multiverse theory is an argument from ignorance is founded in any sort of knowledge of the mathematics of quantum physics.

I am not saying that mutliverse theory alone is an argument from ignorance.
I am saying when it is combined with the anthropic principle to try and provide explanatory power for every unlikely phenomena (as Dawkins allows in The God Delusion) then it is an argument from ignorance.

Saying that multiple or infinite universes are possible with different quantum states is one thing. To say that the reason that "unexplained thing X" happened is because we just happen to exist in the universe with the right quantum states for it to come to pass is no better than "God did it".

[Senor Hoint]

I am saying when it is combined with the anthropic principle to try and provide explanatory power for every unlikely phenomena (as Dawkins allows in The God Delusion) then it is an argument from ignorance.

What exactly do you mean by "try and provide explanatory power for every unlikely phenomena?" The only thing I can possibly think of is the fundamental physical constants of the universe. Life as we know it is a fairly straightforward leap from that, though I would be curious to know the exact history of the evolution of the first proto-replicators that eventually ended up as DNA.

[LetThereBe]

What exactly do you mean by "try and provide explanatory power for every unlikely phenomena?" The only thing I can possibly think of is the fundamental physical constants of the universe. Life as we know it is a fairly straightforward leap from that, though I would be curious to know the exact history of the evolution of the first proto-replicators that eventually ended up as DNA.

Dawkins applied it directly as an answer to theist's argument of "fine tuning"... that the exact conditions needed for life depend on fundamental physical constants... as well as the perfect conditions. The theists argue that these conditions and perfect constants are absurdly improbable... hence God.
Instead of just answering "we don't know how common these conditions really are" or "we don't know if life could exist with other fundamental physical constants" or "we don't know if a different set of physical constants even makes sense" Dawkins instead invokes the anthropic principle and multiverse theory.
It is an infinite "out" card without true explanatory power... no more useful than the "God of the gaps".

[finder]

Let me make this clear. Flippant dismissals of people's experiences does not count as refutation to their testimonials.. Even if you're atheist and making the dismissals. Nor does the advancement of science cause God to shrink. That is just wishful thinking on atheists part. Invoking videos in order to side step the rules and insult members in my mind is conceding the debate.

The fact is things that are invisible to us can exist because of the very fact the things that are visible do. Like observing a human being breath allowed us to eventually realize oxygen existed. So atheist do not have the upper hand when it comes to science supporting their faith.

[Dave In Canada]

Let me make this clear. Flippant dismissals of people's experiences does not count as refutation to their testimonials.. Even if you're atheist and making the dismissals. Nor does the advancement of science cause God to shrink. That is just wishful thinking on atheists part. Invoking videos in order to side step the rules and insult members in my mind is conceding the debate.

The fact is things that are invisible to us can exist because of the very fact the things that are visible do. Like observing a human being breath allowed us to eventually realize oxygen existed. So atheist do not have the upper hand when it comes to science supporting their faith.

Why shouldn't testimonials of the people who share your faith be dismissed any less flippantly than Christians do of other faiths or theists who dismiss evolution?

The advancement of science has indeed caused your God to shrink and will continue to do so. Science has determined that many of the phenomenon once attributed to Gods is completely unfounded. Wishful thinking is the domain of theists who sit in pews and at bedsides in hospitals praying to a God that was fabricated by the elders of a tribe around 3500 years ago.

Your God will suffer the same fate as other Gods. History of mankind has shown that Gods are a cultural phenomenon and come and go as civilizations change.

[Jack]

Flippant dismissals of people's experiences does not count as refutation to their testimonials.

It's not flippant to dismiss testimonial evidence as unconvincing as it's prone to misinterpretation and isn't repeatable in order to establish that what's perceived actually is the case.

Nor does the advancement of science cause God to shrink.

Of course it does. As our understanding that the natural world is the product of natural processes increases those processes we once attributed to the actions of gods decreases. We no longer think that angry gods cause thunder and lightning, we don't blame Neptune for tsunamis. Instead of bloodletting or casting out demons we now use CAT scans and MRIs to diagnose and treat illness. Every day in so many ways the places for god to occupy grow fewer and fewer.

[Maryjane]

If I may interject for a moment on a matter of moderation...

Invoking videos in order to side step the rules and insult members in my mind is conceding the debate.

The post of which you speak has been edited to conform with the rules of civility. Allow me to take this opportunity to call into question the posting of snarky one liners and cartoons which are of similar qualities. They add nothing to debate and such activities should be curtailed.


Carry on...

[finder]

The advancement of science has indeed caused your God to shrink and will continue to do so. Science has determined that many of the phenomenon once attributed to Gods is completely unfounded. Wishful thinking is the domain of theists who sit in pews and at bedsides in hospitals praying to a God that was fabricated by the elders of a tribe around 3500 years ago.

Besides being an atheist declaring your faith, care to substantiate any of those assertions? First start with how science advancement = the false dichotomy that God didn't cause creation. You know, proof God doesn't exist because we now know about say, DNA. Then perhaps you can produce documentation of the people in the specific tribe that you dreamed up, the exact moment they imagined a god. Perhaps the name of the individual who first thought it up and the names of the witnesses? Or are you speaking strictly atheist dogma?

[Senor Hoint]

Look finder, your position is simply ignorant of history. We know for a fact that humans used to attribute things, such as the weather, volcanic eruptions, and other tectonic events that science has shown to be governed by perfectly rational and understandable processes that do not require the intervention of deities in any way. Similarly people once believed that the heavens were the realm of the divine. People have a history of ascribing the unknown to deities, and the pattern so far is that what is ascribed to deities eventually becomes illuminated by science.

Now, you're technically right in that none of this is evidence against the existence of god, but what it really is is evidence for the idea that gods are human creations, which is a much better theory than that they actually exist.

[finder]

Look finder, your position is simply ignorant of history. We know for a fact that humans used to attribute things, such as the weather, volcanic eruptions, and other tectonic events that science has shown to be governed by perfectly rational and understandable processes that do not require the intervention of deities in any way. Similarly people once believed that the heavens were the realm of the divine. People have a history of ascribing the unknown to deities, and the pattern so far is that what is ascribed to deities eventually becomes illuminated by science.

Now, you're technically right in that none of this is evidence against the existence of god, but what it really is is evidence for the idea that gods are human creations, which is a much better theory than that they actually exist.

How can ones position be that of ignorance when the op admits to all the mistaken things you brought up concerning objects mistaken for God. You still refuse to see things objectively. My argument is the atheist position that those mistakes some how add up to evidence that God is totally imaginary is just as far off as thinking the sun was God. Because our inability to understand exactly how the visible relates to God doesn't automatically reduce God to imagination. It just means the intuition or premonition of a god just isn't fully comprehended. As knowledge grows we're (believers) just learning how much more complex God is. And we have a lot more to go. But how can you in all honesty dismiss things from a distance of which you know nothing about relating to people and what they experience?

[finder]

S.H.,

The atheist position is basically the same as the Russian astronaut who upon orbiting the earth said "there is no god" because he didn't see him up there. It's just based in faith of a different kind.