Essay:Refutation: What is the God of the Gaps argument?

From RationalWiki
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Essay.svg This essay is an original work by TemplarJLS.
It does not necessarily reflect the views expressed in RationalWiki's Mission Statement, but we welcome discussion of a broad range of ideas.
Unless otherwise stated, this is original content, released under CC-BY-SA 3.0 or any later version. See RationalWiki:Copyrights.
Feel free to make comments on the talk page, which will probably be far more interesting, and might reflect a broader range of RationalWiki editors' thoughts.

Criticism and discussion of [|What is the Got of the Gaps argument?]] by TemplarJLS.

Naturally, this site is 391,000 pages worth of propaganda (and counting), and I shall continue with refuting it.

GotQuestions TemplarJLS

Topic Header 1[edit]

The “God-of-the-gaps” argument refers to a perception of the universe in which anything that currently can be explained by our knowledge of natural phenomena is considered outside the realm of divine interaction, and thus the concept of “God” is invoked to explain what science is, as yet, incapable of explaining. In other words, only the “gaps” in scientific knowledge are explained by the work of God, hence the name “God of the gaps.”As far as I know, this is true.

The idea is that as scientific research progresses, and an increasing number of phenomena are explained naturalistically, the role of God diminishes accordingly. The major criticism commonly states that invoking supernatural explanations should decrease in plausibility over time, as the domain of knowledge previously explained by God is decreasing.Not entirely. There will always be Gaps for God to fill. W can't figure out EVERYTHING. However, this does NOT mean God is the only answer.

However, with modern advances in science and technology, the tables have been literally turned. With the advent of electron scanning microscopes, we have been able to observe the intricate workings of the cell for the first time. What had originally and simplistically been thought to be nothing more than a “blob” of protoplasm is now seen to be far more complex and information-packed than had ever been conceived of previously.True, but I think I know where this is going, and I'm ready to answer it.

Much of what had once been filed away as “solved” in the early twentieth century is now found to be inadequately explained by naturalism. Twenty-first century technology is increasingly revealing gaping holes in conventional evolutionary theory.I heard this from my family all the time: Holes in evolution. What i find amusing is that when we point out that There is a hole in the Bible, like who did Cain have to be protectred from using the mark, then they are somehow able to come up with "theories" like Adam and Eve having more children over the course of their lifetime, and when I mentuion two accou8nts of the Flood, one saying two of every kind, and the other saying 2 clean animals, and 7 unclean animals (could have gotten the numbers wrong), they just guess that the extra were used for sacrifice! They then declare that the holes are solved, but when we fill those holes using EVIDENCE INSTEAD OF GUESSING, they shun it saying we're just dodging the question! Sorry for that rant, I'll move along.

Topic Header 3[edit]

The information-rich content of the “simple” has only recently been understood at any real level and found to be anything but simple. Information can now be understood to be inherently non-material. Therefore, materialistic processes cannot qualify as sources of information.These articles could help you.[1] [2]

In reality, a belief in God can be derived by means of an objective assessment, rather than the subjective conjecture that may have been the case millennia ago. But many people simply deny what is obvious to them.Coffee spray.gif

The Bible addresses those very people: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20).Well your God is doing a horrible job at it! I think everyone reading this knows the problem with this statement if they've been browsing this Wiki, so I'll move along.

The God-of-the-gaps argument is an example of “suppressing the truth” because it relegates God to a “backup” explanation for those things which cannot yet be explained by natural phenomena.Cuz everything is a conspiracy, right?

This leads some to the faulty conclusion that God is not the omnipotent, omnipresent, absolute Being of whom Scripture testifies.God of the Gaps has nothing to do with this.

There is much for which the natural sciences simply cannot provide an explanation, such as the origin of the time/space/matter continuum and the fine-tuning thereofI'll just leave these right here. [3] [4]

the origin and subsequent development of life itselfAnd this. [5]

and the origin of the complex and specified information systems inherent in all living things, which cannot (nor ever will be) explained by natural means.Pretty Bold statement you got there.[6]

Thus one cannot rationally divorce the supernatural from the observed universe, proving once again that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).All right I'll see you in another God's hell.

Final observations[edit]

Notice how they don't EVER cite their sources.