God of the gaps?

[Questatement]

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?

In response to...

... 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.

How does the understanding of a system (theory of relativity in this case) negate the possibility for a creator/controller over that system?

[finder]

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

Also, answer this question.

If you do not understand the concept that the possibility of new information can come to light pertaining to a circumstance, how it can change the typical general logical approach to dealing with said circumstance, well, I can't help you. For instance if you're stranded in the middle of a lake the logical course of action would be to climb on board a life boat, unless upon closer examination you discover it's full of venomous snakes. Then you might seek a different course of action that would be correct to do.

No, of course it would be met with a certain amount of healthy skepticism. You think that means I'm just following my own dogma? That would be presumptuous if so. Islam is a human organization prone to imperfection like any other. And no, I do not believe my faith is practiced with perfection either if that's your next question. Case by case.

[finder]

In response to...



How does the understanding of a system (theory of relativity in this case) negate the possibility for a creator/controller over that system?

For that matter, I would add to your question Q, how does that understanding diminish the possibility of a creator? Just because atheists think so doesn't mean it's an accurate pretense.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

If you do not understand the concept that the possibility of new information can come to light pertaining to a circumstance, how it can change the typical general logical approach to dealing with said circumstance, well, I can't help you.

All of this is just a way of dodging the point at hand. Of course new information should change an individual's outlook - whether it's a lifeboat in a lake, or belief in a deity. Hence the reason why many people - upon learning new information - alter their beliefs, including but not limited to abandoning theism. People aren't always willing to do so, of course - people often don't act or think based on logic, and often choose their preconceived beliefs over evidenced facts.

[finder]

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

The physical world, yes. As far as we know.

[HoleyCarbonGrid]

For that matter, I would add to your question Q, how does that understanding diminish the possibility of a creator? Just because atheists think so doesn't mean it's an accurate pretense.

It diminishes the room into which God can fit, if you will - hence the point of this thread, the argument for theism as a god of the gaps argument.

At one time, it was perfectly reasonable to believe that God created the earth in seven (literal) days, including the creation of all life on earth and mankind, and is only a few thousand years old. Now, however, that belief either has to be altered out of recognition compared to its original literal interpretation (i.e., "a day to God isn't a day to us!" argument) or abandoned, in light of the fact that the earth was formed over millions of years, has been around for four and a half billion years, and that humanity evolved from life forms going back billions of years.

[Jack]

How does the understanding of a system (theory of relativity in this case) negate the possibility for a creator/controller over that system?

By explaining a phenomena as the result of natural processes, the evidence for which include no indication of a god. The idea that a god oversees or initiated natural processes is fanciful, no physical evidence exists in nature to substantiate the idea. In other words "god" is an unnecessary addition to the theory of relativity, one that isn't required to explain the natural processes involved and one that adds a unproductive layer of complexity to the theory. The addition of "god" to the equation offers no greater understanding of relativity. It serves no purpose other than appeasing theists who insist that there's a god in the process even though no evidence exists of one and there's no need of one.

[Senor Hoint]

If you do not understand the concept that the possibility of new information can come to light pertaining to a circumstance, how it can change the typical general logical approach to dealing with said circumstance, well, I can't help you. For instance if you're stranded in the middle of a lake the logical course of action would be to climb on board a life boat, unless upon closer examination you discover it's full of venomous snakes. Then you might seek a different course of action that would be correct to do.

This doesn't mean that "the logical course of action is not correct." It means your reasoning to get into the boat was based on an incorrect premise, (ie the premise that there were no snakes in the boat).

No, of course it would be met with a certain amount of healthy skepticism. You think that means I'm just following my own dogma? That would be presumptuous if so. Islam is a human organization prone to imperfection like any other. And no, I do not believe my faith is practiced with perfection either if that's your next question. Case by case.

So essentially what you're saying is that testimonial evidence is only admissible if it happens to confirm your own views? If we accept testimonial evidence as valid what about the testimonials of people like myself, who have never "felt" god?

[finder]

By explaining a phenomena as the result of natural processes, the evidence for which include no indication of a god.

How could you possibly know that? Does a dog barking at the tires of a passing car know it doesn't need a driver? Your statement is just an appeal to ignorance. Exactly what atheists say the "god of the gaps" argument is and in some case true. However in neither case is God diminished, we're just prone to error.

[Senor Hoint]

How could you possibly know that? Does a dog barking at the tires of a passing car know it doesn't need a driver? Your statement is just an appeal to ignorance. Exactly what atheists say the "god of the gaps" argument is and in some case true. However in neither case is God diminished, we're just prone to error.

Do you understand the principle of Occam's Razor?

[Questatement]

The idea that a god oversees or initiated natural processes is fanciful, no physical evidence exists in nature to substantiate the idea.

Are there not many laws involved in our understanding of the cosmos? If so and in our natural world as it relates to laws among men, how do those laws come into being?

[Jack]

How could you possibly know that?

If you mean "know" in that absolute, religious context, we don't. What we do know (in the scientific, conditional sense of "know") is that we may find A, which leads to B and results in C, while theists insist we see it this way; A----->B---(god)--->C.

If so and in our natural world as it relates to laws among men, how do those laws come into being?

The laws of nature and the laws of man have nothing in common except the use of the word "law" in the case of both. The word "law" is not even defined in the same way in science as it is in common usage.