Atheism, Evidence and the God-of-the-Gaps

[Thumpalumpacus]

Thank you, Parkers. I'm familiar with the tu quoque.

Then perhaps you ought not deploy it.

Are atheists in this forum just as stooopid when they lump me in with the fundamentalists idiots they have known in the past?

I haven't seen them compare you to a fundamentalist (in the American Protestant sense of the term), but if they have done that, then yes, they are stupid in doing so.

Your superstitions are quite different from Protestant superstitions, and deserve their own category.

I see glimmers of real intelligence behind some of your posts. Maybe if you took that chip off your shoulder and dialed your anger way, way down, you and I could have a decent conversation?

I don't like it when people direct condescension at me, yet you almost invariably do exactly that. I feel no obligation to be courteous to the rude. If you want decent treatment, you must also mete it out.

[Thumpalumpacus]

God of the gaps.

Do you know any other tricks, abaris?

Can you roll over? Fetch a stick?

[Randy Carson]

The problem I have with your paragraph above is that it seems to rely on the inverse of the "God-of-the-Gaps (GotG); namely, the "science-of-the-gaps" (SotG). By this, I mean that in the past, people witnessed lightning, could not explain it, and attributed it to God (GotG). However, the assumption of many is that while we cannot explain everything YET, eventually, given enough time and resources, we will be able to explain most (if not all) of the material universe. This SotG position is that we'll get there; there MUST be a rational, scientific explanation for something that we do not understand today.

Well, that makes sense, doesn't it? Because science is concerned EXCLUSIVELY with material universe. But can science even begin to speak of the immaterial? God is pure spirit. He occupies no space. He is simple (meaning He has no parts). He is timeless (being outside of time). I'm not convinced that science can have anything at all to say about something that is outside the material universe.

I think that "science of the gaps" seems more reliable because of the track record of science for explaining things, and we see this reflected in our daily lives over and over.  Our ability to understand how things work allows us to develop technologies that can improve life.  Even the most primitive cultures that exist today use some form of tools and strategies that rely on understanding their environment and how certain things work.  Belief in god requires the acceptance of something far greater and far more important to me than technology, yet you admit that god exists outside of our ability to detect him.  I would go further and say that the history of religious belief among humans indicates that god also exists outside of our ability to know and understand him.

Not for people who do know and understand him - to the degree that they are able in this life.

I agree that there is a natural explanation for lightning and other phenomena of this type. I agree that epileptic seizures exist and that demonic possession is not the cause of ALL events of that type. However, would you agree that if a God outside of space and time chose to part the Red Sea by means of a strong wind that just happened to blow the water in such manner as to enable the Israelites to cross at precisely the moment they needed to, He could do so? Or that God could choose to use the processes of evolution to create man over the course of millions of years rather than doing so instantaneously?

If god's qualities include the ability to suspend or defy physics, then sure, he could part the sea with a stiff wind that somehow doesn't blast the humans passing through the dry portion into dust particles.  Or he can make the sun appear to stand still in the sky without wiping out all life on the planet when it suddenly stops rotating.  Or choose to have life evolve and not have anyone know about it until we discovered it on our own.  But that may be the biggest gap of all: what if god's primary attribute is that we can't rule out any of his attributes?  I can apply that to lots of gods, but that doesn't get me any closer to one that might actually be real.

Why not? He did it at Fatima in 1917. There are photographs of the event online.

What you have not considered or are simply unwilling to concede is the very real possibility that God HAS figured it all out and this IS the best approach.

But that means that the best possible approach would lead to massive numbers of people falling short of salvation.  That doesn't appear to be what the god of the Bible wants.  He wants everyone to be saved, but the best he can do is to save only a small number.  He admits as much, warning that the path to salvation was long and narrow and only few would ever find it.  Is it that this is the best he can do?  Maybe he doesn't want everyone to be saved?  A perfect god would implement a perfect solution, IMO.

It is not what He wants, I agree. But the fact that many may be lost does not prove that He has not implemented the best solution. All that we're really hearing here is YOUR preference that none be lost and your assignment of guilt to God for the fact that many might be.

In other words, the evidence is there for those who have eyes to see, and it is sufficient for rational belief that God exists.

I think that if this was the case, then everyone really would be following the one true god, from the very start.  The story of the Bible is one where god fails to impress at every turn.  The first two humans that he creates --and who get to know him directly and personally-- are easily turned from him by another of his own creation.  

If literally true, then all we can say about that is that they desired to be like God. And after they gained the knowledge of good and evil they were "impressed" by God enough to hide from him in fear because they knew they had done wrong.

Some Christian denominations believe that as many as a third of the angels in heaven are fallen, and have followed Satan on a path of ruin and oblivion.  How unimpressive must god be, that fully one third of his closest creation preferred misery and death to heavenly glory?  

With perfect knowledge, the angels chose freely to reject God's plan for the salvation of men through Jesus Christ. That rejection is simply an act of the will. Why does this suggest that God is not impressive? There are many examples in our own day of rulers of countries who have great wealth and power...but some men (rightly) refuse to serve them. With the might of the English monarchy behind him, Henry VIII could not convince Thomas More to betray his own beliefs. etc, etc.

When he sends Moses to perform miracles to influence the Pharaoh, at first the Pharaoh's sorcerers are god's equal, forcing him to turn up the heat in order to show that he's the most powerful.  

A duel which God won handily, I might add.

Even when he takes on a human form and performs miracles to a people who are awaiting a savior, they mock him and bully the Roman authorities into torturing and killing him.

Not all, of course.

Perhaps there is no way that god could convince more than a relative few that he is who he claims to be, and this really is his best attempt.  But that would be a very different god than the one Christians worship.  I think we should expect more from a being who is the unparalleled intellect in all of reality and a designer without equal.

Or me might accept that "the unparalleled intellect in all of reality and a designer without equal" knows just how much we can handle without being coerced into acknowledging his existence.

[Randy Carson]

He wants everyone to be saved, but the best he can do is to save only a small number.  He admits as much, warning that the path to salvation was long and narrow and only few would ever find it.  Is it that this is the best he can do?  Maybe he doesn't want everyone to be saved?  A perfect god would implement a perfect solution, IMO.

Most of all, as chad already pointed out, he's pictured as a worship fetishist. I virtually can't count the passages where he claims to be a jealous god.

On a side note, I find that kind of funny, since it more or less implies that there are other gods.

Yep. Lots of 'em.

They were called idols and false gods. The middle east was lousy with them before God formed the Jews into a monotheistic people.

[Randy Carson]

For the atheist, just getting to the possibility that God even exists is a major undertaking. The rest gets easier after that.

Okay, fine.  Lets put that to the test.  God exists is a possibility.  Can you show me one?  Can you define one in a helpful way?

That's what I thought.  Given the possibility, how does it get easier?  Do I need to want for God to exist too?  Will a lobotomy help?

If you were seriously open to the idea that God exists, what would be a reasonable way to find out more about him?

[Randy Carson]

Shit, commandments 2 and 3 did that.

I believe there was even a part where Moses' people were being poisoned by snakes (they referred to it as fire because they didn't understand poison), and Yahweh tells them to make a pole with a snake head and pray to it. It was a symbol to a snake god of healing, and modern day ambulances still use that insignia, and Yahweh was telling them to beseech another god for healing. Early Isrealites were polytheistic, so they believed other gods existed. Yahwists just wanted them to prefer one god over the others.

Not exactly...close...but no.

[Randy Carson]

Step 1: provide a definition of god that is not self-contradictory.
Step 2: provide something that meets that definition that cannot be explained by something else.

Theists haven't even reached step 1, and yet they find our incredulousness flawed.

Well, this thread was originally intended to point out the problems that the GotG objection raises for atheists.

Moving on, I guess, what are the contradictions you find in the standard Christian definitions of God?

[Randy Carson]

But if not everyone believed the miracles produced by God in the OT days (think Pharaoh and Moses here), the NT days (ie, the Pharisees) or today, what makes it any more likely that everyone - you included - would believe after some future "magic"?

A pharao that is never named and an Exodus story that even most jewish historians consider to be fiction. Uhm, I can't for the life of me say why I'm sceptical about stories like that.

But let's say it was as it is told. He could pull these tricks again, couldn't he? And may I just note that you don't give him much credit by saying that he wouldn't be able to convince us. I'm sure an omnipotent, omniscient being could thing of something.

But good job evading my actual question when you quoted me: Got any quotes where one of us called atheism a science?

I've never said that atheism is a science, nor have I asserted that any of you do.

I said that atheism is more of a faith or world view and that it is not scientific.

[Randy Carson]

See the avatar? I didn't choose it because I have a thing for Yellow Jackets. I've taken a class or two.

Interesting. Please, do share, since you saw fit to question our credibility in one of your previous threads.

Share what? That I graduated from Georgia Tech? That I took a few science classes in high school and college? Okay. Done.

I'm not a scientist and I don't pretend to be one. However, I have had a few more science classes than the average liberal arts major. But that's about it.

Is there gonna be a final exam?

[Randy Carson]

Who in this forum falls into this category, Neimenovic?

I do, for one. An emotional part of me wishes there was some evidence of a higher power, just so that the question of where this universe came from was answered (before we even get into the problem of where the creator came from).
I also did struggle for a while with what faith I had as a child, before I realised the utter lack of evidence meant I could no longer simply have blind faith. That was before I reached double figures, I struggle to think how grown-ass adults still do it daily.

Adults don't have blind faith. They have an informed faith.

You should, too.