God of the gaps?

[Jack]

Why, and how so? It shows our imperfect understanding of God's influence but how does that equate to no God?

My remarks were directed to the topic of the thread, the god of gaps, not the larger question of the existence of a god. As humans advance in their knowledge of the natural processes that create our physical reality there are fewer and fewer holes in our knowledge to insert the god of gaps into. I acknowledge that our understanding will likely never be complete so there will always be gaps into which theists will insist on inserting "god/god did it". However, we see a pattern emerging: the ancients thought god moved the stars and planets through the sky, now we have the theory of relativity that explains those movements as natural phenomena without having to invoke a god. The ancients thought they had to appease the gods with sacrifice and ceremonies to ensure a bountiful harvest, now we have agriculture. Most of the natural phenomena the ancients attributed to the gods have been found to be the result of natural causes that occur without the need to involve a god in the process. If this trend continues, and I see no reason to suppose it won't, the need to suppose a god directing nature will continue to decrease. Does this prove god doesn't exist? Of course not. But it does show that as our understanding of nature increases there is less need for a god to explain reality. Eventually there may come a time when the gods aren't needed to explain much of anything, a day when we can finally accept that the gods were simply a gap-fillers for our incomplete knowledge, not an answer to anything in themselves.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

That depends on what it is. If they are testifying that God said kill all Jews, I would not. Just as I would dismiss a Christian who said we must kill all Muslims. But in either case if they are testifying to the euphoric, spiritual experience of God's presence being felt I would give credence to their testimonials. Of course there will always be those who fake it for what ever reason but you get the picture.

I don't necessarily care what the testimonial is about; I asked the question because you're arguing that testimonial evidence is valid in considering the existence of God.

If a Muslim were to say that they had a vision, and heard the prophet Muhammed speaking to them, would you consider this valid evidence that Islam is true?

If a Christian were to say that they had a vision, and heard Jesus speaking to them, would you consider this valid evidence that Christianity is true?

If you say yes to the latter, but no to the former, then you are necessarily dismissing Islamic religious experiences pro forma, based on your own faith and preconceived notions. If you say yes to both, then why would you consider yourself Christian rather than Muslim? Or (somehow) both?

The more logical stance, in any case, is to dismiss both and consider testimonial evidence generally invalid, and look for other ways of determining the existence (or non-existence) of a deity; that is, look for objective rather than subjective evidence. Currently, there is a lack of any objective evidence for the existence of a deity - and even the holes into which one can try to claim evidence for a deity to fit are shrinking or disappearing altogether, at least as far as objective evidence is concerned.

[Questatement]

I acknowledge that our understanding will likely never be complete so there will always be gaps into which theists will insist on inserting "god/god did it". However, we see a pattern emerging: the ancients thought god moved the stars and planets through the sky, now we have the theory of relativity that explains those movements as natural phenomena without having to invoke a god.

What do you see is the main difference between a creation powered and controlled by a system vs. direct (hands on) control? Say, a robot vs. a puppet.

Don't they both need a creator/controller despite how far remover said controller is from the effects of that control due to the complexity of the system being employed?

[finder]

In fact, I'm fairly certain that there are entities in the universe in possession of technology that would make them godlike.
I'm also fairly certain that the odds of any specific human invented god existing are astronomically small.

Is there any empirical evidence that supports that claim of technological advanced entities? (rhetorical) I'm just pointing out that if we don't believe in God we will believe in something else. It's our nature, a part of our internal make up to in fact worship. I believe anyway.

Well, if the god is a "human invented god" that would be a safe bet your prediction is true.

[Senor Hoint]

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.

I'm sorry, but I found the OP to be quite incoherent and not particularly comprehensible. Basically it sounded to me like you were just saying it's unfair to characterize an argument like "well, if God doesn't exist, what came before the Big Bang?" as an appeal to ignorance. I'm not convinced, because such an argument is an appeal to ignorance, and humans have a long history of making similar arguments. You're right in that none of this is evidence against god per se, but again you haven't explained how it isn't evidence for the theory that gods are human creations.

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?

If I told you that I was god, would you believe me? I have no doubt that many, perhaps most, of the people who claim to have been touched by God or Jesus believe they are telling the truth. One thing I've noticed in my (relatively short) time on Earth, though, is that people tend to believe things that they want to believe are true. In a way, this is touching. It's a reminder of our shared humanity. But in another sense this type of thinking is lazy and intellectually dishonest, and I don't think it holds up to any real intellectual examination. The brain is quite a complex organ and many of its intricacies are not well understood. So, in short, I find it far more likely that people were fooling themselves because they want to believe than that Jesus or God actually exist.

[el ايمان]

if we don't believe in God we will believe in something else

Like... science?

[finder]

I don't necessarily care what the testimonial is about; I asked the question because you're arguing that testimonial evidence is valid in considering the existence of God.

If a Muslim were to say that they had a vision, and heard the prophet Muhammed speaking to them, would you consider this valid evidence that Islam is true?

If a Christian were to say that they had a vision, and heard Jesus speaking to them, would you consider this valid evidence that Christianity is true?

If you say yes to the latter, but no to the former, then you are necessarily dismissing Islamic religious experiences pro forma, based on your own faith and preconceived notions. If you say yes to both, then why would you consider yourself Christian rather than Muslim? Or (somehow) both?

The more logical stance, in any case, is to dismiss both and consider testimonial evidence generally invalid, and look for other ways of determining the existence (or non-existence) of a deity; that is, look for objective rather than subjective evidence. Currently, there is a lack of any objective evidence for the existence of a deity - and even the holes into which one can try to claim evidence for a deity to fit are shrinking or disappearing altogether, at least as far as objective evidence is concerned.

In reality the "logical stance" isn't always the correct one. Many times things are decided on a case by case contingency as I previously explained. The fact that you don't care about the details is irrelevant.

[Senor Hoint]

In reality the "logical stance" isn't always the correct one.

Really? Let's bring up more examples of this, please.

Also, answer this question.

If a Muslim were to say that they had a vision, and heard the prophet Muhammed speaking to them, would you consider this valid evidence that Islam is true?

[finder]

Like... science?

Yes. For some, exclusively. They need it to be to support their belief system.

[el ايمان]

Yes. For some, exclusively. They need it to be to support their belief system.

And by "belief system" you mean "The real world has logically-consistent, demonstrable properties", right?

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

In reality the "logical stance" isn't always the correct one. Many times things are decided on a case by case contingency as I previously explained. The fact that you don't care about the details is irrelevant.

You didn't answer my question, or in fact reply to any part of my post. I'm not talking about generally when a logical stance is best; I'm saying that, in this particular case, as it pertains to religion it is more logical to reject anecdotal evidence than to accept it - because if one chooses to accept anecdotal evidence, then one necessarily ends up holding contradictory evidence as valid. There's nothing that proves that a Muslim religious experience is any more or less valid than a Christian religious experience; therefore, if one accepts their experiences as valid and as proof of God, then one inevitably has to hold contradictory views (acceptance of both Christianity and Islam).

If you accept anecdotal evidence as proof of God, then you're either (a) refusing to accept anecdotal evidence that does not come from followers of your particular belief system out of intellectual bias or (b) holding contradictory views. Both of these positions are irrational.

[Jack]

What do you see is the main difference between a creation powered and controlled by a system vs. direct (hands on) control? Say, a robot vs. a puppet.

Don't they both need a creator/controller despite how far remover said controller is from the effects of that control due to the complexity of the system being employed?

I honestly don't understand what you're asking. Are you asking what I see as the difference between a natural system and one created by a god?