Instead of accepting evidence of the supernatural, many skeptics reject the science and revert to thinking naturalism explains everything. It's nothing more than "science can't explain it, but it WILL". They can then reject anything and everything, and they do. "I don't have an answer... but my answer is right"
'Science of the gaps' fallacy
Posts
Total:
16
-->
@n8nrgim
What evidence is being rejected?
-->
@n8nrgim
Its true that science doesnt have all answers, and probably will never have all answers no matter what.
This is why I use both religions and science to gain knowledge, just not any popular religions tho.
1. What evidence
2. Reject what science
3. Wtf are you talking about
4. Find me a scientist who thinks science explains everything?
5. Bro it's more like "I don't have an answer but your answers are poorly supported by the data"
6. Why does it matter whether the larger scientific world shares your belief in the supernatural anyway?
-->
@n8nrgim
Instead of accepting evidence of the supernatural, many skeptics reject the science and revert to thinking naturalism explains everything. It's nothing more than "science can't explain it, but it WILL". They can then reject anything and everything, and they do. "I don't have an answer... but my answer is right"
“God of the gaps”, “evolutionary advantage of the gaps”, “complexity of the gaps”, “hidden variables of the gaps”, “emergent property of the gaps”, are all one and the same theory in principle. They are only different forms of the argument from ignorance, illogical attempts to say that the lack of information supports my presumptions, and not yours, which is a logically invalid argument. All are fundamentally religious beliefs, with a subtext of omniscience, the certainty with which materialists and physicalists invoke the belief that these gaps will be filled in as science progresses is based on a belief in the eventual omniscience of science. The people who seem to logically argue that God cannot be omniscient, seem to be the same ones that argue that given time, man can be omniscient.
Neurophysiologist and Nobel laureate Sir John Eccles and philosopher of science Karl Popper have both referred to it as “promissory materialism”, Sir John Eccles stated, “Promissory materialism is a superstition without a rational foundation. It is simply a religious belief held by dogmatic materialists who confuse their religion with their science. It has all the features of a messianic prophecy”.
Perhaps this explains why you see these pseudoscientific “gaps” explanations most often invoked by dogmatic materialists debating their dogmatic religious counterparts, both sides of the argument are defending their faith from what they see as essentially, a competing religious belief.
I won’t accept a conflict between religious truth and scientific truth because to do so I would have to believe in a self-contradicting God; and that is something I simply cannot accept. The Bible refers to the Christian as a “ministry of reconciliation” 2 Corinthians 5:18), and I believe we are duty bound to reconcile spirit and science, integrating these two fundamental aspects of our nature to be whole.
The very division of knowledge into the two distinct disciplines of science and religion implies that they are both incomplete and if we can’t reconcile our science and our religion then they are both equally false. (1 Corinthians 4:5 and 1 Corinthians 13:9-10)
In the end, we need to be progressing towards a larger measure of truth, in the direction of the Pythagorean ideal of uniting science, religion and the arts into a grand illuminating synthesis of mind, body, and soul.
“There are things we are still unable to explain, ergo Jehovah exists.”
-->
@cristo71
There are things we are still unable to explain
Yeah, like laws of the universe and what creates and maintains them, origin of universe, the contents which make universe, as well as outside of universe, where is the end of existence...
Science cant explain that, but my God Arachne can. She is the world weaver, so only I have explanation while atheists dont.
Here is a simple proof for why Arachne exists:
1. Logic cannot prove itself
(logic can only be circular, unquestioned, or infinite premises. None of these are valid proof).
2. Logic cannot be created by itself, as that is circular and goes against usual law of causation observed in nature. Such explanation also doesnt work because it needs logic to exist in order for logic to be created, making it impossible for logic to be created at time when it didnt exist.
3. Logic can only be created by something greater than logic (the creator of logic must contain both itself and elements necessary to create logic, as well as ability to create logic).
4. Arachne is greater than logic and contains elements necessary to create logic
5. Arachne exists.
Only 2 possible options:
1. Logic was created
-This demands the existence of something that is greater than logic.
2. Logic was not created
-This means logic always existed, but it also means that logic has no way to prove itself or explain itself.
Its equal to saying "logic exists, but I have no way to prove it exists without using logic, which is circular".
Thus, the only reasoning atheist has is circular reasoning, since his premise is same as his conclusion (Premise: logic exists. Conclusion: logic exists.).
Notice that atheist has no premise which he can derive the conclusion from that logic exists.
Thus, only something that is not logic can create logic. Only something that is not logic can prove logic.
We see that arachne, being the creator of logic, can explain logic, because she contains elements necessary to create and maintain logic.
Its like creating something using elements you have. Elements of logic are causation and "premises to conclusion", but only the creator of logic can form logic so it is clear what causes what, and which premises lead to what conclusion. Logic alone cannot account for this, but Arachne can.
It is time to face reality, California Institute of Technology theoretical physicist Sean Carroll says: There is just no such thing as God, or ghosts, or human souls that reside outside of the body. Everything in existence belongs to the natural world and is accessible to science, he argues. In his new book “The Big Picture: On the Origin of Life, Meaning, and the Universe Itself,” Carroll describes a guiding philosophy along these lines that he calls poetic naturalism. It excludes a supernatural or spiritual realm but still allows plenty of room for life to have a purpose.
“I think we can bring ideas like meaning and morality into our discussions of the natural world,” Carroll says. “The ways that we talk about the Universe are what make it meaningful.” He eloquently argues that point in his far-ranging book, which takes on the origins of consciousness, the likeliness of God based on a rigorous application of Bayesian probability statistics, and many other “big” questions that scientists are often loath to tackle.
“I think we can bring ideas like meaning and morality into our discussions of the natural world,” Carroll says. “The ways that we talk about the Universe are what make it meaningful.” He eloquently argues that point in his far-ranging book, which takes on the origins of consciousness, the likeliness of God based on a rigorous application of Bayesian probability statistics, and many other “big” questions that scientists are often loath to tackle.
Lack of logic means premises arent connected to conclusion.
Lack of logic means logical connections dont exist or arent arranged.
For example, any logical structure such as
"A needs B in order for A to exist"
or
"Existence of A means existence of B"
or
"A equals B"
or
"A causes B"
wouldnt apply because logical connections such as "means", "equals", "requires", "causes"...ect. wouldnt exist.
Without these logical connections, which only serve as a limit to existence, existence itself would be unchained by anything, and thus anything could exist without restrictions.
Thus, everything would exist, including Gods like Arachne and their ability to create logic.
Thus, only if someone connects premises to conclusion, creates logical connections or arranges them, is when logic can be created.
Lack of logical connections on its own cannot create logic, since it by definition doesnt even contain ingredients of logic, as it is a lack of something, not presence of something.
Only something which contains logical connections or is able to create them, and has ability to arrange them, can create logic, since those two are necessary ingredients needed to create logic.
Lack of logical connections alone has neither of those ingredients.
Lack of arranged logical connections also by itself has no ability to arrange logical connections.
Ability to arrange logical connections isnt found in mere lack of arranged logical connections, since such ability demands more than mere lack of arranged logical connections.
Logical connections alone cannot contain ability to arrange themselves or create themselves, because non-arranged logical connections can exist even if ability to arrange them doesnt.
Ability to arrange logical connections includes the existence of logical connections and their transformation into arranged logical connections.
Thus, ability to arrange logical connections is greater than logical connections alone.
From this simple logical axiom, we see that 2 things are needed for logic:
1. Ability to create logical connections
2. Ability to arrange logical connections
Lack of logical connections means existence is not limited by them, thus mind can come into existence which contains logical connectives and ability to arrange them.
Mind of Arachne has both logical connections and ability to arrange logical connections.
Thus, Arachne can create logic, and lack of logical connectives (primordial void) can enable Arachne to come into existence since there are no limitations to existence when logical connections dont exist or arent arranged to limit existence.
Thus, the lack of logical connections would mean there is no limit to existence, and thus, everything, including logical connections and ability to arrange them, would be able to freely come into existence.
-->
@FLRW
I’ve watched a debate featuring Sean Carroll, and I came away impressed with both the depth of his expertise and his likeability.
-->
@cristo71
I have come to the conclusion that your IQ is over 130.
-->
@FLRW
If you want to argue that God doesn't exist, you need to define your terms, what are you talking about when you say "God", and what do you mean by the term "exist"?
Or is it the case that you just don't know what you are talking about.
-->
@n8nrgim
Instead of accepting evidence of the supernatural, many skeptics reject the science and revert to thinking naturalism explains everything. It's nothing more than "science can't explain it, but it WILL". They can then reject anything and everything, and they do. "I don't have an answer... but my answer is right"
What "evidence of the supernatural" are you talking about?
-->
@n8nrgim
Science of the gaps - lol -