God of Gaps is one of God's holy names

[questfortruth]

Are advances in science constantly pushing God into the dustbin of history?

No, the area of the unknown is expanding faster. 94 percent of matter is Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and nothing is known about them. Unknown, except for me.

The matter is of 4 types, one of them is Invisible Non-Living Matter: Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Another one - Invisible Living Matter: angels, souls of people. Scientific evidence is in the file:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356990154_To_solve_all_problems_and_Quantum_Gravity

So, learning more, mainstream science will either discover God or say: "Reality does not exist - we are in the Matrix. We are all in the Zuserberg Meta-Universe."

Physicists have no idea how Super-Massive Black Holes could appear in all galaxies in a short time. Did God do this miracle? Atheists would reply: "you are not a child to believe in fairies and gods."

I am very glad that children like fairy tales. In general, the world is very similar to a fairy tale, for example, giants and unicorns are mentioned in the Bible. In the Bible, the dead are raised. The UFOs like some flaming fast dragons fly across the sky.

A fairy tale is when both reality and illusion. Illusion is when a logical contradiction, a paradox. Illusion from God is useful and inevitable. And in science, there are such paradoxes that will never be eliminated. For example, the Hilbert's Grand Hotel with an infinite number of guests: more about it (and other illusions) is in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356587583_RIEMANN_HYPOTHESIS_AND_BASIS_OF_KNOWLEDGE

So the idea was not new.

200 as well as 3000 years ago people believed in God of Gaps.
The God of Gaps is there even today - 94% of Universe.
Why today people do not believe in God of Gaps?

There aren't any gaps.

If there are no gaps, then the nature can be explained without introducing the idea of God.
But what about the miracles the Jesus has demonstrated?

 

[exchemist]

Ballocks. God of the Gaps is an expressions coined by Professor Charles Coulson, a mathematician, theoretical chemist and Methodist lay preacher, whose lectures I attended in my first year at university. He meant by it the flimsy refuge of religious people who affect to see God in the gaps in our scientific understanding.

A century or so earlier, Cardinal Newman had already pointed out that the Christian who builds his faith on God being behind everything about nature that we don't understand is building his house upon sand. He is liable to have his faith destroyed by each advance in science! So the idea was not new. Coulson just found a pithy way of expressing it.

 

[questfortruth]

So the idea was not new.

200 as well as 3000 years ago people believed in God of Gaps.
The God of Gaps is there even today - 94% of Universe.
Why today people do not believe in God of Gaps?

 

[RestlessSoul]

There aren't any gaps. Everything is connected; everything is a manifestation of God's will and purpose.

 

[questfortruth]

There aren't any gaps.

If there are no gaps, then the nature can be explained without introducing the idea of God.
But what about the miracles the Jesus has demonstrated?

 

[RestlessSoul]

If there are no gaps, then the nature can be explained without introducing the idea of God.
But what about the miracles the Jesus has demonstrated?

We’re still quite a long way from a complete description or explanation of the natural world; Each new insight into old mysteries leads us to still more mystery.

But even if the natural world can be explained without reference to God, what does that actually imply? We don’t need to introduce the idea of life, in order to experience the miracle of being alive. Life, consciousness, God, these things just are. They don’t require explanation or understanding - though something in our nature seemingly drives us to seek understanding and explanation.

 

[exchemist]

200 as well as 3000 years ago people believed in God of Gaps.
The God of Gaps is there even today - 94% of Universe.
Why today people do not believe in God of Gaps?

Because it is silly to do so, for the reasons Newman and Coulson explained.

The gaps get progressively closed, as science advances. So if these gaps are the evidence for God, God gets squashed into fewer and fewer gaps as our knowledge grows. And the intelligent person will realise that as these former gaps, now closed, were not evidence of God after all, why should any of the remaining gaps be, either?

 

[PureX]

Ballocks. God of the Gaps is an expressions coined by Professor Charles Coulson, a mathematician, theoretical chemist and Methodist lay preacher, whose lectures I attended in my first year at university. He meant by it the flimsy refuge of religious people who affect to see God in the gaps in our scientific understanding.

A century or so earlier, Cardinal Newman had already pointed out that the Christian who builds his faith on God being behind everything about nature that we don't understand is building his house upon sand. He is liable to have his faith destroyed by each advance in science! So the idea was not new. Coulson just found a pithy way of expressing it.

Good post, and I agree with both of them.

If understanding the mechanisms of nature eliminate one's faith in God, then one had a very weak and immature idea of God. Because God isn't about the how, it's about the why. And science can't answer the why.

 

[Sheldon]

Are advances in science constantly pushing God into the dustbin of history?

No, the area of the unknown is expanding faster. 94 percent of matter is Dark Matter and Dark Energy, and nothing is known about them. Unknown, except for me.

The matter is of 4 types, one of them is Invisible Non-Living Matter: Dark Matter and Dark Energy. Another one - Invisible Living Matter: angels, souls of people. Scientific evidence is in the file:

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356990154_To_solve_all_problems_and_Quantum_Gravity

So, learning more, mainstream science will either discover God or say: "Reality does not exist - we are in the Matrix. We are all in the Zuserberg Meta-Universe."

Physicists have no idea how Super-Massive Black Holes could appear in all galaxies in a short time. Did God do this miracle? Atheists would reply: "you are not a child to believe in fairies and gods."

I am very glad that children like fairy tales. In general, the world is very similar to a fairy tale, for example, giants and unicorns are mentioned in the Bible. In the Bible, the dead are raised. The UFOs like some flaming fast dragons fly across the sky.

A fairy tale is when both reality and illusion. Illusion is when a logical contradiction, a paradox. Illusion from God is useful and inevitable. And in science, there are such paradoxes that will never be eliminated. For example, the Hilbert's Grand Hotel with an infinite number of guests: more about it (and other illusions) is in

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/356587583_RIEMANN_HYPOTHESIS_AND_BASIS_OF_KNOWLEDGE

200 as well as 3000 years ago people believed in God of Gaps.
The God of Gaps is there even today - 94% of Universe.
Why today people do not believe in God of Gaps?


If there are no gaps, then the nature can be explained without introducing the idea of God.
But what about the miracles the Jesus has demonstrated?

God of the gaps is a phrase used to describe an argumentum ad ignorantiam fallacy, ipso facto such claims are irrational. making a bare appeal to how many people use this irrational argument is of course also an argumentum ad populum fallacy.

Do you not see the significance of a belief being asserted to exist only in the gaps (regardless of it's size) in our knowledge?

 

[questfortruth]

They don’t require explanation or understanding

Atheist: "How did particles, electrons, photons appear?"
Science: "God did it."
Atheist: "How did He do it?"
Science: "Because He is Creativity itself and a Miracle itself. He did it by a miracle."

 

[Aupmanyav]

But what about the miracles the Jesus has demonstrated?

Yeah, Bible is the proof. Circle, circle, circle.

If understanding the mechanisms of nature eliminate one's faith in God, then one had a very weak and immature idea of God. Because God isn't about the how, it's about the why. And science can't answer the why.

God too does not answer 'why'? I have asked many a times, "What compelled you or drove you to create the universe?" Has he told you something?

 

[Sheldon]

science can't answer the why.

Scientific theories explain why aspects of the natural world behave or appear as they do. Gravity explains why an apple would appear to fall towards the earth, evolution explains why there is such a diversity of life. Scientific laws generally are smaller more concise explanations of how parts of those theories behave.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Scientific theories explain why aspects of the natural world behave or appear as they do. Gravity explains why an apple would appear to fall towards the earth, evolution explains why there is such a diversity of life. Scientific laws generally are smaller more concise explanations of how parts of those theories behave.

Could you rephrase that?

 

[questfortruth]

Yeah, Bible is the proof. Circle, circle, circle.

Blaspheme.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Blaspheme.

Yeah. To you. Now to me, if there was a God, it would not be the God of the Bible. You are doing blaspheme yourself for some other Gods than your God.

 

[exchemist]

Scientific theories explain why aspects of the natural world behave or appear as they do. Gravity explains why an apple would appear to fall towards the earth, evolution explains why there is such a diversity of life. Scientific laws generally are smaller more concise explanations of how parts of those theories behave.

I think @PureX 's point is that science does not address questions of purpose or goals in nature or the world. There is no teleology in science. As you say, it deals with how we can expect nature to behave, not why it should be the way it is.

 

[Sheldon]

I think @PureX 's point is that science does not address questions of purpose or goals in nature or the world. There is no teleology in science. As you say, it deals with how we can expect nature to behave, not why it should be the way it is.

Obviously as an atheist, I don't see any point in questions that presuppose there is an overarching purpose to human existence. I prefer to think that ought to be demonstrated first, before the question has any true value. However as far as science is concerned, it's limitations should surely be demonstrated, rather than simple assumed with unfalsifiable ideas?

 

[exchemist]

Atheist: "How did particles, electrons, photons appear?"
Science: "God did it."
Atheist: "How did He do it?"
Science: "Because He is Creativity itself and a Miracle itself. He did it by a miracle."

This is mad (well, obviously ).

"God did it" is the one answer science would never, ever give, to anything.

 

[exchemist]

Obviously as an atheist, I don't see any point in questions that presuppose there is an overarching purpose to human existence. However as far as science is concerned, it's limitations should surely be demonstrated, rather than simple assumed?

The limitations of science are set by the nature of the scientific method, which relies on observational evidence. Where observations stop, so does science, more or less - though it is true that some speculative hypotheses can be cantilevered forward, as it were, from the last bit of theory that has observational support. But not far.

 

[sun rise]

But what about the miracles the Jesus has demonstrated?

Miracles are just the operation of laws that the vast majority don't know about yet.

Take a 14th century person and put him in the 21st century: that strange carriage moves by miracles. Touch a wall and light appears - must be a miracle. A piece of metal flying in the sky like a bird but does not flap it's wings? That is truly a miracle.

 

[PureX]

Obviously as an atheist, I don't see any point in questions that presuppose there is an overarching purpose to human existence. I prefer to think that ought to be demonstrated first, before the question has any true value.

So, how does one demonstrate for you the legitimacy of these questions:

1. Why does anything exist? (Why do I exist?)
2. Why am I aware of myself existing?
3. Why does existing involve suffering and death?

Are you suggesting that we should simply not ask these questions because we don't have any answers for them that can be "demonstrated" scientifically?

However as far as science is concerned, it's limitations should surely be demonstrated, rather than simple assumed with unfalsifiable ideas?

I'm pretty sure I just did that.