Hindu Perspective: Counter to God of Gaps Theory
November 18, 2015 at 5:51 pm
(This post was last modified: November 18, 2015 at 6:02 pm by Krishna Jaganath.)
I’d like to present a counter view on the God of Gaps theory presented by many athiests. If we believe that the universe is infinite we would also believe that knowledge about the universe is infinite. If knowledge is infinite then the questions one asks about the universe is therefore also infinite.
If we agree on everything stated above, I would introduce the subject of God into the thesis. According to most religions God or the Divine is believed to be infinite. If that is true then it would hold that Science cannot ever explain God because for Science to explain God that would mean that it would have to have perfect knowledge of the universe and according to the logical arguments presented above that is not possible. As knowledge of the Universe and God is infinite, one cannot ever fully explain either one fully.
For the theory above to work one would need to accept the following assumptions.
1. There is such a thing as God and God is infinite. Now if you don’t accept there is God, fine, but one cannot have their cake and eat it to. One either has the option to simply deny the existence of God as long as one does NOT argue the basis for their reasoning is that Science has disproved God because as seen from the above argument that does not make sense logically.
It would be fair to say I don’t believe in God because everything I see in my reality tells me that believing in such a thing is completely crazy, or I’ve never had any personal experience to me make think there ever was a God, BUT one cannot say that one doesn’t believe in God because Science has disproved it.
2. Science in itself is a means to explore and uncover knowledge. Science cannot be called infinite because science is only a tool to uncover knowledge. So the argument that science is also infinite doesn’t hold in this case because we have defined science as a process or tool but not the essence, which is knowledge. Therefore if science can never fully uncover all knowledge then it also is fair to say that science can never fully prove or disprove God because like knowledge and the universe, God is infinite.
If we agree on everything stated above, I would introduce the subject of God into the thesis. According to most religions God or the Divine is believed to be infinite. If that is true then it would hold that Science cannot ever explain God because for Science to explain God that would mean that it would have to have perfect knowledge of the universe and according to the logical arguments presented above that is not possible. As knowledge of the Universe and God is infinite, one cannot ever fully explain either one fully.
For the theory above to work one would need to accept the following assumptions.
1. There is such a thing as God and God is infinite. Now if you don’t accept there is God, fine, but one cannot have their cake and eat it to. One either has the option to simply deny the existence of God as long as one does NOT argue the basis for their reasoning is that Science has disproved God because as seen from the above argument that does not make sense logically.
It would be fair to say I don’t believe in God because everything I see in my reality tells me that believing in such a thing is completely crazy, or I’ve never had any personal experience to me make think there ever was a God, BUT one cannot say that one doesn’t believe in God because Science has disproved it.
2. Science in itself is a means to explore and uncover knowledge. Science cannot be called infinite because science is only a tool to uncover knowledge. So the argument that science is also infinite doesn’t hold in this case because we have defined science as a process or tool but not the essence, which is knowledge. Therefore if science can never fully uncover all knowledge then it also is fair to say that science can never fully prove or disprove God because like knowledge and the universe, God is infinite.
