God of the Gaps (reject, creation, experience, atheist, faith)

[sandy whitelinger]

Originally Posted by Jay

Those are my own words. Which ones do you not understand?

Perhaps, instead, you could quote a reasonably competent atheist spokesman using the characterization as an argument ...

That answer is a copout.

[Jose Fly]

What Scuba Pete is doing is conflating between different usages of the word "faith".

In the context of a place like "ReligiousForums" and in a thread discussing the "God of the Gaps" argument, "faith" typically is understood to mean religious faith.

But when we speak of "science will continue to figure things out in the future", that's a different type of faith, more akin to the same sort of "faith" one has that the light will come when the switch is flipped. IOW, it's confidence in something born of repeated successes.

Most of the time when I flip the light switch, the light comes on, thus it's reasonable to conclude that the next time I flip the switch, the light will come on.

Science has been figuring out things for hundreds of years (and at an ever-increasing pace), therefore it's reasonable to conclude that science will continue to figure things out.

Neither one of those are the same sort of "faith" as religious faith.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Jose Fly

Neither one of those are the same sort of "faith" as religious faith.

Ah... it's the ubiquitous "My faith is bigger than your faith" argument. How quaint. So, your faith is superior merely because it is yours?

Your faith that science will continue with success is not without merit or the subsequent pitfalls. When you flip your light switch, you are repeating the same process. With your faith in science you are never repeating the same process. Just because you are able to quantify gravity, you may not be able to quantify esoteric phenomenon, such as faith, love or beauty. Science may also never uncover the origin of the universe, though it has come up with some interesting theories.

So, it has been evidenced that your faith makes the same sort of inferences and extrapolations as any religious faith and perhaps even more.

[Jose Fly]

Pete,

Ah... it's the ubiquitous "My faith is bigger than your faith" argument.

No. I suggest you go back and re-read my post and pay particular attention to the part where I talk about different kinds of faith.

So, your faith is superior merely because it is yours?

I suppose if you can show me where I stated that "my faith is superior", you'd have a point. Otherwise you're simply knocking down strawmen.

With your faith in science you are never repeating the same process

Sure we are; it's called the scientific method. We're applying the same method to different things.

Just because you are able to quantify gravity, you may not be able to quantify esoteric phenomenon, such as faith, love or beauty.

Again, if you can show where I argued "science will explain everything", you'd have a point. Otherwise you're simply knocking down strawmen.

So, it has been evidenced that your faith makes the same sort of inferences and extrapolations as any religious faith and perhaps even more.

Where?

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Jose Fly

No. I suggest you go back and re-read my post and pay particular attention to the part where I talk about different kinds of faith.

I read it twice to begin with. It was elementary enough to understand. You merely propose that these faiths are different and I disagree. Your logic was fallacious and relies on your "faith" being superior just because it is your faith. That is pretty normal among the deluded.

Originally Posted by Jose Fly

I suppose if you can show me where I stated that "my faith is superior", you'd have a point. Otherwise you're simply knocking down strawmen.

So are you arguing that somehow your scientific faith is inferior? I will cede that argument to you.

Originally Posted by Jose Fly

Sure we are; it's called the scientific method. We're applying the same method to different things.

Using your logic then, we should expect to be able turn on ALL lights from a single switch. The switch may be able to operate a 100W incandescent light, but can it stand up to lighting an entire city? Of course not, since it has limitations just as any course of discipline has limitations.

Originally Posted by Jose Fly

Again, if you can show where I argued "science will explain everything", you'd have a point. Otherwise you're simply knocking down strawmen.

I have presented no straw men. You are guilty of over simplification and I have pointed that out.

[Jose Fly]

Pete,

You merely propose that these faiths are different and I disagree.

You believe religious faith is the same as having confidence in a light switch? Ok Pete.

Your logic was fallacious and relies on your "faith" being superior just because it is your faith. That is pretty normal among the deluded.

All right.....I think I'm done with this place. It seems to be populated by a bunch of teenagers.

Excuse me while I go figure out how to delete my membership.

[Scuba Pete]

Originally Posted by Jose Fly

You believe religious faith is the same as having confidence in a light switch? Ok Pete.

Speaking of straw man arguments. This is a classic example. My premise is that there is no difference between scientific and religious faith. I pointed out how scientific faith is NOT like turning on a light switch.

However, there is a large amount of faith involved in switches, car brakes and many other devices. You expect them to work and are surprised when the bulb is burned out.

Originally Posted by Jose Fly

All right.....I think I'm done with this place. It seems to be populated by a bunch of teenagers.

So, because I disagree with you, I am now a teenager? I doubt that you see the fallacy of this statement.

Originally Posted by Jose Fly

Excuse me while I go figure out how to delete my membership.

Oh the drama! If somehow my mere presence offends you, then just stop posting and leave the theatrics at home. There's even money on you posting again.

[Nick Soapdish]

Originally Posted by Jay

Again: there is no "God-of-the-gaps argument".

I believe you are saying that God-of-the-Gaps is a characterization of an argument put forth by theists? If so, then I agree with you.

[Jayhawker Soule]

Originally Posted by Nick Soapdish

I believe you are saying that God-of-the-Gaps is a characterization of an argument put forth by theists?

No. I am saying that "God-of-the-Gaps" is an observation/characterization, not an argument. It is precisely the observation/characterization made by Forrest:

The known world expands, and the world of impenetrable mystery shrinks. With every expanse, something is explained which at an earlier point in history had been permanently consigned to supernatural mystery or metaphysical speculation.

[Jaiket]

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

I have never known such a great faith.

As long as I live I have such great faith that the sun will rise each day.

How would you evaluate that statement in comparison to the last?

Originally Posted by Scuba Pete

May it always prove to be justified.

Here's hoping bud, 'cause praying sure don't work.