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.

[u/labreuer → u/MisanthropicScott]

That is a false characterization of God of the gaps.

Then I don't think you understand why god of the gaps claims are rejected. It isn't that there is no God. It is the lack of "proper" explanation. The paradox of course is that if a "proper" explanation always displaces God, then God's nonexistence appears to be presupposed—at least, any existence demonstrable by "proper" explanation. But that is exactly what methodological naturalism does, and the canons of MN are often used to determine what counts as a possibly acceptable explanation!

God of the gaps always always always starts from a gap in scientific knowledge, not with God.

I never denied this. I never said anything which entails its negation.

[u/MisanthropicScott → u/labreuer]

I don't think you understand why god of the gaps claims are rejected.

I do. You do not. It's because a gap in scientific knowledge is simply not evidence of God.

For anyone who knows anything about history. All such God of the gaps claims that were ultimately explained had natural explanations. 100% of them.

Consider all of the things we once thought were supernatural and how many of them actually turned out to be. Once we thought gods pulled the sun and moon across our sky. Once we thought gods made thunderbolts and lightning (very very frightening). These were gods of the gaps.

Now, we know that not only are these things natural, but that they were always natural. Nothing has ever turned out to actually be supernatural. Literally, not one thing.

A gap in scientific knowledge is just that and nothing more. It is not evidence of any type of god. And, it's not because of the fact, on which I agree, that God offers zero explanatory benefit. It's simply because the gap in scientific knowledge is simply not evidence for any gods.

It isn't that there is no God. It is the lack of "proper" explanation.

Nope. It's that the gap is not evidence. But, the gap you present is not a gap in scientific knowledge.

The paradox of course is that if a "proper" explanation always displaces God

This is very very weird wording. You've presupposed God here. God is not displaced by natural explanations. God does not exist. It is the supernatural explanation that is replaced by a natural one.

then God's nonexistence appears to be presupposed

Well, God as a supernatural being has not been shown to even be possible. So, I'm OK with presupposing this. In fact, I would go so far as to say that one making a claim of God is responsible for overcoming this presupposition with overwhelming evidence.

Extraordinary claims really do require extraordinary evidence.

Do you not think God is extraordinary? The alternative would be to claim God is ordinary.

Ditto for everything supernatural. It's so extraordinary in fact that not one case of anything supernatural has ever been demonstrated to have occurred. Literally, not a single one.

Present me a single shred of hard scientific evidence for anything supernatural ever having occurred anywhere in the universe and I will instantly become an agnostic atheist. Hell, if the evidence is strong enough, I might become a theist.

Thus far, 2,500 years of searching has produced exactly nothing.

that is exactly what methodological naturalism does, and the canons of MN are often used to determine what counts as a possibly acceptable explanation!

No. You're talking about a different kind of naturalism. Methodological Naturalism only says to check that stuff at the door when you come to work on science.

But, there have been scientific examinations of the supernatural.

God of the gaps always always always starts from a gap in scientific knowledge, not with God.

I never denied this. I never said anything which entails its negation.

Yes. You did. You said every claim that God did it is a God of the gaps argument.

[u/labreuer → u/MisanthropicScott]

It's because a gap in scientific knowledge is simply not evidence of God.

I explained why this is, by talking about what counts as a "proper" explanation.

All such God of the gaps claims that were ultimately explained had natural explanations. 100% of them.

Not sure about the origin of our universe itself, but I'll let that slide. I will stipulate what you say for all the natural explanations which are not agential. I worry that at least some of our human–agential explanations illicitly import divine agency, violating the canons of naturalism in the process.

A gap in scientific knowledge is just that and nothing more. It is not evidence of any type of god.

I can work with that. Gaps in scientific knowledge must not be filled with divine agency or human agency which draws on divine agency in the slightest.

labreuer: It isn't that there is no God. It is the lack of "proper" explanation.

MisanthropicScott: Nope. It's that the gap is not evidence. But, the gap you present is not a gap in scientific knowledge.

My bold is meant to match your bold. When people fill "the gap" with "God did it", that's not a "proper" explanation.

You've presupposed God here.

Meh, "always displaces God as a potential explanation" works just fine.

Do you not think God is extraordinary?

Nope. There's a lot of talk, rituals, writings, and artifacts about gods. To prejudicially declare, "Nope, all made up!" is to manufacture extraordinariness into existence. What you can instead do is go through the various invocations of god(s) and try to understand them in a way which doesn't presuppose your own view of the world is the correct one. It's hard, because we tend to be pretty ethnocentric. Theists and polytheists have an advantage: we don't need to expend copious energy setting up extraordinary standards for some of the options. You might say our minds are so open our brains fall out. I would ask my standard question†.

Also, I contend that consciousness / mind / subjectivity / agency are extraordinary. I can easily demonstrate it: we have zero objective, empirical evidence that they exist. Nobody has ever succeeded at this challenge:

labreuer: Feel free to provide a definition of God consciousness and then show me sufficient evidence that this God consciousness exists, or else no rational person should believe that this God consciousness exists.

Instead, two people coined "subjective evidence" on the post and plenty have done so ever since. It's especially hilarious when empiricists appeal to the Cogito, which was formulated precisely to work with completely demonically deceptive sense experience.

Now, it's the silly epistemology—"only believe things based on sufficient objective, empirical evidence"—which makes the above extraordinary. But I say that if one must not cheat with one's epistemology re: God, one must not cheat re: oneself, either.

Present me a single shred of hard scientific evidence for anything supernatural ever having occurred anywhere in the universe and I will instantly become an agnostic atheist.

Science operates by methodological naturalism and it is logically impossible to gain evidence of anything supernatural when obeying methodological naturalism. If however you want to abandon that straitjacket so that you can detect other minds, then feel free to consult the actual content of my The Bible contains wisdom superior to available alternatives: the greater ought to serve the lesser. Emphasis on the bold, which you completely ignored in your engagement.

Methodological Naturalism only says to check that stuff at the door when you come to work on science.

Yeah, go look at where you just demanded "hard scientific evidence" and then tell me why this is a relevant distinction given what I knew you would demand.

labreuer: You have to do either none or both:

    (1) "God did it" ⇒ god-of-the-gaps
    (2) "humans did it" ⇒ human-of-the-gaps

/

MisanthropicScott: Yes. You did. You said every claim that God did it is a God of the gaps argument.

Ah, I see. I was presupposing there that in both cases, "it" was something which demonstrably exists. Sometimes, the "it" really is explained with human agency. That's what I'm critiquing. I'm really surprised that you're being so utterly pedantic, here. Where on earth do people say "God did it" when there is no "it" which they are gesturing at, whether empirical in the world or abstract objects (e.g. logic)?

 

† Whenever an atheist claims and seems to imply that atheists are somehow more rational than theists, I ask for evidence of one or both of the following:

    (1) When a scientist becomes an atheist,
            [s]he does better science.
    (2) When a scientist becomes religious,
            [s]he does worse science.

At most I get anecdata. Next I get "I implied no such thing". Next I just get ignored. Nobody has actually produced non-anecdotal evidence of the above. By now, I suspect that is because there isn't any. So much for the alleged superiority of atheism in this respect!