Why disbelievers believe? They believe in so called “God of the gaps”.

[ScienceAf]

We won't see all of them being filled in our lifetime. And our distant decendants won't see them filled. We know more than the cavemen looking up at the sky and calling sun and moon gods, but there's still a plethora of things we don't know and won't know for a long time to come. I doubt there will ever be an age of absolute knowledge.

But that's OK. We still don't need gods as fillers for something we don't know as of yet. The argument isn't silly at all, because the ones seeing god behind every dark corner are basically still cavemen. On a higher level maybe, but still desperately in need of having a supernatural explanation for the unexplained.

No, we'll never see them all fill in. Science will never give us all the answers, in fact we probably only have a tiny tiny tiny percentage of the total knowledge available. That isn't a good reason to believe in God though. If people have believed that God caused A, B and C, then we find a natural explanation for A and B, it seems unlikely that God will be responsible for C. It's silly. It's just the modern equivalent of those cavemen trying to explain the world around them and failing to do so correctly.

If the universe never died, humans could have learned everything generally overtime.

[RoadRunner79]

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence... how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. (Wikipedia 2016).

Theorem: it is wiser to let the God in the ship's hold gap, until the secular science will find the secular stop-gap. Proof: "it is just obvious." More is here:

But while the "white spot" or the “gap” (the gap in the secular view of the world) is not closed by the secular science, let the gap be closed by the True God Himself. If is needed, the God will make the additional room for the secular science. But why to tear the God from all the white spots? Otherwise our society (like a ship) will sink in the "sin-deeds-sea" due to huge ugly holes in the knowledge!

There is nothing wrong with a gap in our knowledge, and I think it is better to say I (we) don't know. And it's not just theist who do it, but a gap epiestomology is quickly uncovered by asking the simple question of why?

[FatAndFaithless]

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence... how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. (Wikipedia 2016).

Theorem: it is wiser to let the God in the ship's hold gap, until the secular science will find the secular stop-gap. Proof: "it is just obvious." More is here:

But while the "white spot" or the “gap” (the gap in the secular view of the world) is not closed by the secular science, let the gap be closed by the True God Himself. If is needed, the God will make the additional room for the secular science. But why to tear the God from all the white spots? Otherwise our society (like a ship) will sink in the "sin-deeds-sea" due to huge ugly holes in the knowledge!

There is nothing wrong with a gap in our knowledge, and I think it is better to say I (we) don't know.  And it's not just theist who do it, but a gap epiestomology is quickly uncovered by asking the simple question of why?

You're right. There's nothing wrong with gaps in knowledge, and it's both more honest and more responsible to say "I don't know" when confronted with one of these gaps.  But that's not what happens with many theists.  You present a gap in our knowledge - the origins of the universe for example - and instead of saying "I don't know" the response you receive is "God is the reason."

[RoadRunner79]

There is nothing wrong with a gap in our knowledge, and I think it is better to say I (we) don't know.  And it's not just theist who do it, but a gap epiestomology is quickly uncovered by asking the simple question of why?

You're right. There's nothing wrong with gaps in knowledge, and it's both more honest and more responsible to say "I don't know" when confronted with one of these gaps.  But that's not what happens with many theists.  You present a gap in our knowledge - the origins of the universe for example - and instead of saying "I don't know" the response you receive is "God is the reason."

In some circumstances I would agree with this example, in others; I would not. It all depends on the reason for the conclusion. Also, inserting X into the gap, doesn't mean that it is incorrect, just ill-founded.

[FatAndFaithless]

You're right. There's nothing wrong with gaps in knowledge, and it's both more honest and more responsible to say "I don't know" when confronted with one of these gaps.  But that's not what happens with many theists.  You present a gap in our knowledge - the origins of the universe for example - and instead of saying "I don't know" the response you receive is "God is the reason."

In some circumstances I would agree with this example, in others; I would not. It all depends on the reason for the conclusion.   Also, inserting X into the gap, doesn't mean that it is incorrect, just ill-founded.

Well obviously.  I'd say unfounded rather than ill-founded.  Inserting X into a gap tells us exactly nothing about whether its likely true or not.  The insertion of X into a gap should come after the justification for it.

That sounded far dirtier than I  meant it to.

[RoadRunner79]

In some circumstances I would agree with this example, in others; I would not. It all depends on the reason for the conclusion.   Also, inserting X into the gap, doesn't mean that it is incorrect, just ill-founded.

Well obviously.  I'd say unfounded rather than ill-founded.  Inserting X into a gap tells us exactly nothing about whether its likely true or not.  The insertion of X into a gap should come after the justification for it.

That sounded far dirtier than I  meant it to.

Kudos, because I didn't see that, and it made me laugh out loud.

[Joods]

"God of the gaps" is a term used to describe observations of theological perspectives in which gaps in scientific knowledge are taken to be evidence or proof of God's existence... how wrong it is to use God as a stop-gap for the incompleteness of our knowledge. (Wikipedia 2016).

Theorem: it is wiser to let the God in the ship's hold gap, until the secular science will find the secular stop-gap. Proof: "it is just obvious." More is here:

But while the "white spot" or the “gap” (the gap in the secular view of the world) is not closed by the secular science, let the gap be closed by the True God Himself. If is needed, the God will make the additional room for the secular science. But why to tear the God from all the white spots? Otherwise our society (like a ship) will sink in the "sin-deeds-sea" due to huge ugly holes in the knowledge!

Going off your thread title alone, it would appear that you truly have no clue about what "disbelievers" believe. It's been said numerous times before that atheists do not subscribe to ANY god or gods. Why is this such a difficult concept for people like you to understand? It would seem that you want us to believe in something magical so you invent this crap and then vomit it up here just to troll.

There can be no meaningful discussion from this shit because you simply refuse to understand the basic tenet of atheism.

[abaris]

No, we'll never see them all fill in. Science will never give us all the answers, in fact we probably only have a tiny tiny tiny percentage of the total knowledge available. That isn't a good reason to believe in God though. If people have believed that God caused A, B and C, then we find a natural explanation for A and B, it seems unlikely that God will be responsible for C. It's silly. It's just the modern equivalent of those cavemen trying to explain the world around them and failing to do so correctly.

I seem to have misunderstood what you said. I took it for accusing someone to use god of the gaps to be silly.

[CapnAwesome]

No, we'll never see them all fill in. Science will never give us all the answers, in fact we probably only have a tiny tiny tiny percentage of the total knowledge available. That isn't a good reason to believe in God though. If people have believed that God caused A, B and C, then we find a natural explanation for A and B, it seems unlikely that God will be responsible for C. It's silly. It's just the modern equivalent of those cavemen trying to explain the world around them and failing to do so correctly.

I seem to have misunderstood what you said. I took it for accusing someone to use god of the gaps to be silly.

No problem. Sometimes it's hard to be totally clear about what one means via text. Forums are a strange format that way, because to be totally clear you have to be rather long-winded and then people are like "TLR lulzwat!" But no, I think the argument itself is a silly one and I give it little credence.

[Arkilogue]

There is nothing wrong with a gap in our knowledge, and I think it is better to say I (we) don't know.  And it's not just theist who do it, but a gap epiestomology is quickly uncovered by asking the simple question of why?

You're right. There's nothing wrong with gaps in knowledge, and it's both more honest and more responsible to say "I don't know" when confronted with one of these gaps.  But that's not what happens with many theists.  You present a gap in our knowledge - the origins of the universe for example - and instead of saying "I don't know" the response you receive is "God is the reason."

God can still be the reason, and not need any magic or special pleading. But the Infinite might be too lofty a God for most to contemplate.

---

"What about the Man of the gaps? We don't know how the hand works, must be Man!"

Nope, the hand is flesh, blood bone and muscle, there is no Man in the hand.

"Well what about the foot?"

Nope, no Man to be found in the foot either, in fact we searched over the whole body and didn't find the Man anywhere...the entire thing is made of meat....and the meat can sing.

"Singing meat??? This is all together too much..."




My point is; what if the laws we've discovered, that are regular and working in the universe, like electromagnetism, are working parts of God? They are unfolded from an original unity.