jamesid29:

You said his argument was a god of the gaps argument.

I thought you were saying that I said god of the gaps means lack of communication. Yes his argument is a god of the gaps argument, our ignorance of dark energy is equivalent to our ignorance of god. What happens when we find out what dark energy is do we also find god or will he shift to some other unknown?

LordReed:


I thought you were saying that I said god of the gaps means lack of communication. Yes his argument is a god of the gaps argument, our ignorance of dark energy is equivalent to our ignorance of god. What happens when we find out what dark energy is do we also find god or will he shift to some other unknown?

Wrong! Not your "ignorance of dark energy" as you suggested but the scientific community "belief in dark energy" which they can only perceive but not see or measure. They belief it is real and it is very abundant and yet they still don't know anything about it.

needanswer:



Wrong! Not your "ignorance of dark energy" as you suggested but the scientific community "belief in dark energy" which they can only perceive but not see or measure. They belief it is real and it is very abundant and yet they still don't know anything about it.

Same difference. When they eventually find out more about it what happens to your argument?

LordReed:


Same difference. When they eventually find out more about it what happens to your argument?

I am more than that, this is just an example.

The point i raised remains; you can believe something because you have enough information to perceive it even though you can't see it or measure it. That's the take away point.

needanswer:


I am more than that, this is just an example.

The point i raised remains; you can believe something because you have enough information to perceive it even though you can't see it or measure it. That's the take away point.

If I can perceive it why do I need to believe? I don't know what something is, is different from from believing something that's not even there.

LordReed:


If I can perceive it why do I need to believe? I don't know what something is, is different from from believing something that's not even there.

I believe my use of the English grammar is easy to understand. Use the "perceive" in the context of Dark energy.

Knowledge of it can only be "perceive" indirectly from what is does and not directly because it can't be seen or measured.

needanswer:


I believe my use of the English grammar is easy to understand. Use the "perceive" in the context of Dark energy.

Knowledge of it can only be "perceive" indirectly from what is does and not directly because it can't be seen or measured.

They know something is there because they can perceive the effects, they just don't know what it is which why they call it dark energy. Same with dark matter. Comparing this to a god you have no evidence for is a god of the gaps fallacy because you are trying to insinuate your god into a gap in knowledge. You can't do that for some other well understood phenomenon because it is well understood and there is no gap to exploit.

LordReed:


They know something is there because they can perceive the effects, they just don't know what it is which why they call it dark energy. Same with dark matter. Comparing this to a god you have no evidence for is a god of the gaps fallacy because you are trying to insinuate your god into a gap in knowledge. You can't do that for some other well understood phenomenon because it is well understood and there is no gap to exploit.

Wrong! I have trashed that already. This is not about God of the gaps, this is about believing something is true indirectly by what you can perceive about it, by the effects you observe that thing do. I have tons of such effects to back up God's existence, but you are rigidly contradicting science and the universe by going against such logic.

needanswer:


Wrong! I have trashed that already. This is not about God of the gaps, this is about believing something is true indirectly by what you can perceive about it, by the effects you observe that thing do. I have tons of such effects to back up God's existence, but you are rigidly contradicting science and the universe by going against such logic.

LoL! You try hard but do yourself in by reinforcing the fact that you are exploiting gaps in knowledge.

LordReed:


I thought you were saying that I said god of the gaps means lack of communication. Yes his argument is a god of the gaps argument, our ignorance of dark energy is equivalent to our ignorance of god. What happens when we find out what dark energy is do we also find god or will he shift to some other unknown?

Actually, that's a bit of a misunderstanding of the gotg argument.
The god of of the gaps argument is when one postulates a divine or supernatural intervention as an explanation for a phenomenon we currently do not understand. Basically using divine intervention as the explanatory power behind a phenomenon at the expense of a naturalistic explanation. For instance if OP had said, since we currently do not understand the mechanism behind dark energy, we can just use God as a stop guard and call it a day. I.E, we do not really understand what's causing the accelerating expansion of the universe so therefore, God must somehow be supernaturally involved in it. That would have been a god of the gaps argument. Another example would be something like; since we do not currently have a clue about the origin of life, there can't be any natural explanation for it so therefore it must have been purely a supernatural one.
These are how the god of the gaps argument works boss. That was not what OP's arguments was doing.

LordReed:


LoL! You try hard but do yourself in by reinforcing the fact that you are exploiting gaps in knowledge.

I am not.

God of the gaps is a nonsense theory because God want us to learn how this world works. He created man to "dominate the earth and his environment" according to Genesis. Man can't dominate his environment if man doesn't learn all there is to learn about his environment and master the elements, can he? So that theory does not do it for me.

jamesid29:


Actually, that's a bit of a misunderstanding of the gotg argument.
The god of of the gaps argument is when one postulates a divine or supernatural intervention as an explanation for a phenomenon we currently do not understand. Basically using divine intervention as the explanatory power behind a phenomenon at the expense of a naturalistic explanation. For instance if OP had said, since we currently do not understand the mechanism behind dark energy, we can just use God as a stop guard and call it a day. I.E, we do not really understand what's causing the accelerating expansion of the universe so therefore, God must somehow be supernaturally involved in it. That would have been a god of the gaps argument. Another example would be something like; since we do not currently have a clue about the origin of life, there can't be any natural explanation for it so therefore it must have been purely a supernatural one.
These are how the god of the gaps argument works boss. That was not what OP's arguments was doing.

What do you call it when someone tries to exploit a gap in scientific knowledge to explain a god?

https://lmgtfy.app/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=What%20do%20you%20call%20it%20when%20someone%20tries%20to%20exploit%20a%20gap%20in%20scientific%20knowledge%20to%20explain%20a%20god%3F

needanswer:


I am not.

God of the gaps is a nonsense theory because God want us to learn how this world works. He created man to "dominate the earth and his environment" according to Genesis. Man can't dominate his environment if man doesn't learn all there is to learn about his environment and master the elements, can he? So that theory does not do it for me.

Jamesid29, this is the person you should be explaining to what god of the gaps fallacy means.

LordReed:


Jamesid29, this is the person you should be explaining to what god of the gaps fallacy means.

You are wasting your time quoting someone that quotes the Bible

LordReed:


What do you call it when someone tries to exploit a gap in scientific knowledge to explain a god?

https://lmgtfy.app/#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=What%20do%20you%20call%20it%20when%20someone%20tries%20to%20exploit%20a%20gap%20in%20scientific%20knowledge%20to%20explain%20a%20god%3F

Maybe you should actually read the Wikipedia article itself chief.

What you are seeing from your screenshot are keywords used in search engine optimization (SEO). It's picking words from different places that matched what you searched for, that's why it's not coherent and the '...' signifies that there's a continuation to the sentence that has been cut of.

Below is the exert from the wiki article on the section on usage. You should still check out entire article though.
Usage in referring to a type of argument
The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[17][18] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:

There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
Therefore, the cause must be supernatural.
One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."

I'm guessing you might not still agree that you got the argument wrong. Was just pointing it out originally. You can disagree with OP's arguments on its own merits but it would be wrong to call it a god of the gaps argument,as he wasn't positing God as the explanation for why the universe's expansion is accelerating.

LordReed:


Jamesid29, this is the person you should be explaining to what god of the gaps fallacy means.

Actually he is correct. The gods of the gaps argument is actually not a really good theological argument. Positing that there must be a supernatural or divine explanation rather than a natural one for every phenomenon we currently do not understand is a bad theological stance to hold as dogma.
Interestingly, Christians were actually the first people to use the term against other Christians who were quick to posit divine intervention rather than natural processes for unknown physical phenomena. Afterall it's pointless to investigate a universe that has no steady laws.

needanswer:


I'll answer your logical question with another logical question and not sentiments. If forces like gravity exist, why did it wait for long to reveal itself until Sir Isaac Newton discovered it?

Why did the secret of space-time wait so long until Einstein discover it?

Why are so many things hidden in nature until scientist work hard to discover it?

The answers and knowledge of the universe will not fall at your feet, same with God.

Effort is required to gain knowledge about anything, and like science will tell you; come at everything with an OPEN MIND and you will LEARN A THING or TWO, or SOMETHING ENTIRELY NEW.

This is what Proverbs 2:4,5 teaches, put in the effort to learn about God and you will see that God is close to you, James 4:8

Since you know so much about God, explain what he looks like?

Dtruthspeaker:


The Truth is, you are not His Children.

Eve slept with Satan and had his son, Cain. I just found that out.

Only Abels are God's True Children. But Cain's always killed Abels until God started protecting His Children

Therefore, He is a stranger to many children and not their Father and thus, can not be known by them.

True Children Always know their Father and See Him.

Nothing concerns Africans with 'Cain' and 'Abel'

needanswer:


I am not.

God of the gaps is a nonsense theory because God want us to learn how this world works. He created man to "dominate the earth and his environment" according to Genesis. Man can't dominate his environment if man doesn't learn all there is to learn about his environment and master the elements, can he? So that theory does not do it for me.

Right. So God just created humans, but doesn't want to intervene?

God has shown Himself but the greatest problem atheists have is false religionsts who refused to embrace the way God proved His presence.
So you can't prove anything when you yourself have rejected the one and only proof God gave you as evidence of His presence.
How can you prove the presence of a spirit when you know for a fact that spirits are invisible?
God has given His true worshipers an undeniable proof of His presence so all those criticizing His true worshipers will continue to have needless headache while trying to convince atheists and in most cases after their failure to defend their faith in an invisible spirit being many of them often yield to the pressure of ATHEISM by becoming atheists themselves!

1Sharon:

Nothing concerns Africans with 'Cain' and 'Abel'

Abel was murdered and did not have children, so Africa is an offspring of Cain, mostly.

LordReed:


Jamesid29, this is the person you should be explaining to what god of the gaps fallacy means.

At least it's obvious God of the gaps argument is not my position. You can believe that if you want.

1Sharon:


Since you know so much about God, explain what he looks like?

The Bible describes God as a spirit being. (2 Corinthians 3:17) As such, he is far superior to us and beyond our physical senses. He is “the King of eternity, incorruptible, invisible,” says 1 Timothy 1:17. 

Our Creator is so superior to us that we cannot even begin to imagine what he looks like. “To whom can you people liken God, and what likeness can you put alongside him?” says Isaiah 40:18.

Even though we can cannot see God physically due to his nature, we can still know his personality and qualities

The more we discern someone’s qualities, the better we know that person, and thus our friendship can deepen. Similarly, the more we come to know Jehovah’s qualities, the better we will know what he is like, and thus our friendship can deepen. Of all God’s wonderful attributes, four are outstanding: his power (JEREMIAH 32:17), wisdom ( PSALM 104:24), justice ( PSALM 37:28), and love ( 1 JOHN 4: 8 ).

Of the four qualities, the one that predominates is love. It permeates everything God does. He exercises  his power, justice, and wisdom in a loving way. In fact, the Bible says something extraordinary regarding God and this quality. It says: “God is love.” (1 John 4: 8 ) Note that it does not say that God has love or that God is loving. Rather, it says that God is love. Love, his very essence, motivates him in all that he does.

1Sharon:


Right. So God just created humans, but doesn't want to intervene?

Have you ever seen a small child point out his father to his friends and then say with innocent joy and pride, “That’s my daddy”? God’s worshipers have every reason to feel similarly about Jehovah. The Bible foretells a time when faithful people will exclaim: “Look! This is our God.” (Isaiah 25:8, 9) The more insight you gain into Jehovah’s qualities, the more you will feel that you have the best Father imaginable.

This Father is not cold, aloof, or distant—despite what some austere religionists and philosophers have taught. We would hardly feel drawn to a cold God, and the Bible does not portray our heavenly Father that way. On the contrary, it calls him “the happy God.” (1 Timothy 1:11) He has feelings both strong and tender. He is “hurt at his heart” when his intelligent creatures violate the guidelines that he provides for their well-being. (Genesis 6:6; Psalm 78:41) But when we act wisely according to his Word, we make his “heart rejoice.”—Proverbs 27:11.

Our Father wants us to be close to him. His Word encourages us to “grope for him and really find him, although, in fact, he is not far off from each one of us.” (Acts 17:27) How, though, is it possible for mere humans to draw close to the Sovereign Lord of the universe?

needanswer:


At least it's obvious God of the gaps argument is not my position. You can believe that if you want.

jamesid29:

Maybe you should actually read the Wikipedia article itself chief.

What you are seeing from your screenshot are keywords used in search engine optimization (SEO). It's picking words from different places that matched what you searched for, that's why it's not coherent and the '...' signifies that there's a continuation to the sentence that has been cut of.

Below is the exert from the wiki article on the section on usage. You should still check out entire article though.
Usage in referring to a type of argument
The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy.[17][18] Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:

There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
Therefore, the cause must be supernatural.
One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start."

I'm guessing you might not still agree that you got the argument wrong. Was just pointing it out originally. You can disagree with OP's arguments on its own merits but it would be wrong to call it a god of the gaps argument,as he wasn't positing God as the explanation for why the universe's expansion is accelerating.


Actually he is correct. The gods of the gaps argument is actually not a really good theological argument. Positing that there must be a supernatural or divine explanation rather than a natural one for every phenomenon we currently do not understand is a bad theological stance to hold as dogma.
Interestingly, Christians were actually the first people to use the term against other Christians who were quick to posit divine intervention rather than natural processes for unknown physical phenomena. Afterall it's pointless to investigate a universe that has no steady laws.

Okay I correct myself. It's not a god of the gaps argument even though its similar. However it is a fallacy of false equivalence. I will edit my inital post to reflect.

LordReed:



Okay I correct myself. It's not a god of the gaps argument even though its similar. However it is a fallacy of false equivalence. I will edit my inital post to reflect.

At least we can agree on one thing, which is - it's not a god of the gaps argument. As for the "fallacy of false equivalence", I don't stand on that ground either. Dark energy is a natural phenomenon and not equivalent to God in any way, there is no comparison.

I literal have to re-explain my simple logical point. This is it; just because something can't be proved by been seen or measured or both doesn't mean it doesn't exist, AS LONG AS YOU CAN STILL PERCEIVE IT IN OTHER WAYS WHICH MAY NOT BE DIRECTLY.

Dark energy is just a scenario to illustrate this in practical terms that science can relate too and not that it is an equivalent, so get my point correctly.

1Sharon:


Right. So God just created humans, but doesn't want to intervene?

You don't have to accept such nonsense.

falcon01:
Why all these grammar?? I'm not saying that Hod doesn't exist oo but what I'm saying is if God exist He wouldn't need you people to be doing grammar Trying hard to prove he exists. Just give em something tangible or stfu!

You have less than a 100yrs to spend on earth, max of 150yrs!
Why does any God need to prove his existence to you?
What are you doing differently, that he hasn't witnessed, over and over again?

Humble yourself. He really doesnt care, if you worship him or not!

He's not bothered about your stay on it, he has soo made everything perfect in its own way. Life takes care of itself.

Just humble yourself and try make something of your life too

Dtruthspeaker:


Breaking News!
Eve had sex with Satan before eating the fruit and gave birth to his son, Cain.

Who broke this news to you if i may ask?

OP check this out: Most atheists subscribe to the belief that life originated by blind chance i.e. through mindless evolution(which is absurd by the way, considering the complex nature of a cell) But the thing is, they do not have visual confirmation that evolution is actually a fact. Whatever the white men in suits and labcoats cook up as theories is what some swallow hook, line and sinker without bothering to check out the facts. Since they have never seen evolution occur with their two eyes—when asked to give proof of it—they come up with something like: “You don’t have to see it to confirm it’s true”. (I’m not kidding, that’s what a Nairalander by the name of “FatherofJe.sus” told me) What’s the implication of that statement?
That the atheists also have faith that evolution is a fact, which begs the question: How are the atheists different from those who believe in a God since the atheists are also exercising faith in something they’ve never seen hoping that it’s true?

Image123:


Who broke this news to you if i may ask?

My Usual Source, the Bible! And from the reactions here, it is evident that it is a Breaking News to me alone. Others have known all along.

Dtruthspeaker:


My Usual Source, the Bible! And from the reactions here, it is evident that it is a Breaking News to me alone. Others have known all along.

Quite interesting, kindly quote the verse.

DappaD:
OP check this out: Most atheists subscribe to the belief that life originated by blind chance i.e. through mindless evolution(which is absurd by the way, considering the complex nature of a cell) But the thing is, they do not have visual confirmation that evolution is actually a fact. Whatever the white men in suits and labcoats cook up as theories is what some swallow hook, line and sinker without bothering to check out the facts. Since they have never seen evolution occur with their two eyes—when asked to give proof of it—they come up with something like: “You don’t have to see it to confirm it’s true”. (I’m not kidding, that’s what a Nairalander by the name of “FatherofJe.sus” told me) What’s the implication of that statement?
That the atheists also have faith that evolution is a fact, which begs the question: How are the atheists different from those who believe in a God since the atheists are also exercising faith in something they’ve never seen hoping that it’s true?

Wrong. The only people who believe that life began through evolution are the misinformed like you.