Hindu Perspective: Counter to God of Gaps Theory

[Esquilax]

Interesting way to look at it but I would have to politely disagree with how you approached it. God of Gaps for me says that theists are putting God in a gap that has not been filled by science, which eventually will be filled by science, and therefore there will be a point according to the God of Gaps theory where scientists will explain everything and there is no where to put God. 

Nope. It's just used to describe any scenario where a gap in knowledge is presumed to be filled with god. The original coiners of the term did realize that this meant that god would be constantly retreating as science expanded, but they were theologians attempting to get people to stop filling ignorance with god. In practical terms, "science hasn't answered this," and "science can't answer this," are not terribly different, for the purposes of the argument: the exact same objections to the former can be leveled at the latter.

My thesis is only to prove that the God of Gaps theory is false based on an assumption that knowledge is infinite, and if we assume God to be infinite as well, that "gap' will will never be filled. That's one point. 

Even presuming knowledge to be infinite, you would still need to demonstrate that a segment of that knowledge contains the god you're talking about. You can't just point to things we don't know, even if that turns out to be an infinite expanse, assert that your god is in there, and expect that to be a rational reason to believe.

Besides, you can fill an infinite gap in knowledge, if you have infinite time in which to do it and a constant rate of expansion for scientific knowledge.

The second point: It goes with a story about how God appeared on Earth, and told the people here I am, please believe in me, follow the teaching of Love and you will start to perceive reality in a different way. The people did not believe him no matter what he did, exactly because of this notion of knowledge is infinite. No matter what God shows as proof in the material world, we will never believe because as knowledge is infinite our questions are also infinite, and we will always ask a question which has the potential of disproving God.

I'll believe the moment there's positive evidence, rather than a lack of evidence contorted into a god shape.

** Thanks for the point about how we don't know if the universe is infinite. I am not a scientist and I don't infact know. I am making a certain assumption that the universe is infinite. Only to make the point that knowledge is infinite and we has humans will never stop asking the question Why. If you believe that we has humans will one day stop asking the question why, or we will have answered all the questions that exist, then by all means disagree with the statements i am making.

It doesn't matter in the least whether we'll have the answers to all the questions in the universe or not. The time to believe in a god is when that specific question has been answered, rather than the point where we recognize we may never have all the answers. You don't need to know everything, to believe in some things.

[Homeless Nutter]

[...] God of Gaps for me says that theists are putting God in a gap that has not been filled by science, which eventually will be filled by science, and therefore there will be a point according to the God of Gaps theory where scientists will explain everything and there is no where to put God. 
[...]

Nobody gives a crap about what "god of the gaps" means to you. What matters is what it means to people who know what they're talking about. Of course, it's not at all surprising that you'd construct straw-men, against which you can argue - that's all religious people have left, since you don't have any arguments against the actual criticism of religion.

God of the gaps means this - every time science disproves a religious claim, that claim is being retracted and replaced by others, which are not yet disprovable by science. Gods used to be perceived as physical beings, living on tops of mountains; now that we know that can't be true, since we know what's on tops of mountains - gods are no longer that. Then gods were said to live in the sky, but now that we can fly into space - wouldn't you know - they've been moved somewhere else.

When you operate in the realm of fantasy and you don't feel you need to provide evidence - you can always squeeze god somewhere.

[Anomalocaris]

Science has disproven specific attributes of many specific gods, including the heads of Christian and Islamic mythologies, such that only the blind and the willfully dumb will continue to ignore the fundamental and irredeemable flaws in the process that rendered the concepts of these gods socially significant in the first place, and continue to cling to them specifically.

[Krishna Jaganath]

[...] God of Gaps for me says that theists are putting God in a gap that has not been filled by science, which eventually will be filled by science, and therefore there will be a point according to the God of Gaps theory where scientists will explain everything and there is no where to put God. 
[...]

Nobody gives a crap about what "god of the gaps" means to you. What matters is what it means to people who know what they're talking about. Of course, it's not at all surprising that you'd construct straw-men, against which you can argue - that's all religious people have left, since you don't have any arguments against the actual criticism of religion.

God of the gaps means this - every time science disproves a religious claim, that claim is being retracted and replaced by others, which are not yet disprovable by science. Gods used to be perceived as physical beings, living on tops of mountains; now that we know that can't be true, since we know what's on tops of mountains - gods are no longer that. Then gods were said to live in the sky, but now that we can fly into space - wouldn't you know - they've been moved somewhere else.

When you operate in the realm of fantasy and you don't feel you need to provide evidence - you can always squeeze god somewhere.

Hi,

"Nobody gives a crap what it means to you" - Okay no problem. If you don't agree how I defined it, its completely fine. But I don't think that is a need to now make blanketed statements about religion, which has nothing to with the arguments I presented. Either present an argument that refutes the assumptions I'm making or simply say I don't agree. Bringing emotions to the table is a bit lame. 

"God of gaps mean this" - Interesting that you say that nobody gives a crap about what it means to you and then lead the next paragraph with your statement, automatically assuming that you know exactly what it means. Also what you presented is inline with how I have defined god of gaps but I've arrived at a different conclusion then you. Please take the time to understand my argument before posting. 

"When you operate in the realm of Fantasy' - once again a blanketed statement which has nothing to do with the arguments I'm presenting. 

Please make some logical arguments, which I have to say a lot of people have done in a very nice way, and I enjoy reading. You on the other hand are making statements filled with emotion rather than sense, and its a bit disappointing.

[Longhorn]

Hello Krishna! Could I ask something of you? Tell me why I should care pls .-.

[robvalue]

Ah! That old chestnut

[ignoramus]

Grasshopper learns well!

I'll answer that Vic! You shouldn't! None of us do. That's why we're here.
It's the good folk who come here to scienceland who are in emotional need of justifying their favourite fantasy.
They want our scientific seal of approval! Sounds silly, I know, but they just don't get how science works. Maybe if they did, they'd be one of us.

[Longhorn]

I leave science to the sciencebrains personally. I'm pretty emotional, too, and I live in a fantasy most of the time. Still don't give two fucks bout this gawd feller c:

[houseofcantor]

I'm sure there must be words to explain how dumb the OP is, although they're probably infinite. 

[ignoramus]

I leave science to the sciencebrains personally. I'm pretty emotional, too, and I live in a fantasy most of the time. Still don't give two fucks bout this gawd feller c:

The fact that you made that statement tells me you know the difference. That's the difference.