|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 7, 2017 21:14:43 GMT
Can't speak for the OP, but I've heard very similar things from many of the believers in my own family. They tell personal stories that essentially end with the "you can't explain that, so God." I don't know how common this is among other believers, but it definitely happens. Someone else posted the Bill O'Reilly "tide goes in/out" argument as an example. Most theists who use variants of a God of the Gaps argument don't claim that things are unexplained; they use God as an explanation. And as soon as an explanation exists, something is no longer unexplained. I'm an atheist and materialist, and I admit that there are unexplained things. What caused the Big Bang? I don't know. There are various unproven scientific theories about it. Theists however have an explanation: God did it. Whether this explanation stands up to scrutiny is another matter. But an explanation is an explanation. I get what you're saying, but I think what the OP meant is that theists assert that they can't be explained by natural explanations, though the latter is often left implicit rather than explicitly stated. It's a kind of "I've ruled out every natural explanation I can think of, so it must be God."
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 7, 2017 21:18:44 GMT
Most theists who use variants of a God of the Gaps argument don't claim that things are unexplained; they use God as an explanation. And as soon as an explanation exists, something is no longer unexplained. I'm an atheist and materialist, and I admit that there are unexplained things. What caused the Big Bang? I don't know. There are various unproven scientific theories about it. Theists however have an explanation: God did it. Whether this explanation stands up to scrutiny is another matter. But an explanation is an explanation. I get what you're saying, but I think what the OP meant is that theists assert that they can't be explained by natural explanations, though the latter is often left implicit rather than explicitly stated. It's a kind of "I've ruled out every natural explanation I can think of, so it must be God." Its not always as simple as that.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 21:37:54 GMT
Can't speak for the OP, but I've heard very similar things from many of the believers in my own family. They tell personal stories that essentially end with the "you can't explain that, so God." I don't know how common this is among other believers, but it definitely happens. Someone else posted the Bill O'Reilly "tide goes in/out" argument as an example. Most theists who use variants of a God of the Gaps argument don't claim that things are unexplained; they use God as an explanation. And as soon as an explanation exists, something is no longer unexplained. I'm an atheist and materialist, and I admit that there are unexplained things. What caused the Big Bang? I don't know. There are various unproven scientific theories about it. Theists however have an explanation: God did it. Whether this explanation stands up to scrutiny is another matter. But an explanation is an explanation. That really comes down to what you mean by "an explanation". To my mind "god" isn't really an explanation because it doesn't actually explain anything. If they could say how god created the universe and where god came from in the first place it would be a different matter. But to simply put a word to it and then stop thinking about it isn't an explanation to me. You could just as easily answer the question "what caused the big bang?" by saying "Penguins." It's an answer, but it's really not an explanation except in the most directly semantic sense.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 7, 2017 22:11:20 GMT
Most theists who use variants of a God of the Gaps argument don't claim that things are unexplained; they use God as an explanation. And as soon as an explanation exists, something is no longer unexplained. I'm an atheist and materialist, and I admit that there are unexplained things. What caused the Big Bang? I don't know. There are various unproven scientific theories about it. Theists however have an explanation: God did it. Whether this explanation stands up to scrutiny is another matter. But an explanation is an explanation. That really comes down to what you mean by "an explanation". To my mind "god" isn't really an explanation because it doesn't actually explain anything. If they could say how god created the universe and where god came from in the first place it would be a different matter. But to simply put a word to it and then stop thinking about it isn't an explanation to me. You could just as easily answer the question "what caused the big bang?" by saying "Penguins." It's an answer, but it's really not an explanation except in the most directly semantic sense. In my opinion, an explanation is an explanation if the person who accepts it is satisfied with it. Even if there is no way to prove this explanation. But nobody else has to accept this explanation. But challenging the explanation is not really necessary in my opinion; except when people get hurt. Like in the Emperor's new clothes, where the explanation that clothes are only visible to certain people causes gullible people to lose money.
|
|
|
Post by lowtacks86 on Apr 7, 2017 22:38:48 GMT
Errrrrrrrrrrr what?
Why do people make arguments like this?
If they're unexplained, then there is no current explanation. So that makes god just a synonym for no explanation? God means you don't know. Wow. Let's worship that. Yeah, as already stated, God of the Gaps. People used to worship the sun because they weren't really sure what it was, just slap a God label on it.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 22:54:04 GMT
That really comes down to what you mean by "an explanation". To my mind "god" isn't really an explanation because it doesn't actually explain anything. If they could say how god created the universe and where god came from in the first place it would be a different matter. But to simply put a word to it and then stop thinking about it isn't an explanation to me. You could just as easily answer the question "what caused the big bang?" by saying "Penguins." It's an answer, but it's really not an explanation except in the most directly semantic sense. In my opinion, an explanation is an explanation if the person who accepts it is satisfied with it. Even if there is no way to prove this explanation. But nobody else has to accept this explanation. But challenging the explanation is not really necessary in my opinion; except when people get hurt. Like in the Emperor's new clothes, where the explanation that clothes are only visible to certain people causes gullible people to lose money. So to be clear, if I tell you that the big bang was caused by penguins, and you accept that answer, then it would be fair to say that the cause of the big bang has been explained?
|
|
|
Post by Eva Yojimbo on Apr 7, 2017 22:57:15 GMT
I get what you're saying, but I think what the OP meant is that theists assert that they can't be explained by natural explanations, though the latter is often left implicit rather than explicitly stated. It's a kind of "I've ruled out every natural explanation I can think of, so it must be God." Its not always as simple as that. Feel free to elaborate on whatever you think I'm missing. I mean, I've never gotten a clear answer when I've questioned anyone in my family.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 7, 2017 23:15:34 GMT
So to be clear, if I tell you that the big bang was caused by penguins, and you accept that answer, then it would be fair to say that the cause of the big bang has been explained? I don't believe the Big Bang was caused by penguins. But if someone else does, then to them, the Big Bang was explained. www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/06/15
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 7, 2017 23:22:49 GMT
So to be clear, if I tell you that the big bang was caused by penguins, and you accept that answer, then it would be fair to say that the cause of the big bang has been explained? I don't believe the Big Bang was caused by penguins. But if someone else does, then to them, the Big Bang was explained. www.gocomics.com/calvinandhobbes/1993/06/15Then you and I mean slightly different things by the word.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 8, 2017 7:56:09 GMT
Its not always as simple as that. Feel free to elaborate on whatever you think I'm missing. I mean, I've never gotten a clear answer when I've questioned anyone in my family. Theist philosophers have made more sophisicated arguments. See William Paley's watchmaker analogy for example.
|
|
|
Post by dividavi on Apr 8, 2017 10:21:20 GMT
Most theists who use variants of a God of the Gaps argument don't claim that things are unexplained; they use God as an explanation. And as soon as an explanation exists, something is no longer unexplained. I'm an atheist and materialist, and I admit that there are unexplained things. What caused the Big Bang? I don't know. There are various unproven scientific theories about it. Theists however have an explanation: God did it. Whether this explanation stands up to scrutiny is another matter. But an explanation is an explanation. That really comes down to what you mean by "an explanation". To my mind "god" isn't really an explanation because it doesn't actually explain anything. If they could say how god created the universe and where god came from in the first place it would be a different matter. But to simply put a word to it and then stop thinking about it isn't an explanation to me. You could just as easily answer the question "what caused the big bang?" by saying "Penguins." It's an answer, but it's really not an explanation except in the most directly semantic sense. You might remember the court case Kitzmiller versus Dover Area School District where a Pennsylvania school board dishonestly tried to introduce Creationist lies into a science curriculum. Following the change in curriculum, the school board had a nine sentence (four-paragraph) statement prepared. In its final form it asserted that Darwin's "Theory is not a fact" and said that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves." pp. 126–128, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Memorandum Opinion, December 20, 2005The message of the born again Christian liars to the students was that evolution is an unproven theory (speculative) whereas Intelligent Design is an explanation, something much more persuasive. Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing. Its basic premise is that there are gaps and other unresolved issues with evolution so therefore there must be an Intelligent Creator (AKA God). That's it. That's the entirety of their phony "explanation". The Creationists have never attempted to show evidence for their beliefs because none exist. By the way, if someone wants to chastise me for calling the Dover defendants liars, that's what the federal judge in the case said. Creationists lie incessantly but this time it was done under oath.
|
|
|
Post by deviates on Apr 8, 2017 10:27:17 GMT
Feel free to elaborate on whatever you think I'm missing. I mean, I've never gotten a clear answer when I've questioned anyone in my family. Theist philosophers have made more sophisicated arguments. See William Paley's watchmaker analogy for example. Which once picked apart is just a more sophisticated God of the gaps argument.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 8, 2017 10:29:59 GMT
Theist philosophers have made more sophisicated arguments. See William Paley's watchmaker analogy for example. Which once picked apart is just a more sophisticated God of the gaps argument. Regardless of whether it is right or not to say the argument is always simply "X cannot be explained by natural phenomena therefore God" is incorrect.
|
|
|
Post by deviates on Apr 8, 2017 11:06:56 GMT
Which once picked apart is just a more sophisticated God of the gaps argument. Regardless of whether it is right or not to say the argument is always simply "X cannot be explained by natural phenomena therefore God" is incorrect. I've not seen a single formation of the argument that, even though it might not say it explicitly, doesn't amount to God of the gaps. Perhaps I've not seen the variations you're referring to.
|
|
PanLeo
Sophomore
@saoradh
Posts: 919
Likes: 53
|
Post by PanLeo on Apr 8, 2017 11:13:58 GMT
Regardless of whether it is right or not to say the argument is always simply "X cannot be explained by natural phenomena therefore God" is incorrect. I've not seen a single formation of the argument that, even though it might not say it explicitly, doesn't amount to God of the gaps. Perhaps I've not seen the variations you're referring to. I never said the watchmaker analogy was not a god of the gaps argument. How is that relevant to my point?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Apr 8, 2017 13:52:00 GMT
ArArArchStanton This isn't happening. Affects the religious far more than the theophobiac This isn't happening in any substantial way. Hopefully, you're breathing a sigh of relief. It did happen, there was a court case and everything called Kitzmiller vs Dover. Wasn't that long ago. And I wonder what happens in christian based charter schools? Why do those exist?
I don't know why you think there is any "sigh of relief" when I meet people who actually think men have one less rib, and that evolution is "just a theory". Instead of making excuses for religions influence on terrorism, etc, just admit religions are systems of encouraging ignorance.
By the way, are you aware that only one person in all of congress is an admitted atheist? You don't actually think they all believe in god do you? That's right, your religion is so oppressive they all lie about it to make you feel warm and fuzzy. What happens when you realize not near as many people believe it as you think?
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Apr 8, 2017 13:59:22 GMT
No that story actually happened. The GM of that hotel was German and I had a long discussion with him about him moving here with his wife and what he felt about that tennis tournament where an WWII era national anthem was sung by mistake.
Did you really spend time going back to find that just to repost it? And did he actually spend time looking up channel scheduling just to try to discredit it? I just want you to realize how silly your attempt is by pointing out that I walked into the lobby, a nature show is on, the guy is talking about evolution, and I introduce myself to her. This all took about 15 seconds. Maybe it was the nature channel, who cares?
They were watching a show about gorillas and evolution. Get over it.
|
|
|
Post by phludowin on Apr 8, 2017 14:07:04 GMT
You might remember the court case Kitzmiller versus Dover Area School District where a Pennsylvania school board dishonestly tried to introduce Creationist lies into a science curriculum. Following the change in curriculum, the school board had a nine sentence (four-paragraph) statement prepared. In its final form it asserted that Darwin's "Theory is not a fact" and said that "Intelligent Design is an explanation of the origin of life that differs from Darwin's view. The reference book, Of Pandas and People, is available for students who might be interested in gaining an understanding of what Intelligent Design actually involves." pp. 126–128, Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District, Memorandum Opinion, December 20, 2005The message of the born again Christian liars to the students was that evolution is an unproven theory (speculative) whereas Intelligent Design is an explanation, something much more persuasive. Creationism and Intelligent Design are the same thing. Its basic premise is that there are gaps and other unresolved issues with evolution so therefore there must be an Intelligent Creator (AKA God). That's it. That's the entirety of their phony "explanation". The Creationists have never attempted to show evidence for their beliefs because none exist. By the way, if someone wants to chastise me for calling the Dover defendants liars, that's what the federal judge in the case said. Creationists lie incessantly but this time it was done under oath. All of this is correct. Intelligent Design is an explanation for the origin of life, albeit a bad one. If anyone individually wants to believe this instead of scientific theories, I see no problem with it. The problem is when they try to convince others; like their own children or other children, via school curriculums. In that case, if an explanation does not hold up to scientific standards (as is the case with Intelligent Design), then it has no place in a science class.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
@Deleted
Posts: 0
Likes:
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 8, 2017 14:38:50 GMT
It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. You story didn't survive the most cursory of fact checks before it unravelled. That you have attempted to add more layers to the story in the forlorn hope it will lend it more credibility is just pathetic,and also the undoing of most liars. This is the original story you told: This is the new version: So who were you speaking to him or her? (Her in the original version,him in the new version) What was the relationship between that man and women? (Some guy in the original version,man and wife in the new version) Who denied we were evolved from gorillas? (In the original story the man said we did evolve from gorillas the women disagreed,in the new version he denied we evolved from gorillas and the women agreed) That's three points of blatant contradiction in the two versions of the story you've told. You Sir are a liar and have been easily proven as such. Get over it.
|
|
|
Post by ArArArchStanton on Apr 8, 2017 14:42:10 GMT
It was bullshit then and it's bullshit now. You story didn't survive the most cursory of fact checks before it unravelled. That you have attempted to add more layers to the story in the forlorn hope it will lend it more credibility is just pathetic,and also the undoing of most liars. This is the original story you told: This is the new version: So who were you speaking to him or her? (Her in the original version,him in the new version) What was the relationship between that man and women? (Some guy in the original version,man and wife in the new version) Who denied we were evolved from gorillas? (In the original story the man said we did evolve from gorillas the women disagreed,in the new version he denied we evolved from gorillas and the women agreed) That's three points of blatant contradiction in the two versions of the story you've told. You Sir are a liar and have been easily proven as such. Get over it. That's not a new version of the story. I talked to the GM after I spoke with her. Really bro, you can stop trying this hard.
Also, your "fact check" didn't do anything. It could have been the Discovery Channel for all I know. If I knew you were going to spend time looking up channel listings like a complete psycho I would have been more helpful.
|
|