A god of the gaps argument as an offense of a god of the gaps argument. Wonderful circular.
Are we made in God's image?
- Thread starter James R
- Start date
A god of the gaps argument as an offense of a god of the gaps argument. Wonderful circular.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
The only circularity is in the believers in scientism claiming God is filling gaps left by science, even though God has never filled any territory covered by science and science has never displaced God by any of its findings. Gound's non-overlapping magisteria seems to hold.
The obvious facts are that yes, the god of the gaps argument while a totally invalid approach, is always used by creationists IDers etc, as it is obviously their last resort, since the real facts are [despite your very weird mythical thoughts to the contrary] that science has most certainly made any need for any deity as superfluous at best, and false rhetoric at worst.
Your other false claim re "Gound's non-overlapping magisteria seems to hold" while desirable mostly does not hold, and strangely enough you are the best living proof of that that we have on this forum.
On a more widely based view, Creationism and IDers, by their very definitions, encroach on the science areas of inquiry. eg"many don't accept the fact of the evolution of life....many still prefer the mythical bible to science....many are oblivious to the fact that the scientific application of Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-overlapping_magisteria#:~:text=Non-overlapping magisteria (NOMA),areas of inquiry, fact vs.
So sure Gould was correct, so the question is why do you encroach on that, and why do you support that encroachment with a dishonest appraoch?
Last edited:
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Science cannot make religion superfluous any more than it can make philosophy or epistemology superfluous. Again, they are non-overlapping. Now, you can certainly say that religion, philosophy, etc. are not needed to arrive at scientific answers. But that's trivially so. It doesn't tell us anything about the truth of religion, philosophy, epistemology, etc.. And it's a severe misunderstanding/misuse of science to claim is "has most certainly made any need for any deity...false rhetoric". Science cannot show anything but the scientific to be false. But this just further demonstrates how you have to cultivate your own ignorance, even about science, to maintain your faith in scientism. That's okay. Fundamentalist religion is pretty ignorant of itself too. You're just at the other extreme of the same spectrum.
As I've tried to educate you before, creationism and intelligent design are not at odds with evolution. You're repeated insistence that only scientific answers are valid just continues to prove your faith in scientism. I don't encroach on evolution. I ask the same thing you do. Can you show me? If there's anythign dishonest about requiring more compelling evidence to believe something, you need to look in a mirror.
The old worn out scientism crack again. You have nothing else? Oh yes, I forgot, Atheism, lefty is that it?
Obviously you live in a bubble surrounded by your agenda. Science most certainly has made any need for any deity superfluous at least up to .0000000000000000000000000000000000000000000001, which leaves you sweet fuck all to ram in your god of the gaps.
And since you brought it up, "Science is what we know: Philosophy is what we don't know:
"Scientists are explorers. Philosophers are tourists".
Richard Feynman
I suggest before you attempt to educate anyone, you first start understanding that your loud, insistent, forceful attitude, preaching some ancient deity and/or ID, that you understand that it is unscientific, as is all paranormal and supernatural nonsense.
Science is not out to disprove your creationist myth...it doesn't need to. It's explaining the universe, and evolution of life reasonably and logically. Which makes your sky daddy superfluous.
Ummmm
Not sure about yourself but while I know I don't know a lot of stuff about physical reality I have no information about anything in the non existent realm
I would not philosophers tourist when they never go outside their own mind
And since what appears to be the Poster Boy for the Dunning-Krueger Effect brought it up :
“Science is what you know, philosophy is what you don't know”
― Bertrand Russell
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/108461-science-is-what-you-know-philosophy-is-what-you-don-t
Last edited:
I posted this in the "Quotes" Thread, but it seems relevent, especially considering that we have what appears to be the Poster Boy for the Dunning-Krueger Effect running rampant on this Forum :
"We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." -- Dr Carl Sagan
"We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces." -- Dr Carl Sagan
Coming from someone who has been recently labeled a troll, and known for his attraction to my posts, and who was known to dishonestly use the quote function until warned by James, plus the usual inane criticism and lies, and then known for his extreme obsession in following me over to SFN, ]where he was known as et pet] and where he was quickly corralled and tied up by the mods, for you guessed it, for trolling, I take what you say as a compliment dmoe
Last edited:
I posted this in the "Quotes" Thread, but it seems relevent, especially considering that we have what appears to be the Poster Boy for obsessive trolling......
I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.
Carl Sagan:
I would love to believe that when I die I will live again, that some thinking, feeling, remembering part of me will continue. But much as I want to believe that, and despite the ancient and worldwide cultural traditions that assert an afterlife, I know of nothing to suggest that it is more than wishful thinking.
The world is so exquisite with so much love and moral depth, that there is no reason to deceive ourselves with pretty stories for which there's little good evidence. Far better it seems to me, in our vulnerability, is to look death in the eye and to be grateful every day for the brief but magnificent opportunity that life provides.
Carl Sagan:
The following is from Carl Sagan's wife after his death at the age of 62 years.
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/carl-sagan
“When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me-it still sometimes happens-and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous-not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . . That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time. . . . That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it’s much more meaningful. . . . The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don't think I'll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.”
― Ann Druyan
https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/tag/carl-sagan
“When my husband died, because he was so famous and known for not being a believer, many people would come up to me-it still sometimes happens-and ask me if Carl changed at the end and converted to a belief in an afterlife. They also frequently ask me if I think I will see him again. Carl faced his death with unflagging courage and never sought refuge in illusions. The tragedy was that we knew we would never see each other again. I don't ever expect to be reunited with Carl. But, the great thing is that when we were together, for nearly twenty years, we lived with a vivid appreciation of how brief and precious life is. We never trivialized the meaning of death by pretending it was anything other than a final parting. Every single moment that we were alive and we were together was miraculous-not miraculous in the sense of inexplicable or supernatural. We knew we were beneficiaries of chance. . . . That pure chance could be so generous and so kind. . . . That we could find each other, as Carl wrote so beautifully in Cosmos, you know, in the vastness of space and the immensity of time. . . . That we could be together for twenty years. That is something which sustains me and it’s much more meaningful. . . . The way he treated me and the way I treated him, the way we took care of each other and our family, while he lived. That is so much more important than the idea I will see him someday. I don't think I'll ever see Carl again. But I saw him. We saw each other. We found each other in the cosmos, and that was wonderful.”
― Ann Druyan
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
If you ever manage to justify why it's not true, it'd completely cease to be an accurate and valid descriptor. But every time you try, you just verify it.
Obviously you projecting, as your science bubble does not address vast swaths of human experience or knowledge. But again, your blind, unjustified faith won't let you see outside that bubble.
No one's asking you to believe there's a God, nor disputing your dearly held beliefs in science. But you act awfully defensive, lashing out due to insecurity. Please, try to at least act like you're not so afraid of different beliefs.
Worth noting that people like yourself with a creationist agenda, can and will purposely misinterpret anything they chose.
I have never said that science addresses all the vast swathes of human experience and knowledge...but without it, you would still be swinging in the trees.
My beliefs in science are based on evidence. Your beliefs in an after life is based on the fear of the finality of death.
And once again, as Jan, another creationist would do, trying to turn my words around, is rather childish don't you think....you know, Yes I am, no your not, yes I am, no your not.
Try another ploy, because your continued unsupported beliefs, preached in the style of the meaning of your handle, has met with an epic fail.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
There's nothing to misinterpret when you refuse to tell us any answers other than scientific you'd accept or any alternative to abiogenesis that could possibly falsify it.
You sure haven't given even one example of you accept any answer that isn't scientific. And no, scientific knowledge didn't cause the evolution of homo sapiens. At best, you're reversing cause and effect, and at worst, you're just that woefully ignorant.
Your belief in abiogenesis has zero evidence, and your beliefs about mine are straw men.
Everyone sane believes in abiogenesis. Even yourself, which you would realize if you stopped to think about it for a second.
Maybe you can explain it to me then...How can anything unscientific by its very nature, invalidate science?
How can something you have no evidence for invalidate any science?
How simple do you want it spelled out for you? How about History? You seemed rather ignorant of that also...or Art? Otherwise science involves care for our environment [you care about that?] life and evolution, and the fact that we are just star stuff, the evolution of the universe, and all the energy and forces involved. Your own woeful ignorance may be improved on if you were not so burdened down with an agenda...wait!! Is that another strawman?
Wrong, Abiogenesis being the only scientific answer, can be concluded as fact. The methodology and pathway is still unknown.
And my observations of your own belief and "qualities"are being showed as extremely accurate the more you deny them and the more nonsense you post. Again, epic fail.
Vociferous
Valued Senior Member
Then you admit to believing in something without any evidence. Your myopia about people who don't believe as you do is pretty emblematic of fundamentalist ideologies. Like atheists with God, I don't believe anything I've not seen or experienced evidence for. You should be able to understand that sentiment, if you were intellectually honest.
Who said anything about the unscientific invalidating any science? That's just another in your long list of straw men. Again, Gould's non-overlapping magisteria.
Art doesn't offer answers, and history offers no alternative to falsify your sacred cow of abiogenesis. Science involves facts, not care, which is something ideologues feel the need to inject into their beliefs. You seem to be comically/sadly unaware of your hypocrisy in demanding evidence while believing in stuff without any.
LOL! You don't even understand the basics of a hypothesis. And you're apparently far too ignorant to ever become aware of your woeful lack of simple comprehension. Sad really. Mostly because it's people like you who do a disservice to science by making broader claims than science supports.
Why do you say that?
Any movement from being intellectually dishonest comes from your corner matey, and has over many pages and 1235 posts, although admittedly I havn't read them all.
Confusing your strawman with facts again I see. Abiogenesis is the only scientific answer and as such is fact: The process, the exact methodology is what is in question and open to falsification. Any suggestion by fanatical creationists of any magic sky daddy is unscientific, unevidenced mythical nonsense. Hey, I've told you that before!
You asked for non scientific examples...you got them...let's add religion or those pretentiously trying to disown religion, and then claiming there own particular version of the myth religions push. That would be you.
Ahh. getting desperate are we? I would accuse you of adhoms, but what the heck! Let you have some fun I will.But let's again clear up your nonsensical baggage burdened interpretation of Abiogenesis....yes, abiogenesis is fact, and the only scientific choice we have. the pathway and methodology is though open for question.
Unlike of course your own cop out, feel good, answer about some magic spaghetti monster, that can take away from the finality of death, that which in time we all face...death, oblivion, the end, zero, zilch nothing.
Let me educate you some more and attempt to get round your baggage, that's dragging you further into the mire....Probably in life the closest experience one can have of death, is under anesthetic....It's like a slice out of your life...complete nothingness...that's death, nothing really to be too afraid of.
Evolution vs creationism
Plate tectonics vs creationism
Planetary accretion vs creationism
Geocentrism vs heliocentrism ('and yet, it moves')
If one is very careful to disregard the parts of religion which conflict with science, yes. As Gould was.