The God of the Gaps was a movement at the end of the last century to tr and shoehorn God into Evolution. It claimed that God would step in when a major development was necessary and then let Evolution develop the new creation. It was rejected on 2 counts
Richard
Whoever suggested such a thing? Certainly not me. Science has its place. Just not as a tool for finding God.
Richard
I was simply noting that Galileo said the same things you were saying.
“I do not see science as a threat to God. It would be ludicrous to think that God did not plan or expect science, just as it is ludicrous to think that God might deny humans cognisance and reason. God has no reason to fear cognisance, for without it He cannot be found at all.”
One issue I see among many New Atheists I encounter online (and I want to be clear that I would not put you in this category) is they narrowly define “evidence” in the sense of repeatable, falsifiable “scientific” evidence. As @Vinnie said, expecting evidence for God’s actions or anything supernatural to be apparent the methods we use to examine the natural world assumed to hold to fixed “natural laws” would be a category error.
I do think one can make a solid case for a creator or deistic God from natural theology alone, especially if one expands their view of evidence to include things like arguments to the best explanation, probability theory, etc. Unfortunately, while positivism is “dead” for those who study epistemology, it seems to be very much alive in many internet atheistic circles. I don’t know if people like Dillahunty, Boghossian, Hawking understand the serious challenges that lead to positivism’s demise (many famous positivists like Ayer revised many of their stances in light of this).
I use subjective evidence every day like most people do, so I am perhaps not as strict as some. However, when it comes to the origin of the universe I am looking for objective evidence.
I don’t fully see why this would be. Surely an all knowing and all powerful deity would be able to create objective evidence for its existence and actions if it saw fit.
The “best explanation” in this case is often very subjective and culturally dependent which is why I don’t find it compelling. It often boils down to what a person is already convinced of.
As to probability theory, there’s just not enough meat on the bone. We know next to nothing about the parameters surrounding the creation of a universe. We don’t even know how many universes there are.
Here is a current God of the Gaps miracles.
A nun that died in 2019 and buried on catholic grounds was dig back up ( long story that’s not the point of the discussion ) and they believe that her body is undergoing a miracle. That it’s not hardly decomposed and claim that the limbs can still be moved by hand. So hundreds are flocking to the nun’s corps in Missouri to see it, thought touching her is now prohibited. This body also was not embalmed.
I personally doubt it’s a supernatural event. Others don’t understand how it could have happened if not by filling in that Gap with God.
I was actually going to edit my post and say such an argument is not airtight because there is so little we actually know about things, but I’ll say it here. There are many huge gaps in our understanding, and perhaps we will come to learn something wildly new. Then again, just as the naturalist will argue that the success of natural explanations may give us “good reasons” (which, as you say, is quite subjective) to assume natural causes/explanations for everything, the theist/deist can say we have learned new things that make the existence of God seem even more probable than it did before (fine tuning, DNA, the Big Bang, etc).
Yes, that’s true. But if this is used as a divine hiddenness argument against the existence of God, this assumes God wants us to believe his existence in a propositional way. Christianity’s God seems more interested in having a personal relationship with us than us just logically concluding that the proposition “God Exists” is true. I remember I used to think this was a big challenge to theism, until I realized I was trying to set my own limit of what was considered “reasonable evidence” and demand God meet this standard. What right do I have to put conditions on what God should do to “reasonably” prove his existence to me if He actually exists (especially given if God did exist, my very faculties of reason and reason itself would be contingent on His existence in the first place)? I was trying to place God in a subservient role to the things he created, which wouldn’t be much of a God at all.
I’ve always compared it to doubting Thomas. Jesus didn’t hide from Thomas, and he even let Thomas touch his wounds when Thomas spoke of his doubts.
But that aside, I think we both agree that it isn’t impossible in principle for the supernatural to be tested by science.
Sounds like the answer to fine-tuning is God, multiverse or giving up. We all have faith after all. Mine just isn’t in the comical and desperate invention of an infinite number of other universe. Atheism of the gaps as I’ve been saying.
The answer is getting more evidence.
It doesn’t take faith to understand that the fine tuning argument depends on there only being one or few universes for which there is no evidence. The fine tuning argument isn’t able to support its conclusions with evidence which is why I don’t find it compelling. That doesn’t take faith.
The problem isn’t a lack of objective evidence. It’s defining “objective evidence” in a way that it excludes God by default. Don’t miss that sleight of hand.
You are inventing the possibility of an infinite number of speculative things that have no observational evidence in their favor as an explanation for something else and doing it without even flinching. That is the exact problem with theoretical physics today.
Vinnie
It is no more invented than our universe being the only one. We don’t know how many universes there are. Period. Our universe being the only one is not supported by any evidence. It would take faith to believe that our universe is the only one. If an argument is based on our universe being the only one, as the fine tuning argument is, then that argument is based on faith.
A boundless eternal universe and the only living things in it are on earth? Gee, who knew?
Shall we talk about the probabilities in winning five separate lotteries in the same order that the tickets were purchased, and there was only one ticket sold in each? Turkish translators are interesting too. And then there is the not insignificant detail that the individual in each account was in a crisis. No, we’re not going to talk about theodicy – others have plenty and skeptical theism covers it pretty well. Besides, it’s above our pay grade… mine, at least.
Cynics would still find a way to explain it anyhow. Have you seen how Delia Knox is supposed to have faked being in a wheelchair for 20 years?
T, I hope you give the video 5 minutes. It brought me to tears. God is still working among us. These stories are one of the areas where I believe God is showing himself. Why he chooses some (Thomas) and not others, or why he allows so much fraud is something you can ask him about one day.
Edit: Sorry if this is a bit much to take in as my comment follows Dale’s, I wasn’t thinking about any relationship to Dale’s comment as I wrote this. It’s just that your comment about seeking evidence brought to my mind how cynics treat the evidence God gives us. I’m also not in any way implying that this is a how I see you.
I think you use the idea of “other universes” too cavalierly like they are an actual thing. I know it’s all the rage now but I am personally not buying it at all. I might as well appeal to infinite fairies as an explanation of gravity. Just because we might vaguely understand what “infinite fairies” means does not mean it’s not anymore contrived or absurd than “infinite universe.”
How about instead of the loaded word “universe,” that many, whether correctly or not, seems they think they can actually describe and define in the plural, let me use the the word “reality.”
Reality as we know it began 13.8 byo. Reality as we know it is appears completely and utterly fine-tuned for carbon-based life. Reality as we know it is real. If inventing an infinite number of other realities that show life is a meaningless and freak cosmic accident is the alternative to fine-tuning I’ll stay put where I am.
We seem to have forgotten about the watchmaker arguement since evolution has shown how complexity can evolve but the basic idea of the argument is valid. If I find a car in the woods I will not assume natural formation. Now it is possible, if I speculate an infinite number of woods exist for me to claim natural formation. One of infinite number could conceivable make a car in the woods naturally. That is what I see you doing. The universe is the watch. Instead of accepting a designer for the car the multiverse is positing an infinite number of of other forests. The literal answer to fine-tuning observed by science is science fiction.
The multiverse is no more demonstrable, no more testable, no more falsifiable and no less magical than using God, invisible pink unicorns, flying spaghetti monsters as an explanation for why objects fall when released instead of lazily staying put.
.
What evidence would you suggest? What (on earth) are you lookiig for?
It would appear to be an alternative to religion, on the same basic level of proof.
Richard
From a philosophical pov there could be other universes, there just couldn’t be an infinite number of them. I brought this up with a group of philosophers of science and it was an interesting discussion. One of them even claimed an infinite number of universes can exist as a brute fact, to which I poked fun at how scientific brute facts are.
On a practical note. What use is the theory of multi-universes? Other than to deny God?
(I am not convinced that it even does that, because God, by definition, would rule all universes)
Richard
“Let your conversation be always full of grace, seasoned with salt, so that you may know how to answer everyone.” -Colossians 4:6
This is a place for gracious dialogue about science and faith. Please read our FAQ/Guidelines before posting.