The God of the Gaps Argument

[Unveiled Artist]

Depends on context of who is using the statement.

That's like saying, two and two is four depending on context. So, if someone else talks about the equation, the answer can change.

God of the gaps doesnt sound wrong in and of itself. It's not irrational. There are reasons why people believe the things they do and they are justifable even if they cant be proven as facts. Then it could sound wrong only because one person doesn't see the logic behind using gaps to justify the unknown.

I dont see anything wrong with it. Maybe illogical is a better word.

 

[McBell]

That's like saying, two and two is four depending on context. So, if someone else talks about the equation, the answer can change.

Yes it is, but then, one plus one doe snot always equal 2.
Sometimes it can equal one depending on context.

 

[McBell]

God of the gaps doesnt sound wrong in and of itself. It's not irrational. There are reasons why people believe the things they do and they are justifable even if they cant be proven as facts. Then it could sound wrong only because one person doesn't see the logic behind using gaps to justify the unknown.

The biggest problem I see with the god of the gaps is that you could replace god with anything and it will be an equally valid "argument".

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Yes it is, but then, one plus one doe snot always equal 2.
Sometimes it can equal one depending on context.

Come on now, really? Thinking of basic math. Two separate things put together doubles. How can that change in context?

 

[McBell]

Come on now, really? Thinking of basic math. Two separate things put together doubles. How can that change in context?

I have a pile of sand.
I add another pile of sand to it.
How many piles of sand do I have?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

The biggest problem I see with the god of the gaps is that you could replace god with anything and it will be an equally valid "argument".

I think it's more illogical rather than a problem. If someone said "Ape aliens created the earth that's why it exists" that statement isn't really a problem (in morality) just a problem in, well, logistics. If it's valid/true why would there be a problem with it?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I have a pile of sand.
I add another pile of sand to it.
How many piles of sand do I have?

I dont see the connection. I have a stick. I add another stick. It doubles.

I take a grain of sand. I take another grain of sand. It becomes two grains of sands.

The object itself not a collection of objects X doubled.

 

[McBell]

I think it's more illogical rather than a problem. If someone said "Ape aliens created the earth that's why it exists" that statement isn't really a problem (in morality) just a problem in, well, logistics. If it's valid/true why would there be a problem with it?

A logically valid argument does not have to be true.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A logically valid argument does not have to be true.

Okay. Good point. Why is a problem though?

 

[McBell]

I dont see the connection. I have a stick. I add another stick. It doubles.

I take a grain of sand. I take another grain of sand. It becomes two grains of sands.

The object itself not a collection of objects X doubled.

You forgot to answer my question:

I have a pile of sand.
I add another pile of sand to it.
How many piles of sand do I have?​

 

[McBell]

Okay. Good point. Why is a problem though?

It isn't a problem until it is used in an attempt to show god exists

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You forgot to answer my question:

I have a pile of sand.
I add another pile of sand to it.
How many piles of sand do I have?​

Two piles.

If you have two things one pile in one hand and one pile in another, you have two piles. I dont see how this changes my point, though.

 

[outhouse]

I dont see anything wrong with it. Maybe illogical is a better word.

Its very logical because it is the study of human nature.

Example is needed here.

People 200 years ago thought all life originated from adam and eve, I did as a child. Now we all know that my belief was factually based on ignorance due to religious belief. I was a theist over 40 years.

BUT I learned that the mythology never happened in reality, and that we factually evolved.

That is god of the gaps. God was existing in only in ignorance and gaps of knowledge. Knowledge removed the gap of ignorance.

Ignorance is being replaced with knowledge, giving gods a very small place to exist in as we know more.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

It isn't a problem until it is used in an attempt to show god exists

Depending on how its done. If it's just showing a valid argument without attacks etc, I dont see a problem. That's what the god of the gaps sound like, valid arguments that pose no problem until one base harmful actions off of these beliefs right or wrong.

 

[McBell]

Two piles.

nope.

If you have two things one pile in one hand and one pile in another, you have two piles.

And when you add the piles together, how many piles do you have?
The answer is one.
Why you are trying so hard to avoid that fact is most revealing.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

Its very logical because it is the study of human nature.

Example is needed here.

People 200 years ago thought all life originated from adam and eve, I did as a child. Now we all know that my belief was factually based on ignorance due to religious belief. I was a theist over 40 years.

BUT I learned that the mythology never happened in reality, and that we factually evolved.

That is god of the gaps. God was existing in only in ignorance and gaps of knowledge. Knowledge removed the gap of ignorance.

Ignorance is being replaced with knowledge, giving gods a very small place to exist in as we know more.

Ignorance isn't a problem. It just means you were naive or did not know before what you know now. You were ignorant to the fact that we were not created from Adam and Eve. That doesn't mean there is a problem with the belief; it's logical by its own standards. I'd just conclude you found it wrong, and it was a problem for you maybe because it maybe prevented you from knowing the truth?

People have believed in god for years and those who dont abuse that believe and die with it, where is the problem?

 

[McBell]

Depending on how its done. If it's just showing a valid argument without attacks etc, I dont see a problem. That's what the god of the gaps sound like, valid arguments that pose no problem until one base harmful actions off of these beliefs right or wrong.

You must have a very different idea of what a valid argument is.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

nope.


And when you add the piles together, how many piles do you have?
The answer is one.
Why you are trying so hard to avoid that fact is most revealing.

Because I am not adding one pile on top of another. Just like with sticks, you can't cover the stick on top of itself (ocupy the same space). So, when you put those two piles together I am thinking of my example of the stick... puting those piles side by side. Not on top of each other to make one pile.

So if I have one pile in my left hand and I sit it on the left in front of me. I have a pile on my right nad sit it to the right of that first pile. I added (not mixed) the two piles together. So instead of having one separate pile in either hand, now I have to piles siting side by side.

Thats what I'm getting at.

That's different than puting one pile of sand and mixing it with another pile; then, yes, you get one pile. That's not my original point, though.

 

[McBell]

Because I am not adding one pile on top of another. Just like with sticks, you can't cover the stick on top of itself (ocupy the same space). So, when you put those two piles together I am thinking of my example of the stick... puting those piles side by side. Not on top of each other to make one pile.

So if I have one pile in my left hand and I sit it on the left in front of me. I have a pile on my right nad sit it to the right of that first pile. I added (not mixed) the two piles together. So instead of having one separate pile in either hand, now I have to piles siting side by side.

Thats what I'm getting at.

That's different than puting one pile of sand and mixing it with another pile; then, yes, you get one pile. That's not my original point, though.

So you manipulate the context to fit your agenda.
Most people do the same thing with their Holy Texts.

Of course, you also have to ignore the fact that you did not add the two piles together.
Meaning you did not have the 1+1 scenario you were flat out asked about.
I believe that is called strawmaning...?

 

[Milton Platt]

I understand that. It's not something I would get a twist over, though. I mean, I'd look at you kinda funny if you get fustrated because I believe in spirits and my justification for their existence. If I am not imposing my beliefs on you and you are not asking out of curiousity, learning, seeking knowledge respectful debate, etc, I see no reason to really put a thought into what I believe.

Likewise with others.

I was answering his/her question. How is that an issue?

I tend to care what people believe, because it informs their actions, and their actions can impact other people.