God didn't do it

[Storm]

How does it work without a serious gap in knowledge that each side admits to? Faith gives the ability to just know it was god before the debate even starts. Religious faith is even designed to rely on not having complete knowledge.

Did you read the post in question?

 

[Jose Fly]

1) I already ceded the minority argument. Why bring it up again?

Because you mentioned having "dismissed" YEC's and ID creationists.

2) I'm tempted to call strawman. You didn't address my points at all. As you requested, I explained how the Cosmological Argument works without GotG. Rebut or cede.

I don't understand how it works without the GotG. The cosmological argument isn't about "why", it's specifically about "how".

 

[Storm]

Because you mentioned having "dismissed" YEC's and ID creationists.

Ah, and you thought I meant solely as a minority?

Assuming yes, I also dismissed them as crap theology. Regardless of the popularity, such arguments simply don't work on any level, and I haven't the slightest interest in defending such foolishness.

I don't understand how it works without the GotG. The cosmological argument isn't about "why", it's specifically about "how".

I don't see how you get that, actually. Take deism. My dad says "my God lit the fuse for the Big Bang and walked away." How is that GotG, not counting pedantic dissection of figurative language?

 

[idav]

I don't see how you get that, actually. Take deism. My dad says "my God lit the fuse for the Big Bang and walked away." How is that GotG, not counting pedantic dissection of figurative language?

That is a classic example of finding that everything is due to cause and effect except the first cause and throwing god in there cause we have an explanation for everything else. How is that not god of gaps? Then when we find a natural explanation we don't have to throw in a creator for convenience. My guess, if I had to make one, is there is a more natural explanation than what you stated from the deist view.

 

[Storm]

That is a classic example of finding that everything is due to cause and effect except the first cause and throwing god in there cause we have an explanation for everything else. How is that not god of gaps? Then when we find a natural explanation we don't have to throw in a creator for convenience. My guess, if I had to make one, is there is a more natural explanation than what you stated from the deist view.

Well, what he's saying is my initial argument. God wrote the laws of nature and pulled the trigger. Science is, to the (rational) believer, figuring out how God did it.

To restate my point from upthread, exploration of natural law cannot answer the question of whether said law was deliberately authored. That's religion.

 

[Jose Fly]

Ah, and you thought I meant solely as a minority?

Assuming yes, I also dismissed them as crap theology. Regardless of the popularity, such arguments simply don't work on any level, and I haven't the slightest interest in defending such foolishness.

Ok, sounds good.

I don't see how you get that, actually. Take deism. My dad says "my God lit the fuse for the Big Bang and walked away." How is that GotG, not counting pedantic dissection of figurative language?

Because if science shows no need for any sort of fuse lighting by a deity, and can explain the whole thing on its own, your Dad's belief is completely without justification. He may as well argue that gravity isn't actually real, and it's just God that pulls things together.

 

[Storm]

Jose, see post # 85.

 

[idav]

Well, what he's saying is my initial argument. God wrote the laws of nature and pulled the trigger. Science is, to the (rational) believer, figuring out how God did it.

To restate my point from upthread, exploration of natural law cannot answer the question of whether said law was deliberately authored. That's religion.

Evidence does not show that a trigger needed to be pulled. If god can have always have existed it would be just as likely that the universe could have just always existed with no need for a first cause like god. If we were to find out there didn't need to be a trigger at that point the gap of knowledge would be closed and no need for a god to be the first domino.

Natural law can show how it was done which would show evidence of deliberate authorship if there were any. Though it depends on how you view god which is more about theology. Saying he is just absent like in deism is a valid explanation, except of course for the assumption that god must be first cause.

 

[Storm]

Evidence does not show that a trigger needed to be pulled.

No, it doesn't. It can't and it won't. Just as it won't show the opposite.

If god can have always have existed it would be just as likely that the universe could have just always existed with no need for a first cause like god.

Yep.

If we were to find out there didn't need to be a trigger at that point the gap of knowledge would be closed and no need for a god to be the first domino.

You're completely missing the point. It's not about need.

In the absence of proof, all we have is opinion.

 

[Jose Fly]

Well, what he's saying is my initial argument. God wrote the laws of nature and pulled the trigger. Science is, to the (rational) believer, figuring out how God did it.

But again, if science can show that the universe "pulled its own trigger" or that there wasn't even a trigger to be pulled, the cosmological argument is negated and becomes nothing more than a version of the invisible unicorns argument.

To restate my point from upthread, exploration of natural law cannot answer the question of whether said law was deliberately authored. That's religion.

But that's not the point of the cosmological argument. It is specifically an argument from the "first cause".

 

[Storm]

But again, if science can show that the universe "pulled its own trigger" or that there wasn't even a trigger to be pulled, the cosmological argument is negated and becomes nothing more than a version of the invisible unicorns argument.


But that's not the point of the cosmological argument. It is specifically an argument from the "first cause".

Sorry, I'm kinda arguing 5 different points at once. Sometimes it gets muddled. :sorry1:

Anyway, I think you're falling prey to assumption. I'm not actually defending the argument, just trying to illustrate that it's not necessarily GotG.

I think all "proofs" of (no) God are sad and futile.

 

[idav]

In the absence of proof, all we have is opinion.

Absence of proof is another way of saying gaps. I acknowledge that when we don't know we can speculate to our hearts content especially when nobody knows. What I'm not going to to do is insert god because it is supposedly too hard of a problem to solve without believing in the realm of "supernatural".

 

[Storm]

Absence of proof is another way of saying gaps. I acknowledge that when we don't know we can speculate to our hearts content especially when nobody knows. What I'm not going to to do is insert god because it is supposedly too hard of a problem to solve without believing in the realm of "supernatural".

It goes both way, hon.

If all belief is God of the Gaps, then all atheism is "No-God" of the Gaps.

To use Jose's phrasing, science can never "show that the universe "pulled its own trigger" or that there wasn't even a trigger to be pulled."

 

[idav]

It goes both way, hon.

If all belief is God of the Gaps, then all atheism is "No-God" of the Gaps.

To use Jose's phrasing, science can never "show that the universe "pulled its own trigger" or that there wasn't even a trigger to be pulled."

So to say that atheism is relying on a gap is not being honest about how much already proves everything to come about by natural causes unassociated with supernatural which should include the beginning of the beginning. The reason it applies more to theists is because the cosmological argument is the last refuge for a god that has slowly disappeared with the gaining of knowledge. So I would be saying that atheism is the safe bet since they don't have any evidence working against them. And not having every single piece of knowledge in the universe to allow the claiming whatever the heart desires should not work against atheists but works against theists.

 

[Storm]

So to say that atheism is relying on a gap is not being honest

No, it's not. I was illustrating a point.

ETA: "If, then" =/= "is".

 

[Orias]

Science tells us the how. Religion tries to tell us the why. They're not in conflict until they start ****ing on each others' turf.

Or until they think the why is the how and vice versa.

 

[Storm]

Or until they think the why is the how and vice versa.

Same thing, my phrasing was just more colorful.

 

[Orias]

The reason it applies more to theists is because the cosmological argument is the last refuge for a god that has slowly disappeared with the gaining of knowledge.

I think this only applies to those "Gods" built without care.

I would tend to argue that it is in fact the exact Opposite for some, but I can agree with a general smile and nod, since it is the general society that seems to think it is the only One worthy of deeming something a "God".

 

[Orias]

Same thing, my phrasing was just more colorful.

Heh, I figured that, but I had to make sense of it with my own words to reassure

 

[idav]

I'm going to look into the unknown and without having the answers decide that fairies did it. You can't prove it wrong cause nobody knows anything about unknowns. You just can't see that fairies started the universe and hold everything together with fairy dust cause it is all invisible. I call this the fairies of the gaps. To me absence of proof should be a logical reason to dismiss something exists. Just arbitrarily sticking a supernatural realm behind reality is just like saying we haven't explored every inch of the universe so supernatural is there where we haven't looked yet and have yet to discover.