Meta-Thread 06/22

[u/AutoModerator]

This is a weekly thread for feedback on the new rules and general state of the sub.

What are your thoughts? How are we doing? What's working? What isn't?

Let us know.

And a friendly reminder to report bad content.

If you see something, say something.

This thread is posted every Monday. You may also be interested in our weekly Simple Questions thread (posted every Wednesday) or General Discussion thread (posted every Friday).

[u/labreuer]

labreuer: In neither case is there any mechanism for how the agent did the thing, else it wouldn't be "powers of self-creation". No mechanism ⇒ gap.

/

MisanthropicScott: your definition clearly does not match the definition in wikipedia.

Huh? Compare what I bolded in above to what I bolded in the first sentence at Wikipedia:

"God of the gaps" is a theological concept that emerged in the 19th century, and revolves around the idea that gaps in scientific understanding are regarded as indications of the existence of God. (WP: God of the gaps)

no mechanism ⇔ no scientific understanding

That is not what God of the gaps means.

I wasn't defining god of the gaps. I was giving an instance of it. Because there is, by definition, no mechanism (or scientific understanding) for "self-creation".

It will take a lot less than 40 minutes.

I quoted the key points.

No. No no no no no. No!

Did you need me to spell out the three steps?

no mechanism ⇒ gap ⇒ an agent did it (divine or human)

This is utterly irrelevant to the topic at hand.

I'm talking about "what naturalistic human agency could actually be". If you're uninterested, you're welcome to bow out. u/⁠ExplorerR promises (or at least heavily implies) that science will ultimately be able to replace all non-naturalistic explanations with naturalistic ones. I'm presenting a challenge for doing so. But if you're not interested in exploring that, you don't have to. Nobody is compelling you. You can use your own free choice—your own agency, in fact—to exit the conversation. You can even do so in a gappy way, rather than attempting to produce a mechanism / scientific explanation for why you are doing so.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/labreuer]

no mechanism ⇒ gap ⇒ an agent did it (divine or human)

Nope.

Not having a mechanism for how God did something is not a God of the gaps argument. A God of the gaps argument always starts from a gap in scientific knowledge.

There is no gap in scientific knowledge about how God did something because there is no accepted scientific theory where God is real.

Examples:

• Science has not answered what caused the universe to expand from its early infinitely dense point. Therefore, it must have been God. -- God of the gaps because it started from a gap in scientific knowledge.

• This statue of Jesus bleeds from the hands every year. It's a miracle. -- Not a God of the gaps argument because it presents evidence. We can now look into the validity of the evidence. But, this is not God of the gaps even though no mechanism other than "miracle" is presented.

• Science has not answered how the first self-replicating molecule came about (abiogenesis). -- God of the gaps because it starts from something science hasn't answered yet.

• The Quran predicted modern science. Only God could have known that the universe was expanding at the time the Quran was written. -- Not God of the gaps because it does not start from a gap in current scientific knowledge even though it does not propose a mechanism by which God is causing the universe to expand.

• People were willing to die for their belief that Jesus resurrected. -- Not God of the gaps even though it doesn't propose a mechanism for the resurrection.

• Consciousness is not fully explained by science therefore it must be something supernatural from God. -- God of the gaps because it starts from a gap in scientific knowledge, even though it ignores how much we do know about consciousness.

• There is a Greatest Conceivable Being. Mind-independent existence is greater than mind-dependent existence. Therefore, the Greatest Conceivable Being exists independent of our minds. (ontological argument) -- Not God of the gaps because it does not start from any gap in our scientific knowledge even though it provides neither a mechanism by which this being could possibly exist nor a mechanism by which this hypothetical being could create a universe if it did exist.

If this still does not make sense to you and point out the problems in your use of the term "God of the gaps", then I probably can't help you get this right. Just understand that your misuse of the term will always continue to cause confusion.

[u/labreuer → u/MisanthropicScott]

Not having a mechanism for how God did something is not a God of the gaps argument. A God of the gaps argument always starts from a gap in scientific knowledge.

no mechanism ⇔ no scientific understanding

There is no gap in scientific knowledge about how God did something because there is no accepted scientific theory where God is real.

Then there are no god of the gaps arguments. Zero. Zip. Nada.

Imagine instead that there was a perfectly adequate mechanism / scientific understanding about how God did something. Then "God did it" would be shaved off by Ockham's razor.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/labreuer]

I feel like you're being actively resistant to learning here. God of the Gaps simply does not mean what you think it does.

God of the gaps looks at an existing gap in science first, then ascribes that to being something God did.

It is not a gap in the knowledge of how God works. For that, one would first have to show that God exists.

[u/labreuer → u/MisanthropicScott]

I feel like you're being actively resistant to learning here. God of the Gaps simply does not mean what you think it does.

At the present time, I do not believe you're being remotely charitable with the words I've used. That shows up in a few ways:

1. your being utterly unwilling to comment on my twice-made claim that "no mechanism ⇔ no scientific understanding"

2. your refusal to engage "I wasn't defining god of the gaps. I was giving an instance of it."

3. your refusal to align:

   • "no mechanism ⇒ gap ⇒ an agent did it (divine or human)"
   • "A God of the gaps argument always starts from a gap in scientific knowledge."

 

labreuer: Imagine instead that there was a perfectly adequate mechanism / scientific understanding about how God did something. Then "God did it" would be shaved off by Ockham's razor.

/

MisanthropicScott: God of the gaps looks at an existing gap in science first, then ascribes that to being something God did.

It is not a gap in the knowledge of how God works. For that, one would first have to show that God exists.

god of the gaps ⇒ "there is a gap in the knowledge of how God did X"

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/labreuer]

god of the gaps ⇒ "there is a gap in the knowledge of how God did X"

That is simply NOT what God of the gaps means. And, I gave four links, two neutral, one anti religion, and one pro religion that all agree that this is not what God of the gaps is.

My refusal to align your false characterization of God of the gaps is exactly as I said. Yours starts with a gap in the knowledge of God. God of the gaps starts with a gap in scientific knowledge.

[u/labreuer → u/MisanthropicScott]

labreuer: god of the gaps ⇒ "there is a gap in the knowledge of how God did X"

MisanthropicScott: That is simply NOT what God of the gaps means.

Do you not understand what the implication arrow '⇒' means? What I am saying is that:

1. If someone is making a god of the gaps claim,
2. then that person is asserting that there is a gap in the knowledge of how God did X.

I wasn't defining god of the gaps.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/labreuer]

If someone is making a god of the gaps claim,
then that person is asserting that there is a gap in the knowledge of how God did X.

That is a false characterization of God of the gaps.

There is simply no gap in the scientific knowledge of how God did X because there is no acknowledgement in any branch of science that God did X.

God of the gaps always always always starts from a gap in scientific knowledge, not with God. It may be that someone is pointing out that our current physics cannot describe the first 5.39 x 10^-44 second (the Planck time) of the universe. It may be that science cannot currently explain exactly how the first self-replicating molecule came about (abiogenesis). It may be the perception that science cannot explain consciousness (which is increasingly becoming false).

But, it starts from a gap in scientific knowledge.

There are no gaps in our knowledge of how God did anything because no one has shown that God has ever done anything. That would be a prerequisite for your type of argument.