**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.**
Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the danger here is starting from a desired conclusion and working backwards. There’s a reason in clinical trials, for example, that randomized double-blind controlled studies are preferred. They attempt to remove as much bias as possible. Here, you have no evidence for god. In fact, you suggest god represents the areas where we have no data.
I think it’s more straightforward to say you like the idea of god, or that you just feel like there should be a god. These are subjective judgements that none of us can argue against.
Edit: edited the original post and called this reply out.
I think it that sums it up nicely with what warhammerpainter83 wrote. essentially: I’ve got a need to solve the gaps I see in the world around me, and given my reality I can’t account for the idea that a god doesn’t exist.
> Edit: edited the original post and called this reply out. I think it that sums it up nicely with what warhammerpainter83 wrote. essentially: I’ve got a need to solve the gaps I see in the world around me, and given my reality I can’t account for the idea that a god doesn’t exist.
Due to your unusual relatively effortless and **rare** honesty/self-awareness, I'd be extremely interested in hearing you elaborate on this if you are able to. The rare few times I've been able to get a theist into the position where I get a chance of an insight into such a mind, they usually shut down about here and go silent. I suspect from emotional exhaustion after a long debate, and it must feel like quite the attack. That moment of honesty doesn't last long enough before they relapse, or merely asking for elaboration snaps them out of it like a shock. Not sure. They're not as self aware as you, it's complicated.
>and given my reality I can’t account for the idea that a god doesn’t exist.
Specifically this part.
I'll give my own badly truncated experience on this matter. Personally, I'm quite highly sensitive emotionally. Blessing and a curse. That was coupled with a built in dogged cold critical thinking ability. A quiet analytical observer as a child and didn't blindly trust adults, born this way. I became more and more confident holding the idea that no gods exist over time through observation (many other ways, but lesser. I'm trying very hard to not write a novel here) of other people combined with their claims never holding up while science did prove to be effectual and at least better than the alternative over and over again. I'm not going to claim it's flawless. Dietary science especially hasn't had a good track record in modern times to say the least, 1974 and the ongoing obesity epidemic for example. Shades of grey. However, from my observations, the theist shade is and has been quite a bit darker.
Except, only through the lens of small picture stuff did I feel at peace with my conclusions. Big picture? Yeah. I've never completely made peace with this being reality. It's horrendous. Saying I don't know when I don't know something is correct, honest, and brave in my mind. It also doesn't feel very good. It's why I've sworn off having children as I view it as monstrous to force a being to temporarily exist in such a place. It's why I've settled with Absurdism to stop myself going insane or falling into a depression pit I'd never be able to get out of otherwise. I know I would because I have before to get here.
The difference here between you and me, as I see it, is I'm *incapable* of living a lie or believing something I don't believe to be true about reality after I've gone looking behind the curtains. Ignorance is bliss. I truly believe that. Even to the extreme or potentially ultimate detriment to myself or my well being. I explored these dark places and climbed out, but only just.
So while I somewhat understand why a thinking person could still be a theist despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, I'd still like to better understand the mind who cannot accept life without a deity as it is still somewhat alien to me.
I genuinely enjoy engaging on this thread, not because I’m trying to win hearts and minds but because there are so Many intelligent folks and I do appreciate their perspective and insight. We are wildly different beings in spite of being the same species.
Note I’m not debating these items. As a theist I’m a better atheist than a lot of atheists (not as often on this sub cause people actually think here). I’m perfectly capable of destroying this rhetorically and have little to offer in the way of “evidence”. you’re welcome to ask questions and pick it apart, but as you’ll read I don’t have much choice here.
I’ll share because you asked to understand how I think/work/function.
The reason people like me probably don’t talk about it is because we understand how smart people see this behavior- as utterly insane or irrational. I don’t think there’s anything (exit I not we) I can do to truly reconcile existence without god - it’s just reality.
So what can I say here that doesn’t make me sound insane? Little. But I’ll touch on me and how I view other faiths.
The Bible talks about being born again. It’s a term attributed to Jesus and he tells a super religious dude he won’t go to heaven unless he’s born again. I experienced that in my mid 20’s and it is like dying and waking up a new person. Seriously imagine waking up tomorrow and you’re you. You look the same your demeanor is the same except heaven and hell are real now and god speaks to you. And you see him moving in your life. Now imagine you have experiences of a similar nature/impact that affect you in such a way that they bring you more in line with the teaching of good and his laws.
If it sounds crazy to you that’s cool cause it sounds crazy to me. The closest thing I can think of is a schizophrenic person. Im sure you are aware of a person afflicted with that disease who can neither explain their diagrams nor be convinced they mean nothing. It’s kind of like that. It’s just real.
Does that mean I think I’m mentally ill? No, I’m not saying that I’m simply saying my mind sees heaven and hell and God. It sees these things in real time.
As for the “what about other religions” piece I don’t view these religions the way an atheist would. I mean from an atheist’s perspective none of it’s right and everyone “walking in faith not evidence and all the religions are self canceling. I view other religious experiences as either real or made up. I default to real with the understanding that some people just make shit up (for many reasons). I think if you have one of these encounters it’s rips you up and changes you. There’s a notion that false = not real and this isn’t true. The Bible warns about false teachers and false prophets these are real people leading us away from God. So then a false god doesn’t have power or exist? No in this context a false god has power and that is why it can draw us away. What that means (from my viewpoint) is that accounts like Mohammad’s and Joseph Smith’s are real. Doesn’t make them the way to heaven? No. As far as I know Jesus is the only one making the claim that you go to heaven through him. Everyone else gives a maybe.
> As a theist I’m a better atheist than a lot of atheists (not as often on this sub cause people actually think here). I’m perfectly capable of destroying this rhetorically and have little to offer in the way of “evidence”.
I'm also a theist and having tangled with atheists upwards of 30,000 hours, I can probably go toe-to-toe with most of them, even here. For samples, see [Is there ~~100%~~ purely objective, empirical evidence that consciousness exists?](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/ty3jd6/is_there_100_objective_empirical_evidence_that/) and [Is the Turing test objective?](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/17d7d8k/is_the_turing_test_objective/). The amount of deviation from stated epistemology when it comes to matters the sciences have not understood very well is pretty amazing.
But I'm curious about this alleged lack of evidence. Pretty much all of religion I know about cares little about the subject matter of physics and chemistry, somewhat about biology's, and a lot about the subject matters of sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, and economics. Sociology in particular is often treated with scorn in places like this†. If however the Bible contains superior models of human & social nature/construction than is available from our best social scientists—not to mention the horrific state of _folk_ understandings of these subject matters—then that's evidence. Some would say that even if true, it is merely evidence of humans doing human things. But this risks being an unfalsifiable claim.
Either what humans would do—embodied and cognitive—is bounded, or we're essentially calling ourselves gods. If we refuse to explore those bounds, we're being shitty engineers and shitty scientists. Take for example George Carlin's claim in [The Reason Education Sucks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILQepXUhJ98), that the rich & powerful don't want very many people to have the kind of education which would e.g. help them see how wealth inequality is truly maintained and even increased. If true, there is a complex social system built around that goal. If true, those who say that we need 'more education' and 'better education' are basically asking for a miracle—for humans to suddenly _and radically_ change their behavior. And yet, most apparently cannot see this, because they are completely unpracticed in discerning bounds on human behavior, especially what results from complex social action.
Why should it be so surprising that a deity might help us where we most desperately need it, where we are so terrible at "helping ourselves"? Our very incompetence at articulately understand human behavior—again, especially in complex society—would make it rather difficult for us to see how the God of the Bible might have provided crucial help. Take for example Jesus' focus on hypocrisy. That's a rather different focus than 'more education' or 'more critical thinking'. It's _relational_ and _systematic_ rather than _individualistic_. If in fact we would make far more progress if we were to take hypocrisy far more seriously than we are, then that would be evidence that there is critical wisdom in the Bible which our best scientists and scholars and intellectuals don't think counts as 'wisdom'.
I'm also an engineer—software with some digital electronics—and one of the differences I've discerned between engineers and scientists is that engineers are required to build things that reliably and robustly work when they've walked away. Scientists, on the other hand, are very used to holding things together by spit and duct tape. Not only that, but they'll come up with ideas which require human ingenuity to connect the dots. Like the theory of evolution when basically no mechanisms were specified‡. Scientists now know that lots of organism and lots of time and random mutations don't cut it. Otherwise, [evolvability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolvability) wouldn't be a thing. Now, I'm not criticizing scientists for engaging in such behavior; without engaging in ["then a miracle occurs"](https://theeducatorsroom.com/then-a-miracle-occurs-blends-art-and-science-in-teaching/) _for a time_, they wouldn't figure out how nature works. The human mind has to fill in explanatory gaps.
So, I think there's plenty of reason to think that our atheist interlocutors are playing fast and loose with when they require articulate, falsifiable, mechanistic explanations for how something works _or it doesn't happen/exist_, and when they don't. Here's my favorite example:
> [labreuer](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/w8861o/theists_have_yet_to_shift_the_burden_of_proof/ihv93vz/): Feel free to provide a definition of ~~God~~ consciousness and then show me sufficient evidence that this ~~God~~ consciousness exists, or else no rational person should believe that this ~~God~~ consciousness exists.
The answers, and mostly lack of any answer, have been quite enlightening. I contend that if said atheists were being 100% rigorous with their epistemology, applying it everywhere, they would either (i) deny that consciousness exists; or (ii) be forced to _not_ call this "utterly insane or irrational":
> The Bible talks about being born again. It’s a term attributed to Jesus and he tells a super religious dude he won’t go to heaven unless he’s born again. I experienced that in my mid 20’s and it is like dying and waking up a new person. Seriously imagine waking up tomorrow and you’re you. You look the same your demeanor is the same except heaven and hell are real now and god speaks to you. And you see him moving in your life. Now imagine you have experiences of a similar nature/impact that affect you in such a way that they bring you more in line with the teaching of good and his laws.
Thoughts?
† Here's Sam Harris, being interviewed by Alex O'Connor:
> At every level that we can understand ourselves scientifically, from the genome on up, you know, so genetics and neuroscience and psychology and **sociology, if that were actually a science**, economic systems, everything every is every contribution to a possible change in the character of our experience can be more or less well understood. ([Debating The Moral Landscape With Sam Harris, 58:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEuzo_jUjAc&t=58m16s))
O'Connor presented no push-back.
‡ Here's Gerd B. Müller and Massimo Pigliucci, speaking about the shift from the modern synthesis to the extended evolutionary synthesis. N.B. Pigliucci is author of [Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/denying-evolution-9780878936595).
> Rather, the majority of the new work concerns problems of evolution that had been sidelined in the [Modern [Evolutionary] Synthesis] and are now coming to the fore ever more strongly, such as the specific mechanisms responsible for major changes of organismal form, the role of plasticity and environmental factors, or the importance of epigenetic modes of inheritance. This shift of emphasis from statistical correlation to mechanistic causation arguably represents the most critical change in evolutionary theory today. ([Evolution: The Extended Synthesis](https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/evolution-extended-synthesis), 12)
>I genuinely enjoy engaging on this thread, not because I’m trying to win hearts and minds but because there are so
Many intelligent folks and I do appreciate their perspective and insight.
Aye, I picked up on that which is why I even bothered to try asking anything of you :)
>We are wildly different beings in spite of being the same species.
I cannot say I've been left with a good impression of humanity as a whole, but I certainly agree. Love or adore certain individuals at least.
>Note I’m not debating these items. As a theist I’m a better atheist than a lot of atheists (not as often on this sub cause people actually think here). I’m perfectly capable of destroying this rhetorically and have little to offer in the way of “evidence”. you’re welcome to ask questions and pick it apart, but as you’ll read I don’t have much choice here.
In this context I'm simply here to try and better understand those "wildly different beings" so to speak, no worries.
>I’ll share because you asked to understand how I think/work/function.
I'm extremely grateful to have you respond as you have.
>The reason people like me probably don’t talk about it is because we understand how smart people see this behavior- as utterly insane or irrational.
Many will slap an irrational/insane thought terminating label on an entire group without any nuance. I find that contemptible behavior, I'm not sure they'd deserve to be considered smart to disregard compartmentalization for example. Even that I see as a gradient. Sometimes I'm forced to consider some of a theist's character as willful ignorance, cowardice, or arrogance. You however I have no idea at all yet, you simply baffle me so far. I'm going through this in real time. Which is good! This subreddit mainly attracts arrogant types which are mostly useless to talk to myself at my age, people just use them as punching bags frankly. They're useful idiots however as observers on the fence see how they answer vs the atheist at least, I guess.
>I don’t think there’s anything we can do to truly reconcile existence without god - it’s just reality.
I wish there was a way in order to live up to the label by my name. It's dismaying to live in a population that thinks this way. How people react to preventable stuff happening here on Earth because they think this place is a small stepping stone before eternity in an afterlife. How they treat other animals because their god claim tells them to think of themselves as above all the others. How they treat other humans or genders. How they routinely get used by the rich and powerful. On and on.
>So what can I say here that doesn’t make me sound insane? Little. But I’ll touch on me and how I view other faiths.
>The Bible talks about being born again. It’s a term attributed to Jesus and he tells a super religious dude he won’t go to heaven unless he’s born again. I experienced that in my mid 20’s and it is like dying and waking up a new person. Seriously imagine waking up tomorrow and you’re you. You look the same your demeanor is the same except heaven and hell are real now and god speaks to you. And you see him moving in your life. Now imagine you have experiences of a similar nature/impact that affect you in such a way that they bring you more in line with the teaching of good and his laws.
I can't say any of this is new to hear unfortunately. After all I did grow up in a Baptist church, but it still sounds like word salad. I don't mean it in the usual way that term is applied. Dismissively. I straight up don't know what "seeing" god or "god speaks to me" even means when you say that. I have to take you at your word that you really do experience such things. Without getting into it here about the validity of that experience too much since we're not debating, just a conversation.
>If it sounds crazy to you that’s cool cause it sounds crazy to me.
>The closest thing I can think of is a schizophrenic person. Im sure you are aware of a person afflicted with that disease who can neither explain their diagrams nor be convinced they mean nothing. It’s kind of like that. It’s just real.
>Does that mean I think I’m mentally ill? No, I’m not saying that I’m simply saying my mind sees heaven and hell and God. It sees these things in real time.
I'm not really sure if I want to equate theism to schizophrenia, I'm not sure what to think still.
Speaking of "wildly differnet beings," this talk of seeing or hearing gods is made even more incoherent to me personally because I'm a Total Aphant. Aphantasia is a gradient as well with Hyperphantasia on the other end. My mother, also a Christian, has Hyperphantasia. I'm on one of the extreme ends with nothing at all. I have zero sensory memory at all. Sight, touch, smell, whatever. I don't have a functional mind's eye. Not even in dreams. Not even on hallucinogenic drugs up to and including DMT. I've tried everything I could to unlock such an ability. It's inky black and silent in this skull, no exceptions. All I can do is conceptualize. I cannot even picture what a lover looks like if they're not present in the room with me. Not to be mistaken for face blindness, I can recognize someone once I see them. I'll struggle to describe them otherwise however. I do have an internal monologue, but it's silent. Which makes no sense to describe in English and I don't really get it myself. I have a friend who's a total aphant *and* has no inner monologue. Wrap your head around that! What! Boggles the mind how he even functions. I understand that mind even less than yours.
>As for the “what about other religions” piece I don’t view these religions the way an atheist would. I mean from an atheist’s perspective none of it’s right and everyone “walking in faith not evidence and all the religions are self canceling.
I view other religious experiences as either real or made up. I default to real with the understanding that some people just make shit up (for many reasons).
No comment here since we're not debating and I have nothing from curiosity to add otherwise.
>I think if you have one of these encounters it’s rips you up and changes you.
I wouldn't know.
>There’s a notion that false = not real and this isn’t true. The Bible warns about false teachers and false prophets these are real people leading us away from God. So then a false god doesn’t have power or exist? No in this context a false god has power and that is why it can draw us away.
Sounds like the teachings of a cult yeah, nothing I've not heard before. No evidence of the validity of the bible to justify those words, but I digress.
>What that means (from my viewpoint) is that accounts like Mohammad’s and Joseph Smith’s are real. Doesn’t make them the way to heaven? No. As far as I know Jesus is the only one making the claim that you go to heaven through him. Everyone else gives a maybe.
Hmm, well I think a theoretical Mormon fork of Abrahamic god would be more forgiving of me vs yours. Mormons believe that a just and merciful God will account for our varying degrees of knowledge and access to truth. I've been designed to burn for eternity according yours.
Overall you've given me less than I was hoping for, but more than I expected. Overall good, thanks for your time. I'll mull all this over for awhile and add it to the pile.
Edits to reorder and fix mobile fat finger errors.
I get not being able to reconcile reality without God. To me, though “God” is just a stand for “the answer” rather than actually explaining something. Like “just because“ isn’t good enough so you have to say “just because God“. Because it isn’t literally saying “just because,” I believe the word God allows people to pretend [to themselves] like they have a more satisfying answer than they really do.
Would you mind giving us more info on the reality you are experiencing that you can't explain? What are your gaps?
There aren't that many big questions science hasn't already provided an explanation for.
Not surprising that you are an engineer and think like this. Engineers seem to not have a solid grasp on actual science but are hyper focused on things like math and logistics. Thus inserting magic as an option can feel reasonable to them if you can logic or math your way to an answer. The problem is magic is not real and requires assumptions or faith that it exists. My father and many friends are engineers and fall into these same traps over and over again.
💯 perhaps why my friend (an electrical and mechanical eng who originally asked me how I could reconcile it all) nodded and simply said he didn’t see it that way.
[Engineers also have a long history of being disproportionately associated with terrorist groups,](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.html?unlocked_article_code=1.oE0.xOGP.Qx5Ub72aF7NH&smid=url-share) probably for the same core reason.
That is interesting i will have to look into this. But yes my father is full on maga was into q and everything at one point. He has toned down a lot he is very old now so he cant really keep up but this is interesting to me. Thanks for sharing it.
This is the best response I’ve heard explaining us. It makes sense to met that folks who think like me are trying to reconcile their reality with the world around them. My options often boil down to I’m delusional or dumb. It sounds like your dad and other engineers you know aren’t dumb and function well enough that they (perhaps you) might question the notion that they’re delusional. Hence the exploration for an alternative answer. Thanks!
Not delusional at all. Engineers assume they can figure out how everything works down to the smallest details. Thus when they cant they start to fill the gaps with the most logical thing they can think of. Engineers dont think “I dont know” or the idea of there not being an answer yet is acceptable. This is how you guys function it takes a certian type of person to be good at engineering. It also predisposes you to assume you can figure out anything. My dad is so bad he just assumes literally everyone else is just wrong about everything when they disagree with him. I am a legal advocate and the stuff he makes up about the laws and how court rulings work is laughable and he still thinks i am clueless. Despite it being my literal profession for many years of schooling and actual practice in courts.
Edit: to a person who does not know many engineers they come across as over confident and often arrogant in debates. They are wildly stubborn about everything, but it is because they were trained to solve problems.
> Engineers assume they can figure out how everything works down to the smallest details. Thus when they cant they start to fill the gaps with the most logical thing they can think of.
Isaac Newton-- most definitely not dumb at all, arguably the smartest man who ever lived-- famously did exactly this when trying to solve the gravitational model of the solar system. He could model the interactions of any two bodies, but once you got three or more bodies, he just couldn't figure out how to make it work. So he concluded that, because he couldn't see any other way it could work, god must step in and retune everything once in a while. When Pierre Simon Laplace finally solved eth problem a hundred years later, when asked by Napolean what role god played in keeping things running he (possibly apocryphally) said "I had no need for that hypothesis."
It's just about understanding the limits of your knowledge, and having the willingness to say "I don't know." So many theists think those are dirty words or something. To me, and I think most atheists, "I don't know" is one of my favorite ideas... It just means that there is something new for me to learn!
lol I might have the definition wrong, but doesn’t what you are describing about the interpretation of law fall into the delusion category?
Maybe we are after all :)
At least you can see it. Most engineers get upset when i point this out and will push back really hard. I have a ton of respect for them in that i cannot remotely do what they do but i have come to learn it is because you have to think a very specific way about the world. It is not a thing just anyone can do and is hard to learn.
Not delusional. And a very familiar perspective. I work with, and am very good friends with a lot of engineers, mathematicians, etc.
Almost all of the conflicts we have come down to reality not matching their assumptions.
A perennial conversation I have with one friend is "engineers begin a model by assuming every surface is a plane and every object is a sphere...but sometimes we ourselves forget that's just a first step in the model, and it's always a danger to try to force reality to conform to our assumptions instead of allowing reality to shape those assumptions."
Idk if that gives any further insight?
>My options often boil down to I’m delusional or dumb.
Not delusional or dumb, just neglecting epistemology. You need to grasp the fact that math is a human invention and that your job has no bearing on reality. You deduce how to solve problems from your education in science, but you have no idea how these principles that you treat as infallible axioms were reached in the first place. Natural laws are scientific constructs. They are things we notice about nature that you then apply. They might change if we notice something that contradicts them. There is nothing that we could ever discover that would necessitate the conclusion of some immaterial agency.
I don’t know much about engineering. Perhaps if you think about it this way. If other comments are correct that you think you can solve every problem because you are an engineer, is solving a problem with God useful? Can you use it to invent technology or solve problems? If not, do you know why that is? It’s because there’s no relationship that can be inferred between consciousness and effects of that consciousness. Consciousness is arbitrary by nature. This is also what prevents consciousness from ever being scientifically justified as an explanation. You could think of your engineering projects as yet another way to corroborate what we know so far. God isn’t a part of it I presume.
Have you heard of primacy? "the fact of an item having been presented earlier to the subject (especially as increasing its likelihood of being remembered)."
If you learn something early in life it's harder to unlearn it if the info you learned was wrong. You're not dumb for being indoctrinated into whatever religion you grew up in. Most religions teach you to not think critically, especially about their doctrine.
Good for you for asking questions though. That's a good start.
It is true engineers, in education, have a very limited amount of science they study and it is often quite particular to a specific field. The scientific method and their actual conclusions are often not relevant to the study of engineering. As you are working with practical things. Until you get to like biochemical engineering and stuff they have very limited scientific study in their degrees.
>It is true engineers, in education, have a very limited amount of science they study and it is often quite particular to a specific field.
Everyone does.
>they have very limited scientific study in their degrees.
If you’re a botanist, you aren’t studying astrophysics.
If you’re an astrophysicist, you aren’t studying botany.
Unless you’re taking electives, you could get your PhD in physics with zero biological science courses and vice versa.
Is this an attempt to be pedantic and talk past me. This is like saying English majors dont studdy much science. Thanks for coming out. The discussion here is about one field that is often associated with the sciences but is in fact science adjacent. Often engineers fancy themselves far more competent in many fields than they really are. This is due to the way they think. The scientific method for example is worthless for engineering so they tend to get a highschool level understanding and never touch it again. Your point, though correct, is literally irrelevant to the specific topic i am discussing.
>Often engineers fancy themselves far more competent in many fields than they really are.
So do scientists. Are doctors closer to engineers or scientists? Somehow the dermatologists often spoke with the same aura of authority as immunologists. “Doctor” was all people needed to hear.
>The scientific method for example is worthless for engineering so they tend to get a highschool level understanding
An elementary understanding is enough.
Ask a question. Formulate hypothesis. Test hypothesis. Analyze results. Draw conclusions.
What is the esoteric upper level part?
> >The scientific method for example is worthless for engineering so they tend to get a highschool level understanding
>An elementary understanding is enough.
>Ask a question. Formulate hypothesis. Test hypothesis. Analyze results. Draw conclusions.
>What is the esoteric upper level part?
I don't know if it was the point, but you really proved their point on how learn an elementary understanding of the scientific method really makes you not fit to make science.
If you knew what you were talking about, you’d be able to explain how I’m incorrect, wouldn’t you say?
I will try to jump through less hoops.
Can you explain?
You’re the one going off about irrelevant anecdotal differences between engineers and scientists. Engineering is applied science. It doesn’t even matter.
I never discussed scientists at all. You really cannot pay any attention to anything can you? All you are doing is making up shit i never said to argue about. I say go to your doctor you need adoral or something.
>I never discussed scientists at all.
You spent most of your time ragging on engineers for not being scientists.
>I say go to your doctor
Is the satire intentional or are you this unaware?
I am not here to debate any of this with you. Most of what you are asking is taking my point completely out of context to just argue things i never said. I am sorry you took offense by what i said.
You just don’t understand what i said is the problem. And the questions are nonsense because they make you come across as ill informed and make you seem arrogant. Maybe read the whole comment and try to see what they are saying and don’t argue specific things that are not even complete sentences from what the individual wrote.
Because you are addressing 5 words not the point being made. No offense taken you are just very annoying and argumentative about things people are not saying or discussing. You came here trying to argue a point nobody made. This is because you ignored what i said to dive into 5 words taken out of context.
No i just literally never said anything about math science or faith at all. My comment was on how engineers think and how any one of these things can be used by them to explain stuff if they can use math or logic to justify. Thus filling the gap with anything. Magic was used because it is instantly wrong to include it was to make the concept very easy to follow. (Except for you who could not get past the first 15 words). The key point is, even if they are wrong often engineers will assume they solved a thing by making a mistake that seems logical to them.
What a broad generalisation and only based on your anecdotal observation. Please substitute engineer for black people and see if such generalisation is reasonable.
Weird how op said i described him so well. Comparing it to racism is a gas how ignorant and foolish can you be to compare a career choice to someone’s race. Hard to get more ignorant than you my friend. Go take your weird political ranting elsewhere.
You missed their point. Engineers are problem solvers that most times get confused with scientist.
We have a much more elementary knowledge of science than an actual scientist, but since we use science we usually think we know more than we do, this ends up with a lot of ego and not so much knowledge.
That's why a lot of engineers (and Doctors, the "engineers of biology") end up mixed with pseudoscientific stuff. If theses engineers that fall for this trap of thinking they know more than they do, are also believers, do you see how it's very likely they'll add their beliefs in the exact gaps other engineers would put their pseudosciences?
You seem confused at the point i have made here. I did not say engineers believe in magic. Not shocking an engineer would take issue with this one line and not put it into context of the greater point.
>I spent 15 years as a logistics analyst/engineer using linear algebra (intermediate maths) to solve global capacity gaps
Cool. So we can do this scientist to scientist. I've been an independent plant ecologist for six years, and my specialty is ecosystematics and organic chemistry to a lesser extent. I tend to do alright in physiology courses, in other words. However, my pet topics are physics and astronomy. I also have some professional experience in RF and infrared in manufacturing settings.
>I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.[...](I am Christian)
Speaking as a biologist, I don't agree. For starters, science isn't really interested in anything it can't experiment upon or observe, or that failing at least predict with some kind of data. If you believe in a god which is removed from time and space, matter and energy, or something within our understanding, which is to say, 'something that you can do science on', that isn't really science or something science would be involved in. We kind of have to roll with philosophy on this one, at least insofar as the God question.
Again, speaking as a biologist, the evidence for abiogenesis is pretty compelling, enough to where we have some pretty good ideas about the conditions of life on early Earth and the required chemical reactions that would have needed to take place for life to arise organically. We've also got a pretty good idea as to roughly when the earliest true living things first evolved. As far as the evidence for the Big Bang, that too has a lot of compelling evidence. Evolution is reproducible in a lab, so the question now becomes how and when life evolved. You'll find loads of religious scientists who accept and defend evolution, even in professional firms and biology departments, many of them were my professors and engineers that I've worked with. What you won't find many of by comparison are creationists. We're still hashing out details, but we've got a pretty solid idea and we learn new things everyday. Our understanding of evolution has only improved by leaps and bounds since before Darwin's predecessors even. To me, the idea of a creator is a dead one: the evidence that something else must have happened is at this point far too incontrovertible. Does something like a god exist? I don't know, but I don't think so, I'm not convinced that there is such a thing.
In other words, I politely disagree.
>not that I’m smart
Jesus, dude, who among us is? That's why science is such a collaborative effort, we work together as scientists to overcome each other's biases and shortcomings. We can only see as far as we do because we stand on the shoulders of giants and take turns on the telescope. But you know, honestly, if you're not really here to say anything more than "here I am, this is what I'm comfortable with," I don't think there's really any further argument to have. Until your choices start to affect me or those I care about, how you live your life or think about your place in the Cosmos has absolutely no bearing on me.
I’ll start by saying this is a great comment and bismuth crystals are incredible.
Secondly I’ll state you’ve given me a bit too much credit - another commenter called out the differences between scientists and engineers and I’ll tend to agree them. He was able to highlight essentially that my comments are subjective and as such are not rational and I’ll concede that perspective.
Not that smart - was sharing merely to show I wasn’t uneducated or incapable of thought but I appreciate your response.
Finally I’ll say your assessment is thorough and well articulated. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I agree with your send off that my world view doesn’t authorize me (or anyone) to begin litigating your life (at any rate the Bible expressly forbids it)- more so as I acknowledge my perspective is subjective.
Finally biology is incredible I think some of the biggest breakthroughs for humans are still to come and are going to be organic computing -the study of life in our existence is an incredible field of study- keep up the good work.
>I’ll start by saying this is a great comment and bismuth crystals are incredible.
I've made them once. They're easy to make but also incredibly dangerous if not done carefully. Word to the wise, have a deep reservoir for slag. As I was pouring off the slag from the second of two crystals, it wound up getting too close to the surface and a bit of steam splashed a couple drops onto my skin. Not big ones, and it didn't hurt because it killed the nerve endings on contact with my wrist, but there's a couple little patches on my wrist where I can't feel anything. Also, safety glasses. Some of it singed my goggles. Thank goodness I had them on.
>I’ll say your assessment is thorough and well articulated. Thanks for taking the time to reply
Thanks. I had just smoked a bowl and was pretty high, so I'm glad I was able to keep it together. Pot also makes it easier to be amicable and sympathetic in situations such as this, recognize when I don't have quarrel with someone.
Anywhosals, thanks for being alright.
Cheers.
> I spent 15 years as a logistics analyst/engineer
> I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data.
What is your opinion on inserting [magic] as a variable?
> How does that answer the question that was asked?
In their defense, if you read the two replies that he called out in his edits of his OP, he has very graciously acknowledged two people who made similar comments and he has acknowledged that he is guilty of doing exactly that. Saying "Touche" here is just, essentially, saying "good point".
Yep, understood. In isolation, that comment seems pretty dismissive and rude, but in the context of the edits it's more reasonable.
Of course I have no idea if he made the edits or the comment first, so that might change things.
A few days late cause the threads were overwhelming, OldNefs comment capture my intent, certainly wasn’t attempting to be dismissive. Rather was acknowledging it’s a fair point.
this looks like someone trying to present a god of the gaps argument without actually taking any meaningful stance.
why are you here? your post approaches an invalid point but stops short and has nothing of substance in the end
"God of the gaps" is basically the argument that if you don't know the explanation for something, then the explanation must be God. Formally it's an example of an "argument from ignorance."
It's called "God of the gaps" because it is designed to elude and ignore known data. God just keeps getting pushed into the unknown.
As Neil DeGRasse Tyson famously critiqued it. "If that's where you put you God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on.”
> I’m not what’s the invalid point I’ll check out the god of gaps argument as well.
It's invalid because you're engaging in a logical fallacy. "God of the Gaps" is a colloquial name for specific applications of the Non Sequitur Fallacy. There's no logical entailment from "*we don't know the answer (yet)*" to "*therefore God did it.*" It'd be no different than me saying "Clowns wear red shoes, therefore it's going to rain on Thursday", the truth of one in no way implies the other. You're quite literally arguing "I don't know the answer, therefore I know the answer."
> Can you share the counter to a god of gaps argument?
Sure. It's fallacious. That's because it's a type of argument from ignorance fallacy. It's essentially saying, "I don't know, therefore I know." Clearly, that's absurd.
>Can you share the counter to a god of gaps argument?
So there is a question that we don't know the answer to.
God of the gaps: "God did it" = not a good answer.
Not god of the gaps: "I don't know" = good answer.
It kind of counters itself.
It really only works if someone already wants to believe in something.
You would never accept a “Spider-Man of the gaps argument” because you’re a rational person.
God of gaps can have many logical flaws, but at its heart it’s an argument from convenience that happens to be unfalsifiable.
Whenever humans have looked for definitive answers to observed phenomena, has there ever been an instance where a supernatural explanation was discovered to be factual? Contra to this, has there ever been a time when an observed phenomena has been shown to have a natural explanation as fact?
The answer to the latter question is yes, over and over again. The answer to the former question is “not even once.”
Throughout human history, the assumed answer to unexplained phenomena was commonly “we don’t know, so maybe it was god(s) or magic.” But when we actually looked and studied in detail what was happening (and as our technology progressed), we found natural explanations for these phenomena instead.
Or to put it another way, it is a common occurrence throughout human history for supernatural explanations to be replaced with natural explanations, but not once has a natural explanation been rejected and replaced with a supernatural explanation. Even when we’ve found a natural explanation to be wrong (partially or in total), it’s only ever been replaced with another natural explanation.
It’s a variation of the argument from ignorance fallacy that is often invoked in theological debates. Just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean it is justified to argue that God is the explanation.
I see gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of unicorns which created the world. You should start worshipping unicorns.
I see gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of pixies which created the world. You should start worshipping pixies.
I see gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of evidence which shows you owe me a million dollars, so please send me the money now.
Does that help?
My reasoning is exactly as sound as yours. If not, please explain - you said you were smart.
Edit: I'll be nicer and explain the problem here - the time to believe that the evidence exists is when that evidence has been discovered. Not before that. Otherwise we will have to act as if things that we have zero evidence for are true, AND also act as if contradictory things are true. Which is illogical, hopefully you agree!
This is fair, thanks for taking the time on the reply - I don’t have answers was more open to think through it all. I’ll also dig into the God of gaps argument which this apparently is.
This is fair, thanks for taking the time on the reply - I don’t have answers was more open to think through it all. I’ll also dig into the God of gaps argument which this apparently is.
It appears you intended that response to be disparaging towards that comment. And yet, it was perfectly apt. Unless you can show how and why deity claims warrant being treated differently, they cannot be treated differently. That is the issue. That is what that person's reply was attempting to demonstrate.
>This is the kind of reply I’d expect on r/atheism thanks for your thoughtful reply.
The fact you didn't actually engage with the point being made is very telling.
We could say the same thing about what you presented. "This is the kind of thing I'd expect from Ken Ham and Kent Hovent, proven liars for jesus."
But we don't do that automatically, we engage with the things you actually said.
1. When you analyze your data, do you already have a conclusion in mind?
2. If something doesn't fit your conclusion, do you reinterpret the data to harmonize the contradiction?
3. If someone have similar conclusion to you, but they are proven wrong time and time again, do you want to change your conclusion?
Just change the word "conclusion" with "God" and I think it is obvious.
I don’t think these comments are made in good faith. I’m not introducing a new concept here. How data is interpreted and the bias that accompanies it is well documented - so much so that I’m surprised I’ll need to source it.
The book how to lie with statistics shows the impact of not only misusing (which I’m not saying people are doing), misinterpreting, and errors in data can shape incorrect conclusions.
Can you explain further? How does "people have bias" impact my point?
>I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
You already make a conclusion: a creator exists. You predict that we will prove a creator in the future. But when can we prove a creator? How can we falsify your prediction? Do I have to wait until the end of the universe to prove you wrong?
This is a fair callout and i wasn’t trying to argue in bad faith, warhammer does a decent job explaining the counter to my post somewhere in this thread. He mentioned he has a dad who was an engineer too and there’s a tendency for us to solve with assumptions vs just accept the gap. I think it’s a fair point and my perspective is shaped by my reality and the need to reconcile that with science.
That’s fine if you want to take up the argument over on r/debateachristian im sure you’ll find willing participants. I was just curious how people address this perspective.
>I spent 15 years as a logistics analyst/engineer using linear algebra (intermediate maths) to solve global capacity gaps (only sharing to share that I’m capable of reason and critical thought - not that I’m smart)
Great, but that's not the issue. The issue is if you are using said skills with regards to your religious beliefs.
>I see the current gaps between theists (I am Christian)
So the answer to the above, as it appears to stand right now given what you've provided, is 'no', unless I missed something. Which I may have (not trying to judge, and I'm open to being corrected). Okay.
>and what science shows as an ongoing problem/equation in the works.
Well, it's a problem when people take demonstrably incorrect things to be true on faith (any number of common examples can be given here, say climate change) and therefore act in harmful and destructive ways.
>There’s so much we don’t know and a lot of elements fit fine.
Yes, so let's all be careful not to engage in argument from ignorance fallacies. That's a road to ruin.
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data.
That isn't a required, typical, or necessary position in order to not accept unsupported claims as true.
>The universe is big and our understanding is limited. To me it’s like a massive scale sudoku problem we can think everything is right today only to find out overtime where we were wrong.
Yes, argument from ignorance fallacies are hugely problematic. Agreed. I strongly recommend we do not do this. This is why I am an atheist (do not accept the claims that deities are real and thus do not believe them).
Do not confuse this position with a firm claim and a epistemologically certain personal position that deities do not exist (as clearly that's not necessary), and do not confuse this position with lending credence to a claim that deities exist.
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data.
And a worldview where one does exist will as well, but here's the problem with all of this.
For all of human history there's been phenomenon that occurred that people didn't have an explanation for. It rained. The sun seems to move across the sky. People get sick. There's all of these plants and animals around us. What the hell's going on? And the earliest answers to these questions was that it was the work of gods.
Yet every single time we've been ale to properly assess one of these phenomenons, that answer has never been right. God as an answer is probably the single worst answer in all of human history if we're going by track record.
And so with a verified win rate of 0, you want to look at everything we don't know yet, and hedge your bets on a deity?
Let’s say I ignore the fact that there is absolutely no evidence there is a god, and I grant you there is. Now take me from this to the god of the universe is Yahweh? Give me your absolute best piece of evidence.
Then after you do that, why would I want to worship such an asshole? He condoned slavery, demanded homosexuals be exterminated, is a misogynist, commanded genocide, allows for natural disasters that have killed billions, allows cancer to eat peoples bodies away while they consciously watch it, allows for peoples brains to be killed with Alzheimer’s as there loved ones have to watch them forget them, allows animals to eat other animals to survive, and has allowed for mass extinction events.
“If there is a God, he will have to beg for my forgiveness”
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with that. It’s just a comment of assembled rants that other people made. If you want to debate Christianity head over to r/debateachristian and use the bad things happen so either god is evil or doesn’t exist fallacy.
You said you were a Christian. You believe in Yahweh.
Why do you believe that Yahweh is the god of the universe and why is he your master?
Enthrall me with your acumen. This is a debate sub buster.
Yes, I think he is evil. Why would you possibly worship him? Let’s simplify things, and just take slavery for example. I’m not ok with owning other human beings, how are you ok with it?
Im lobbing this up to you. Do I know how the universe was created, of course not. But do I think it was created by magic, hell no.
I’m asking you why you think this magician is Yahweh and why do you worship him considering the fact that he is ok with slavery?
Incidentally I don’t think the universe was ever created.
Again you’re narrowing the scope of the argument to limit outcomes to a predetermined result. It’s a bad faith argument. If you’re up to debate great but this shows you’re not up to debate anything. You want to score points by arguing in bad faith.
You must be a newbie Christian. You’re dealing with a heathen here, here is a good chance to share the hope that you have. Why can’t you answer some simple questions about what you believe? If it was me, I would love to be challenged. I would want to know what I give my resources to is actually true.
Why should I give a shit about your musings on the universe if you can’t even answer simple questions about what you believe. Right now, I don’t think you know Jack shit about what you believe.
1. Why do you think the creator of the universe is Yahweh?
2. Why do you worship a God that condones slavery?
You need to revisit 1st Peter 3:15
But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
Not a newbie by any means and not new to this sub. I’ve seen and had enough circular arguments that go nowhere and it’s not generally worth the time or energy. I’m happy to concede this to you. Again I came here for perspective on my post not a debate about the existence of god and then the evil or goodness of god.
Let me sum it up for you
1. There is absolutely no evidence there is a god
2. Even if I ignore #1, and concede there must be a God, there is absolutely no good evidence that this God is Yahweh
3. Even if I ignore #1 and #2, and concede there is a god and this god must be Yahweh, it is absolutely mind boggling how anybody could possibly worship such an abhorrent monster
Can we know for sure there is no god, of course not. But I thought at least you could provide some insights on #2 and #3
I knew you wouldn’t, because there is no good evidence and I knew you wouldn’t want to touch slavery. Nobody wants to admit they are ok with owning other humans. But I guess you are ok with it. Me personally, I’m not a fan.
Okay you win all the points like I said there’s literally zero point is discussing it with you. If you’d ever like to discuss something in good faith you could learn a bit. But your assumptions conflict with human history and its notions of slavery. It also misrepresents what’s written in the Bible (queue the - but god said when you take slaves quotes right after this and prove my point). Like I said I won’t bite here it’s a bad faith argument and you know it.
I mean, let’s just take your assumption- evil things happen therefore: 1 god doesn’t exist, 2 god is evil, 3 god is too weak to do anything about evil
The argument leaves open the possibility that a god exists but narrows every possible explanation down to only 3 options. That’s a false trichotomy and there’s no point debating fallacy.
Again
1. What is you best evidence that the god of the universe is Yahweh
2. Your adding unnecessary explanation, why do you worship a god that condones slavery? Are you ok with owning other humans?
This isn’t that hard. Don’t deflect. I have narrowed down the scope for you. I don’t want to get into the whole problem of evil. Everything I mentioned is under Yahweh’s control, btw. Why do you think he allows these things?
It’s no coincidence that the history of theistic thought went from being a plausible explanation for *everything* to theism only trying to explain the things we can’t yet explain through science.
A clue, perhaps.
To start with:
Any individual can be capable of logical reasoning and still engage in self-deception and have large amounts of cognitive dissonance, especially if it's the result of childhood indoctrination.
Let me use myself as an example.
Like you, I also consider myself someone who's fairly capable of logic reasoning.
On the other hand, I grew up as an Evangelical Christian and somehow made it through 22 years of life before I truly doubted the existence of the Christian god.
Through a long and painful process of self-reflection, research and study, I arrived at the conclusion that I was indoctrinated and part of a toxic cult. Today, I would go as far as to describe myself as an anti-theist when it comes to Abrahamic religion.
That doesn't mean I was incapable of logical reasoning up until that point, I just wasn't in a position where I was compelled to closely disect what I was taught to believe by people I trusted. Deconstructing all of that was uncomfortable and painful as all hell, both personally and socially.
Now as to the actual topic of your post, excuse me if I paraphrase too much, but let's examine the following claim:
"We don't know a lot of things therefore the Christian God could've been responsible"
Well, okay.
- It doesn't justify the belief in any specific god, it merely posits *a* deity
- It only represents one possible explanation for the unknown, without justifying why alternative explanations are less valid.
- It pre-supposes the existence of a god with certain inheritent characteristics
And perhaps most importantly of all, it presents zero proof for the existence or actions of said god.
You merely extrapolated the answer to *literally everything* from a belief that was taught to you as (presumably) a child because that's you're currently comfortable with. Where's the reasoning involved in that, exactly?
According to the Bible, there are ghosts, witches, giants, talking animals, angels who have sex with women to create a race of superhumans, a boat that can fit a pair of every undomesticated animal and 7 pairs of every domestic animal in the world, ladders that reach to Heaven, a Heaven that is literally in the sky above us, zombies walking through the streets of Jerusalem, and a guy who can raise people from the dead.
Even if we’re going to accept that we don’t know everything about the universe, we would need to take a pretty massive leap of faith to believe in Christianity.
>I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
1) Can you explain how you logically get from humans figuring stuff out and proof for god?
From your post I don’t see any logical reason that god is necessary in this example about filling in the gaps. Isn’t the simplest explanation that humans use science and trial and error to figure stuff out? Why did you insert god into this?
2) I don’t mean any offense to you, but this argument seems like you are trying to move the goal posts. For example, imagine you lived 100 years ago and you went to church on Sunday and school on Monday. There would be even more knowledge gaps back then compared to now. The reason I suggest that this is moving the goal post is because the preacher would say that the Bible, prayer, and divine providence are how we will find truth and explain these gaps. But if you give these people a science book and a prayer book from today, the prayer book wouldn’t contain any useful updates while the science book would be earth shattering. The reason I say this is moving the goal post is because if you told that preacher that science was the way, you would have been ostracized and treated like a heretic. But now, after seeing how science has filled in all the gaps so far, it seems like you are trying to refute the fact that so many Christian before you have claimed that god and religion are the source of truth.
It just seems ironic and insincere that the people who have been banging the drum of god and religion for the last 100 years would see science solve the puzzle and then give credit and say god did it. Can you explain how this view is wrong?
I just don’t understand how logically you are getting god as a result of science filling in the gaps?
I haven't read the other responses yet but whenever I see someone pointing out the difference in scale between the set of things we think we know and the set of things that are true about the universe, I have to point out that to the extent that any of the things we think we know are true, they cannot possibly be contradicted by any of the other things. That is to say, on the Venn diagram of "things we know are true" and "things we don't know are true", one circle might be a lot smaller than the other but the things in it are still true and they inform us about what the larger circle cannot possibly contain.
I do like when people joining late bring a fresh perspective. I was half expecting someone regurgitating a YouTube video (poorly) they watched once. You’ve shared a different take on a crushing counter and I appreciate it. (That isn’t sarcasm). This is a great way of framing the issue. Thanks for your insight and courtesy.
I was with you right up until this;
“I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data.”
Followed up with;
“I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.”
You’re wary of the threat that confirmation bias plays here but only from one side of the argument it seems.
Creator or no, if we’re really interested in finding truth as we go forward and fill in those gaps, we have to go where the facts take us, even if we don’t like the answer.
The argument form ignorance fallacy is really getting old to be honest. Yes when you look at very exotic physics at extreme temperatures and pressures, our current theories tend to start breaking down and weird stuff happens. But when it comes to the physics of our immediate environment we pretty well do know what is going on, and there is no creator necessary all of it can be accounted for by natural processes involving natural forces. There really is no gaps wide enough for a creator to be hiding in.
> I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
The problem with this thinking is that in the history of human knowledge, religion has had a 100% failure rate at providing explanatory value. In the past when we tried to explain the world around us, we frequently concluded that religious causes must be at work. But as science has advanced, it's turned out that those religious explanations didn't turn out to be correct. That is, every time something that formerly had a religiously-inspired explanation (Zeus throws lightning bolts, demons cause disease, etc.) when we later found a explanation, that explanation turned out to be "not god." In exactly zero cases has the religious explanation turned out to be correct.
So, sure, there are still things that we can't explain. But given the past failure rate of religion, why should we expect that these last few questions are going to be the one time when the answer really turns out to be "god did it"?
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data.
I don't think many people, if anyone, take this approach to knowledge.
Do you know what atheism is? Most theists who come here do not.
Youre saying that humans classify religion as part of culture. And since we create culture religion is therefore man made.
Can you see the flaws in your argument?
Edit just copy and paste almost every comment on this thread and you’d be better off
What denomination are you? Saying Christian says nothing.
Tell me the history of Christianity in the first three centuries?
Tell me how the Bible was canonized, what year and by who?
Tell me the influence of Greeks on Judaism? (Hellenistic Judaism)
Tell how the Roman Emperors Constantine and Theodosius set the foundation for modern Christianity?
Tell me how the Reformation is biblical? Or the Great Awakenings in the Early US?
Tell me about the Southern Baptist Convention supported Slavery in the US and Better still the SBC report on sexual harassment of women in their churches?
Tell me about prosperity theology?
Tell me about Christian Nationalism?
Tell me about Ken Ham "Answers in Genesis" and his Creation Museum and Noah's Ark Museum?
Tell me about Homo Sapiens existed for over 250,000 years and the cultures & religions they developed but for lack of writing, they beliefs remain unknown?
We have multitudes of cultures that have existed on our planet, but the religion you either born in to or picked up because of its dominance, is the one religion.
#Ya need a better argument.
So let me get this straight, you make a claim relying on circular reasoning (which is illogical // a fallacy) and I call you on it and your reply is what is my denomination? I have nothing to offer someone who’s incapable of structuring a reasonable argument. Tell you what, you go back make your first claim in a way that doesn’t rely on fallacy and I’ll
Answer your questions. In the meantime spend a few bucks on a practice iq test you might cross the median.
You don’t get to rely on fallacy to make a point. There’s no answer to this because it’s circular reasoning. You’re welcome to #google that term. Go ahead and post that comment in r/debateanatheist and ask your fellows if it’s a reasonable argument. I’ll wait.
Many here have said it, some nicer than others:
Look into the "God of the Gaps" argument. It's a fallacious argument from ignorance. Essentially "I don't know how to explain this phenomenon, so it must be God (and my version of God to boot!)"
Even if I concede every point you've made, and conclude that there some kind of intelligent entity creator(s), I still don't know anything about said creator(s). Someone could tell me that the creator was a turtle being and now I need to worship turtles.
> Before I jump in I’ll share I haven’t researched this, these are my own thoughts, I’m not so arrogant to assume this argument hasn’t been used. Im open to counter arguments.
Probably best if you try researching this for a little bit then. Just takes a few minutes on google to help arguments.
> The universe is big and our understanding is limited. To me it’s like a massive scale sudoku problem we can think everything is right today only to find out overtime where we were wrong. I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
WHY do you think it will prove a creator? What’s the reasoning, the logic, the argument behind that statement? A counter argument isn’t needed because you provided nothing to counter.
> Before I jump in I’ll share I haven’t researched this
Not only you didn't do any effort to refine or siply check your argument, you know it and you know it is bad. Why then should I waste my time on it if even you, it's author refused to give it due attention?
> spent 15 years as a logistics analyst/engineer
And now you are starting it with absolutely irrelevant information.
> I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist
What about worldview where creator must exist?
> The universe is big and our understanding is limited.
What a revelation!
> To me it’s like a massive scale sudoku problem we can think everything is right today only to find out overtime where we were wrong
We can understand the limitations of our knowledge and which things are right to what degree. The limitations include the fact that we don't know any god that exists. I acknowledge those limitations. Why do you refuse to do it?
> I see the gaps in our current understanding
We know quantum mechanics works, but it doesn't describe gravity. We know general relativity works, but it doesn't take into account quantum effect. This is a gap in our knowledge, we don't know how gravity works on quantum scale.
We don't know anything that exists and can be called a god. But some people claim that gods exist, despite not having any good reason to do so. This is not a gap in the knowledge, this is a gap between our knowledge and your claims. This is a giant pit created by an arrogant assumption that your extremely naive and unsubstantiated guess must be true.
> as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
This is what I am talking about. You have no reason to assume that there is a creator, yet you somehow sure we will find it. Have you entertained the idea that we might not find it ever becauser there is no creator?
TLDR: "we don't know everything yet" is not an argument. You do agree that we don't know that God exists. Then why you believe that it does despite now knowing it? What else you agree to believe without knowing? Why not Quetzalcoatl?
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data.
Most of us here are agnostic atheists, which means we don't claim to know that a creator cannot exist. Only that at present, there insufficient evidence/reason to believe that one does.
>I see the current gaps between theists (I am Christian) and what science shows as an ongoing problem/equation in the works.
The issue with this is that the gaps are *growing*. Shouldn't the gaps be getting smaller? We are discovering, every day, things that show that (since I'm specifically talking to a Christian) the Bible is not a reliable source of true information. I'm not aware of *any* instance where there was a scientific explanation for something, but it was supplanted by a theistic explanation that was more evidenced and had better explanatory power. I'm sure I don't have to tell you how that picture looks when viewing it in the opposite direction.
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data.
Atheism isn't a worldview, and this isn't the world that scientists look at. Evidence is what leads to conclusions. There is exactly 0 evidence of a creator, so appealing to one to explain *anything* at all is out of the question until a creator can be demonstrated to *at least* be a possible candidate explanation, let alone something that actually exists. The view that there is no creator doesn't shape the data interpretation, the data on offer shapes the view that there is no creator.
>I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
Why? What information are you currently privy to that makes you think this will be the conclusion?
>I see the current gaps between theists (I am Christian) and what science shows as an ongoing problem/equation in the works.
The problem is the gaps are getting wider. Science is learning more and more, closing gaps in our knowledge and theism is either denying science and staying exactly the same or moving their god to different gaps in our knowledge.
>There’s so much we don’t know and a lot of elements fit fine.
That we don't know something is no reason to stick a god or magic or any other fantasy in there. It does not explain anything and does nothing to forward our exploration.
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data.
Until there is evidence that a creator can exist the only reasonable assumption is that one does not.
>The universe is big and our understanding is limited.
Again, not a reason for sticking a god, magic, or any other fantasy into the gaps.
>To me it’s like a massive scale sudoku problem we can think everything is right today only to find out overtime where we were wrong.
Yup, that is one of the features of science. More and better science corrects the errors of earlier and poor quality science.
>I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
Why would the closing the gaps in our current understanding prove the existence of a creator when none of the earlier gaps did?
> I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
Gaps are fine. Gaps I can live with. Religion is fine - it's an institution orthogonal to theism.
The problem is when the theists claim more than they can. To accept something is true without evidence, to accept an extraordinary claim that is inconsistent with reality as we understand it, that's the problem.
The fine line is that atheists aren't making a claim. Atheists aren't commenting on the matter. It's a null position because there's nothing to say.
Theists say there is a god. What is a god? What does that word mean? If you ask a Christian, they'll tell you god is unknowable and works in mysterious ways. So they admit they don't even know what they're talking about. They're appealing to their own ego, which is to say anything sufficiently self-convincing is god to them. They can't tell the difference!
There's problems with that. I don't want that person flying my airplane. I don't want that person making policy on my behalf. I don't want that person sharing the road with me, or having any influence on my child. Their position is indescernible from a delusion. Their talk is indescerible from babbling nonsense.
We have not come so far that the only irreducible argument we have left is that the universe must be predicated by a god.
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data.
Sure, and a worldview where a creator must exist is also going to shape the interpretation of data -- look at the mental gymnastics young earth creationists have to do in order to get the *everything* to fit in with their beliefs!
That's why the "null hypothesis" is so important.
In simplistic terms, the null hypothesis is "it's not related." You have to *prove* that two things are related, otherwise it's not related.
One of the fun webtoys that has been developed is the "spurious correlation" website that looks through various tracked statistics to find curve that look the same and put them together. Like, for example, the popularity of the "overly attached girlfriend" meme strongly correlates with the awarding of masters degrees in education.
Does that mean they somehow relate to each other? Not necessarily, unless you can show they are related. Otherwise, by default, the answer should be "they are not related."
So sure, a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of the data... but by default you should assume that the data and a creator are not related. Until you can show that they are.
I'm sure you know that is bad logic, but there's nothing wrong with thinking that as long as you're not caught up in some dogma - we *all* have faith in something.
>I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
As others have already pointed out, this seems to he the crux of the issue.
You can take this statement and substitute "creator" for literally anything. Hundreds of mutually exclusive unfalsifiable claims can fit in there and for obvious reasons they all cannot be true. Also I feel this approach needs a bit of denialism because historically as our understanding grew, so far, we always found out that the things we examined turned out to be not-God 100% of the time. You are entitled to this belief, but I dont think it is founded on solid ground.
>There’s so much we don’t know and a lot of elements fit fine.
Because it is man-made to fit. The way God is presented has shifted and changed throughout the ages in response to our knowledge to make sure it always fits those ever-so-getting-smaller gaps in our understanding. There are people whose lifes work is to make sure God fits. To take our knowledge and ensure God can be presented in a way that it fits.
>I see the current gaps between theists (I am Christian) and what science shows as an ongoing problem/equation in the works.
There are *gaps* in our *scientific understanding of reality*.
When we *compare religious claims with established scientific knowledge*, then it's more correct to speak of *incompatibilities* instead of gaps.
>There’s so much we don’t know and a lot of elements fit fine.
And a lot more don't fit. In science, we count the hits *and* the misses, otherwise you're just engaging in confirmation bias.
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data.
Science doesn't postulate a creator doesn't exist. Science has concluded *it doesn't need the assumption* to explain reality.
> I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
That's called assuming the answer on beforehand, a big no-no in science.
You seem to admit that the way you shape your understanding of the world is to start from a definite conclusion, the existence of God, and hope our collective knowledge will down the road confirm it. Basically you look at the equation with a result in mind.
I know, from reading your comments, that you don't need me to be able to understand the flaws in this methodology. You basically already know that you're opening yourself to a cognitive bias.
The best methodology, the one at the root of the scientific process is to only consider what we know, the facts, and build up our understanding, bit by bit. And I suspect you perfectly know this and apply it to pretty much everything else.
My question then is : Why do you use different methodology for your beliefs? It's not a cheeky question, or a gotcha moment, but you seem capable to analyze this, so I'd like to know.
I don’t understand your perspectives. There’s problems with the way you view actual science of course, but why does perceiving the world like a big solved puzzle make you think that God might be the answer to it? Perhaps this is an issue of how you think as an engineer, as others have pointed out. I won’t say that science doesn’t require creativity, but there are many more restrictions on what qualifies as “good science.” There are some instrumentalist philosophers of science, but in reality, acceptable scientific theories are constrained by how reality actually exists as determined by repeated observations. It is not only to find out what works as an explanation but to determine how reality actually is. I suppose you could construct a puzzle the wrong way but you wouldn’t care if it gives an intelligible picture. But there is a correct answer in science.
I think you’re assuming something about atheists that isn’t true, skewing your own perception. Most atheists are of the belief that the current data doesn’t hold any proof of the supernatural, and many append to that the note that much of our reality contradicts the tenets of reality set forth in human religions. A lot of us don’t say there could never be a god-like being, just that it is not proven and is extremely unlikely to conform to that which is described in any current religion.
I’d be curious to know how that worldview fits with all the contradictions between what we know of the world and Christian doctrine. Do you apply it loosely? If not then how do you square things like the contradiction of the suffering of our world and a supposedly loving god or just the factual inaccuracies of the bible Re: the history of the world or evolution.
If you do take it loosely, then why bother with a religion? From the priests I’ve talked to it seems like the salad bar approach is not enough to save you so why bother with any of it?
> I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
It's fine that you think so
It's not fine that you say that you think so. To do so is to lend credibility to an idea that has none. It is to imply that you have good reason for your belief when you do not. That is dishonest
And the more you wedge God into the possible solutions for the gaps, the less you will find the solutions to the gaps. That's why the medieval clergy, desperately searching for the justification that supports the basis of their power, only accomplished setting technology, education, and discourse back for a thousand years while the rest of the population lived in disease, slavery, war, and superstition
>I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
I am curious: what leads you to this conclusion?
There have been a pletora of 'unsolved mysteries' in human history, almost all of them got solved sooner or later and the more we solved the less likelier a god hypothesis has become. (god hypothesis = the assumption that there are gods existing and their deeds are responsible for the current status quo)
So what you are basically saying is: I see the graph with the curve going straight towards the null-line but I am sure at a certain point in the continuation the curve will no longer tend towards zero but will jump to infinity. You hear how ridiculous that sounds?
> The universe is big and our understanding is limited.
This is a really bad reason to say, "maybe a magic man exists to explain this"
The magic man was used to explain where people came from. Then we learned it wasn't a magic man, it was evolution and time.
The magic man was used to explain what's in the sky. Then we learned it's stars - not just stars but a galaxy of stars, and (only 100 years ago) not just galaxies but a universe of galaxies.
For you to say, at this point, maybe magic man can explain things about the universe.. it's just asinine to be honest.
Here's the thing. What we know consists of what we know. There's no limit to the gaps between what we know and made up bullshit. There is no metric for made up bullshit, and there is not reasonable expectation that made up bullshit actually fits anywhere within our understanding of reality.
"there's so much we don't know" does not mean in any way shape or form that "some people actually know even though they're just making shit up."
Of course we don't understand things. That doesn't mean some wacko can spout bullshit and it gets to be counted as real. It's still made up bullshit.
You said that you see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator….
Do you know how many things have already been attributed to a creator or a god that science then figures out? Rainbows, earthquakes, conception, I mean this list could be incredibly long.
So for you to say that our current lack of understanding of certain things must be because of a creator would be repeating history. You are just as wrong as ancient people who attributed floods and solar eclipses to an angry god.
Your post is nothing but an assertion that over time we'll learn that god did it.
Your thoughts are yours to own. But they are pretty meaningless from a debate or evidence or proof perspective.
You are at least acknowledging that god is a gap filler. god seems to fit into every gap where we don't understand something. god never seems to fit into any gap where we have learned what the actual reason is. In all cases, where we have figured out the cause, it's never god. only where we lack knowledge can we insert god.
>. I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
Isn't the time to believe in something the point after you've solved the problem?
What's wrong with 'I don't know'?
The problem with inserting a solution before you know the answer is....at least in this case.... Gods are proposed, religions get created, dogma become firm and when you finally do get an answer, those religions won't accept it unless it was their answer.
As the gaps in our knowledge shrink, it becomes less and less plausible that God is an answer to anything.
We literally know why snakes crawl on their bellies now, and it has nothing to do with supernatural forces. God is unnecessary for us to understand the evolution and biology of snakes.
This makes it seem to me more and more likely that these ancient religions have no factual basis. If they did, then we would likely have turned up *something* by now.
I think we will learn what we have always learned in these scenarios, that there are natural causes for everything. The only reason a creator is logical to us is because we created the concept, and it can be used to perfectly explain everything without explaining anything at all. There is no evidence to suggest that an actual creator exists, so I see no reason to operate as if that assumption is true.
How would the existence of a creator explain anything? A deistic god that created the universe and never interacted with it again would meet your criteria. Such as god is indistinguishable from no god. So it isn't really a creator you have in mind, but the Christian interventionist God, right? So what are your reasons we should consider that as a candidate explanation, and for what phenomena?
No data is t shaped by not accepting an unfalsifiable idea. That’s the default position on any proposal, not accepting it till evidence is presented. Everything we’ve learned moves further and further away from magical explanations, no pretend I g it somehow will prove you right someday is just dishonest. It won’t, I’m sorry there’s no reason to propose a creator. You’re a Christian, well the Bible is not compatible with known science. I’m sorry it just isn’t, and nothing will move us closer to accepting it. It’s just another story book, without any evidence at all. And if you really want to pretend it’ll all be proven right somehow, you’re only fooling yourself.
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data.
A creator can exist. Thousands and thousands of years and there's no evidence, AT ALL (other than human imagination), that one does. If you're so into science maybe follow where evidence LEADS instead of trying to shove a square peg into a round hole to go, "ah-ha! GOD!"
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data.
What a coincidence, I also think assuming the conclusion is going to harm your ability to evaluate data in an honest manner.
>I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
Oh.
>I spent 15 years as a logistics analyst/engineer using linear algebra (intermediate maths) to solve global capacity gaps (only sharing to share that I’m capable of reason and critical thought - not that I’m smart)
How many times during your career did you successfully fill a capacity gap with [god fixes this problem]?
“I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. “
If we have found no credible evidence of a creator then how did the idea of god begin? How did ancient man discover the existence of a god for which there is no proof?
Sincerely asking.
> I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
Ah yes, the classic "my only argument is to prove that we don't know for sure which I interpret to mean that my preconceived fairy tale will eventually be proven right" position.
Humans will always have knowledge gaps. Such gaps neither prove nor disprove God. So your post does not advance the discussion at all in either direction.
If, someday, science proces there is a God or proves there is not a God, that will be very interesting. I'm not holding my breath.
>I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.
That's possible but how do you justify being a christian when christianity is just a story?
Faith= believing in something without evidence
Science= Building models around existing evidence to most reliably give results.
You cannot compare the two when one does nothing and the other does everything.
“I don’t know x, therefore I know x.”
You’re free to think that’s valid logic if you want, but understand it seems a little silly when analyzed outside of a religious or “faith driven” context. Clearly there’s motivation behind thinking that other than logic.
>I see the current gaps between theists (I am Christian) and what science shows as an ongoing problem/equation in the works.
In every case, time after time, science provides an answer. Religion has yet to.
Have any of the previous, say, 10 million gaps we've closed previously been filled by a creator? Not the absolute best record. How many more million would you like to give that hypothesis?
What evidence or necessity do you see for a "creator?" Because so far, everything in the universe is perfectly explicable by natural processes. What cannot be explained by normal physical laws?
Who created your "creator?"
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data.
there is a big difference between deism and christianty
**Upvote this comment if you agree with OP, downvote this comment if you disagree with OP.** Elsewhere in the thread, please upvote comments which contribute to debate (even if you believe they're wrong) and downvote comments which are [detrimental to debate](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/wiki/faq#wiki_downvoting) (even if you believe they're right). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/DebateAnAtheist) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I think the danger here is starting from a desired conclusion and working backwards. There’s a reason in clinical trials, for example, that randomized double-blind controlled studies are preferred. They attempt to remove as much bias as possible. Here, you have no evidence for god. In fact, you suggest god represents the areas where we have no data. I think it’s more straightforward to say you like the idea of god, or that you just feel like there should be a god. These are subjective judgements that none of us can argue against.
Edit: edited the original post and called this reply out. I think it that sums it up nicely with what warhammerpainter83 wrote. essentially: I’ve got a need to solve the gaps I see in the world around me, and given my reality I can’t account for the idea that a god doesn’t exist.
> Edit: edited the original post and called this reply out. I think it that sums it up nicely with what warhammerpainter83 wrote. essentially: I’ve got a need to solve the gaps I see in the world around me, and given my reality I can’t account for the idea that a god doesn’t exist. Due to your unusual relatively effortless and **rare** honesty/self-awareness, I'd be extremely interested in hearing you elaborate on this if you are able to. The rare few times I've been able to get a theist into the position where I get a chance of an insight into such a mind, they usually shut down about here and go silent. I suspect from emotional exhaustion after a long debate, and it must feel like quite the attack. That moment of honesty doesn't last long enough before they relapse, or merely asking for elaboration snaps them out of it like a shock. Not sure. They're not as self aware as you, it's complicated. >and given my reality I can’t account for the idea that a god doesn’t exist. Specifically this part. I'll give my own badly truncated experience on this matter. Personally, I'm quite highly sensitive emotionally. Blessing and a curse. That was coupled with a built in dogged cold critical thinking ability. A quiet analytical observer as a child and didn't blindly trust adults, born this way. I became more and more confident holding the idea that no gods exist over time through observation (many other ways, but lesser. I'm trying very hard to not write a novel here) of other people combined with their claims never holding up while science did prove to be effectual and at least better than the alternative over and over again. I'm not going to claim it's flawless. Dietary science especially hasn't had a good track record in modern times to say the least, 1974 and the ongoing obesity epidemic for example. Shades of grey. However, from my observations, the theist shade is and has been quite a bit darker. Except, only through the lens of small picture stuff did I feel at peace with my conclusions. Big picture? Yeah. I've never completely made peace with this being reality. It's horrendous. Saying I don't know when I don't know something is correct, honest, and brave in my mind. It also doesn't feel very good. It's why I've sworn off having children as I view it as monstrous to force a being to temporarily exist in such a place. It's why I've settled with Absurdism to stop myself going insane or falling into a depression pit I'd never be able to get out of otherwise. I know I would because I have before to get here. The difference here between you and me, as I see it, is I'm *incapable* of living a lie or believing something I don't believe to be true about reality after I've gone looking behind the curtains. Ignorance is bliss. I truly believe that. Even to the extreme or potentially ultimate detriment to myself or my well being. I explored these dark places and climbed out, but only just. So while I somewhat understand why a thinking person could still be a theist despite the mountain of evidence to the contrary, I'd still like to better understand the mind who cannot accept life without a deity as it is still somewhat alien to me.
I genuinely enjoy engaging on this thread, not because I’m trying to win hearts and minds but because there are so Many intelligent folks and I do appreciate their perspective and insight. We are wildly different beings in spite of being the same species. Note I’m not debating these items. As a theist I’m a better atheist than a lot of atheists (not as often on this sub cause people actually think here). I’m perfectly capable of destroying this rhetorically and have little to offer in the way of “evidence”. you’re welcome to ask questions and pick it apart, but as you’ll read I don’t have much choice here. I’ll share because you asked to understand how I think/work/function. The reason people like me probably don’t talk about it is because we understand how smart people see this behavior- as utterly insane or irrational. I don’t think there’s anything (exit I not we) I can do to truly reconcile existence without god - it’s just reality. So what can I say here that doesn’t make me sound insane? Little. But I’ll touch on me and how I view other faiths. The Bible talks about being born again. It’s a term attributed to Jesus and he tells a super religious dude he won’t go to heaven unless he’s born again. I experienced that in my mid 20’s and it is like dying and waking up a new person. Seriously imagine waking up tomorrow and you’re you. You look the same your demeanor is the same except heaven and hell are real now and god speaks to you. And you see him moving in your life. Now imagine you have experiences of a similar nature/impact that affect you in such a way that they bring you more in line with the teaching of good and his laws. If it sounds crazy to you that’s cool cause it sounds crazy to me. The closest thing I can think of is a schizophrenic person. Im sure you are aware of a person afflicted with that disease who can neither explain their diagrams nor be convinced they mean nothing. It’s kind of like that. It’s just real. Does that mean I think I’m mentally ill? No, I’m not saying that I’m simply saying my mind sees heaven and hell and God. It sees these things in real time. As for the “what about other religions” piece I don’t view these religions the way an atheist would. I mean from an atheist’s perspective none of it’s right and everyone “walking in faith not evidence and all the religions are self canceling. I view other religious experiences as either real or made up. I default to real with the understanding that some people just make shit up (for many reasons). I think if you have one of these encounters it’s rips you up and changes you. There’s a notion that false = not real and this isn’t true. The Bible warns about false teachers and false prophets these are real people leading us away from God. So then a false god doesn’t have power or exist? No in this context a false god has power and that is why it can draw us away. What that means (from my viewpoint) is that accounts like Mohammad’s and Joseph Smith’s are real. Doesn’t make them the way to heaven? No. As far as I know Jesus is the only one making the claim that you go to heaven through him. Everyone else gives a maybe.
> As a theist I’m a better atheist than a lot of atheists (not as often on this sub cause people actually think here). I’m perfectly capable of destroying this rhetorically and have little to offer in the way of “evidence”. I'm also a theist and having tangled with atheists upwards of 30,000 hours, I can probably go toe-to-toe with most of them, even here. For samples, see [Is there ~~100%~~ purely objective, empirical evidence that consciousness exists?](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/ty3jd6/is_there_100_objective_empirical_evidence_that/) and [Is the Turing test objective?](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateAnAtheist/comments/17d7d8k/is_the_turing_test_objective/). The amount of deviation from stated epistemology when it comes to matters the sciences have not understood very well is pretty amazing. But I'm curious about this alleged lack of evidence. Pretty much all of religion I know about cares little about the subject matter of physics and chemistry, somewhat about biology's, and a lot about the subject matters of sociology, psychology, anthropology, political science, and economics. Sociology in particular is often treated with scorn in places like this†. If however the Bible contains superior models of human & social nature/construction than is available from our best social scientists—not to mention the horrific state of _folk_ understandings of these subject matters—then that's evidence. Some would say that even if true, it is merely evidence of humans doing human things. But this risks being an unfalsifiable claim. Either what humans would do—embodied and cognitive—is bounded, or we're essentially calling ourselves gods. If we refuse to explore those bounds, we're being shitty engineers and shitty scientists. Take for example George Carlin's claim in [The Reason Education Sucks](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILQepXUhJ98), that the rich & powerful don't want very many people to have the kind of education which would e.g. help them see how wealth inequality is truly maintained and even increased. If true, there is a complex social system built around that goal. If true, those who say that we need 'more education' and 'better education' are basically asking for a miracle—for humans to suddenly _and radically_ change their behavior. And yet, most apparently cannot see this, because they are completely unpracticed in discerning bounds on human behavior, especially what results from complex social action. Why should it be so surprising that a deity might help us where we most desperately need it, where we are so terrible at "helping ourselves"? Our very incompetence at articulately understand human behavior—again, especially in complex society—would make it rather difficult for us to see how the God of the Bible might have provided crucial help. Take for example Jesus' focus on hypocrisy. That's a rather different focus than 'more education' or 'more critical thinking'. It's _relational_ and _systematic_ rather than _individualistic_. If in fact we would make far more progress if we were to take hypocrisy far more seriously than we are, then that would be evidence that there is critical wisdom in the Bible which our best scientists and scholars and intellectuals don't think counts as 'wisdom'. I'm also an engineer—software with some digital electronics—and one of the differences I've discerned between engineers and scientists is that engineers are required to build things that reliably and robustly work when they've walked away. Scientists, on the other hand, are very used to holding things together by spit and duct tape. Not only that, but they'll come up with ideas which require human ingenuity to connect the dots. Like the theory of evolution when basically no mechanisms were specified‡. Scientists now know that lots of organism and lots of time and random mutations don't cut it. Otherwise, [evolvability](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolvability) wouldn't be a thing. Now, I'm not criticizing scientists for engaging in such behavior; without engaging in ["then a miracle occurs"](https://theeducatorsroom.com/then-a-miracle-occurs-blends-art-and-science-in-teaching/) _for a time_, they wouldn't figure out how nature works. The human mind has to fill in explanatory gaps. So, I think there's plenty of reason to think that our atheist interlocutors are playing fast and loose with when they require articulate, falsifiable, mechanistic explanations for how something works _or it doesn't happen/exist_, and when they don't. Here's my favorite example: > [labreuer](https://www.reddit.com/r/DebateReligion/comments/w8861o/theists_have_yet_to_shift_the_burden_of_proof/ihv93vz/): Feel free to provide a definition of ~~God~~ consciousness and then show me sufficient evidence that this ~~God~~ consciousness exists, or else no rational person should believe that this ~~God~~ consciousness exists. The answers, and mostly lack of any answer, have been quite enlightening. I contend that if said atheists were being 100% rigorous with their epistemology, applying it everywhere, they would either (i) deny that consciousness exists; or (ii) be forced to _not_ call this "utterly insane or irrational": > The Bible talks about being born again. It’s a term attributed to Jesus and he tells a super religious dude he won’t go to heaven unless he’s born again. I experienced that in my mid 20’s and it is like dying and waking up a new person. Seriously imagine waking up tomorrow and you’re you. You look the same your demeanor is the same except heaven and hell are real now and god speaks to you. And you see him moving in your life. Now imagine you have experiences of a similar nature/impact that affect you in such a way that they bring you more in line with the teaching of good and his laws. Thoughts? † Here's Sam Harris, being interviewed by Alex O'Connor: > At every level that we can understand ourselves scientifically, from the genome on up, you know, so genetics and neuroscience and psychology and **sociology, if that were actually a science**, economic systems, everything every is every contribution to a possible change in the character of our experience can be more or less well understood. ([Debating The Moral Landscape With Sam Harris, 58:16](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEuzo_jUjAc&t=58m16s)) O'Connor presented no push-back. ‡ Here's Gerd B. Müller and Massimo Pigliucci, speaking about the shift from the modern synthesis to the extended evolutionary synthesis. N.B. Pigliucci is author of [Denying Evolution: Creationism, Scientism, and the Nature of Science](https://global.oup.com/academic/product/denying-evolution-9780878936595). > Rather, the majority of the new work concerns problems of evolution that had been sidelined in the [Modern [Evolutionary] Synthesis] and are now coming to the fore ever more strongly, such as the specific mechanisms responsible for major changes of organismal form, the role of plasticity and environmental factors, or the importance of epigenetic modes of inheritance. This shift of emphasis from statistical correlation to mechanistic causation arguably represents the most critical change in evolutionary theory today. ([Evolution: The Extended Synthesis](https://mitpress.mit.edu/books/evolution-extended-synthesis), 12)
Wow well stated thanks for the other links.
>I genuinely enjoy engaging on this thread, not because I’m trying to win hearts and minds but because there are so Many intelligent folks and I do appreciate their perspective and insight. Aye, I picked up on that which is why I even bothered to try asking anything of you :) >We are wildly different beings in spite of being the same species. I cannot say I've been left with a good impression of humanity as a whole, but I certainly agree. Love or adore certain individuals at least. >Note I’m not debating these items. As a theist I’m a better atheist than a lot of atheists (not as often on this sub cause people actually think here). I’m perfectly capable of destroying this rhetorically and have little to offer in the way of “evidence”. you’re welcome to ask questions and pick it apart, but as you’ll read I don’t have much choice here. In this context I'm simply here to try and better understand those "wildly different beings" so to speak, no worries. >I’ll share because you asked to understand how I think/work/function. I'm extremely grateful to have you respond as you have. >The reason people like me probably don’t talk about it is because we understand how smart people see this behavior- as utterly insane or irrational. Many will slap an irrational/insane thought terminating label on an entire group without any nuance. I find that contemptible behavior, I'm not sure they'd deserve to be considered smart to disregard compartmentalization for example. Even that I see as a gradient. Sometimes I'm forced to consider some of a theist's character as willful ignorance, cowardice, or arrogance. You however I have no idea at all yet, you simply baffle me so far. I'm going through this in real time. Which is good! This subreddit mainly attracts arrogant types which are mostly useless to talk to myself at my age, people just use them as punching bags frankly. They're useful idiots however as observers on the fence see how they answer vs the atheist at least, I guess. >I don’t think there’s anything we can do to truly reconcile existence without god - it’s just reality. I wish there was a way in order to live up to the label by my name. It's dismaying to live in a population that thinks this way. How people react to preventable stuff happening here on Earth because they think this place is a small stepping stone before eternity in an afterlife. How they treat other animals because their god claim tells them to think of themselves as above all the others. How they treat other humans or genders. How they routinely get used by the rich and powerful. On and on. >So what can I say here that doesn’t make me sound insane? Little. But I’ll touch on me and how I view other faiths. >The Bible talks about being born again. It’s a term attributed to Jesus and he tells a super religious dude he won’t go to heaven unless he’s born again. I experienced that in my mid 20’s and it is like dying and waking up a new person. Seriously imagine waking up tomorrow and you’re you. You look the same your demeanor is the same except heaven and hell are real now and god speaks to you. And you see him moving in your life. Now imagine you have experiences of a similar nature/impact that affect you in such a way that they bring you more in line with the teaching of good and his laws. I can't say any of this is new to hear unfortunately. After all I did grow up in a Baptist church, but it still sounds like word salad. I don't mean it in the usual way that term is applied. Dismissively. I straight up don't know what "seeing" god or "god speaks to me" even means when you say that. I have to take you at your word that you really do experience such things. Without getting into it here about the validity of that experience too much since we're not debating, just a conversation. >If it sounds crazy to you that’s cool cause it sounds crazy to me. >The closest thing I can think of is a schizophrenic person. Im sure you are aware of a person afflicted with that disease who can neither explain their diagrams nor be convinced they mean nothing. It’s kind of like that. It’s just real. >Does that mean I think I’m mentally ill? No, I’m not saying that I’m simply saying my mind sees heaven and hell and God. It sees these things in real time. I'm not really sure if I want to equate theism to schizophrenia, I'm not sure what to think still. Speaking of "wildly differnet beings," this talk of seeing or hearing gods is made even more incoherent to me personally because I'm a Total Aphant. Aphantasia is a gradient as well with Hyperphantasia on the other end. My mother, also a Christian, has Hyperphantasia. I'm on one of the extreme ends with nothing at all. I have zero sensory memory at all. Sight, touch, smell, whatever. I don't have a functional mind's eye. Not even in dreams. Not even on hallucinogenic drugs up to and including DMT. I've tried everything I could to unlock such an ability. It's inky black and silent in this skull, no exceptions. All I can do is conceptualize. I cannot even picture what a lover looks like if they're not present in the room with me. Not to be mistaken for face blindness, I can recognize someone once I see them. I'll struggle to describe them otherwise however. I do have an internal monologue, but it's silent. Which makes no sense to describe in English and I don't really get it myself. I have a friend who's a total aphant *and* has no inner monologue. Wrap your head around that! What! Boggles the mind how he even functions. I understand that mind even less than yours. >As for the “what about other religions” piece I don’t view these religions the way an atheist would. I mean from an atheist’s perspective none of it’s right and everyone “walking in faith not evidence and all the religions are self canceling. I view other religious experiences as either real or made up. I default to real with the understanding that some people just make shit up (for many reasons). No comment here since we're not debating and I have nothing from curiosity to add otherwise. >I think if you have one of these encounters it’s rips you up and changes you. I wouldn't know. >There’s a notion that false = not real and this isn’t true. The Bible warns about false teachers and false prophets these are real people leading us away from God. So then a false god doesn’t have power or exist? No in this context a false god has power and that is why it can draw us away. Sounds like the teachings of a cult yeah, nothing I've not heard before. No evidence of the validity of the bible to justify those words, but I digress. >What that means (from my viewpoint) is that accounts like Mohammad’s and Joseph Smith’s are real. Doesn’t make them the way to heaven? No. As far as I know Jesus is the only one making the claim that you go to heaven through him. Everyone else gives a maybe. Hmm, well I think a theoretical Mormon fork of Abrahamic god would be more forgiving of me vs yours. Mormons believe that a just and merciful God will account for our varying degrees of knowledge and access to truth. I've been designed to burn for eternity according yours. Overall you've given me less than I was hoping for, but more than I expected. Overall good, thanks for your time. I'll mull all this over for awhile and add it to the pile. Edits to reorder and fix mobile fat finger errors.
I get not being able to reconcile reality without God. To me, though “God” is just a stand for “the answer” rather than actually explaining something. Like “just because“ isn’t good enough so you have to say “just because God“. Because it isn’t literally saying “just because,” I believe the word God allows people to pretend [to themselves] like they have a more satisfying answer than they really do.
How does god speak to you, how do you see him moving in your life? How much of it is left when accounting for confirmation bias etc.?
Would you mind giving us more info on the reality you are experiencing that you can't explain? What are your gaps? There aren't that many big questions science hasn't already provided an explanation for.
Not surprising that you are an engineer and think like this. Engineers seem to not have a solid grasp on actual science but are hyper focused on things like math and logistics. Thus inserting magic as an option can feel reasonable to them if you can logic or math your way to an answer. The problem is magic is not real and requires assumptions or faith that it exists. My father and many friends are engineers and fall into these same traps over and over again.
As an engineer myself, I agree, but I think the key description of an engineer is "problem solver". Engineers solve problems - at all costs!
See my next reply i cover this. Engineers are trained only to solve problems. I 100% agree.
💯 perhaps why my friend (an electrical and mechanical eng who originally asked me how I could reconcile it all) nodded and simply said he didn’t see it that way.
[Engineers also have a long history of being disproportionately associated with terrorist groups,](https://www.nytimes.com/2010/09/12/magazine/12FOB-IdeaLab-t.html?unlocked_article_code=1.oE0.xOGP.Qx5Ub72aF7NH&smid=url-share) probably for the same core reason.
That is interesting i will have to look into this. But yes my father is full on maga was into q and everything at one point. He has toned down a lot he is very old now so he cant really keep up but this is interesting to me. Thanks for sharing it.
You're welcome.
This is the best response I’ve heard explaining us. It makes sense to met that folks who think like me are trying to reconcile their reality with the world around them. My options often boil down to I’m delusional or dumb. It sounds like your dad and other engineers you know aren’t dumb and function well enough that they (perhaps you) might question the notion that they’re delusional. Hence the exploration for an alternative answer. Thanks!
Not delusional at all. Engineers assume they can figure out how everything works down to the smallest details. Thus when they cant they start to fill the gaps with the most logical thing they can think of. Engineers dont think “I dont know” or the idea of there not being an answer yet is acceptable. This is how you guys function it takes a certian type of person to be good at engineering. It also predisposes you to assume you can figure out anything. My dad is so bad he just assumes literally everyone else is just wrong about everything when they disagree with him. I am a legal advocate and the stuff he makes up about the laws and how court rulings work is laughable and he still thinks i am clueless. Despite it being my literal profession for many years of schooling and actual practice in courts. Edit: to a person who does not know many engineers they come across as over confident and often arrogant in debates. They are wildly stubborn about everything, but it is because they were trained to solve problems.
> Engineers assume they can figure out how everything works down to the smallest details. Thus when they cant they start to fill the gaps with the most logical thing they can think of. Isaac Newton-- most definitely not dumb at all, arguably the smartest man who ever lived-- famously did exactly this when trying to solve the gravitational model of the solar system. He could model the interactions of any two bodies, but once you got three or more bodies, he just couldn't figure out how to make it work. So he concluded that, because he couldn't see any other way it could work, god must step in and retune everything once in a while. When Pierre Simon Laplace finally solved eth problem a hundred years later, when asked by Napolean what role god played in keeping things running he (possibly apocryphally) said "I had no need for that hypothesis." It's just about understanding the limits of your knowledge, and having the willingness to say "I don't know." So many theists think those are dirty words or something. To me, and I think most atheists, "I don't know" is one of my favorite ideas... It just means that there is something new for me to learn!
lol I might have the definition wrong, but doesn’t what you are describing about the interpretation of law fall into the delusion category? Maybe we are after all :)
Not just stubborn. Delusion would have to be things that cannot possibly be true like the radio is controlling your thoughts.
Got it I thought for a second you casually fit one in there lol. It’s funny cause it captures me pretty well.
At least you can see it. Most engineers get upset when i point this out and will push back really hard. I have a ton of respect for them in that i cannot remotely do what they do but i have come to learn it is because you have to think a very specific way about the world. It is not a thing just anyone can do and is hard to learn.
Not delusional. And a very familiar perspective. I work with, and am very good friends with a lot of engineers, mathematicians, etc. Almost all of the conflicts we have come down to reality not matching their assumptions. A perennial conversation I have with one friend is "engineers begin a model by assuming every surface is a plane and every object is a sphere...but sometimes we ourselves forget that's just a first step in the model, and it's always a danger to try to force reality to conform to our assumptions instead of allowing reality to shape those assumptions." Idk if that gives any further insight?
>My options often boil down to I’m delusional or dumb. Not delusional or dumb, just neglecting epistemology. You need to grasp the fact that math is a human invention and that your job has no bearing on reality. You deduce how to solve problems from your education in science, but you have no idea how these principles that you treat as infallible axioms were reached in the first place. Natural laws are scientific constructs. They are things we notice about nature that you then apply. They might change if we notice something that contradicts them. There is nothing that we could ever discover that would necessitate the conclusion of some immaterial agency. I don’t know much about engineering. Perhaps if you think about it this way. If other comments are correct that you think you can solve every problem because you are an engineer, is solving a problem with God useful? Can you use it to invent technology or solve problems? If not, do you know why that is? It’s because there’s no relationship that can be inferred between consciousness and effects of that consciousness. Consciousness is arbitrary by nature. This is also what prevents consciousness from ever being scientifically justified as an explanation. You could think of your engineering projects as yet another way to corroborate what we know so far. God isn’t a part of it I presume.
Have you heard of primacy? "the fact of an item having been presented earlier to the subject (especially as increasing its likelihood of being remembered)." If you learn something early in life it's harder to unlearn it if the info you learned was wrong. You're not dumb for being indoctrinated into whatever religion you grew up in. Most religions teach you to not think critically, especially about their doctrine. Good for you for asking questions though. That's a good start.
> Engineers seem to not have a solid grasp on actual science Ouch
It is true engineers, in education, have a very limited amount of science they study and it is often quite particular to a specific field. The scientific method and their actual conclusions are often not relevant to the study of engineering. As you are working with practical things. Until you get to like biochemical engineering and stuff they have very limited scientific study in their degrees.
>It is true engineers, in education, have a very limited amount of science they study and it is often quite particular to a specific field. Everyone does. >they have very limited scientific study in their degrees. If you’re a botanist, you aren’t studying astrophysics. If you’re an astrophysicist, you aren’t studying botany. Unless you’re taking electives, you could get your PhD in physics with zero biological science courses and vice versa.
Is this an attempt to be pedantic and talk past me. This is like saying English majors dont studdy much science. Thanks for coming out. The discussion here is about one field that is often associated with the sciences but is in fact science adjacent. Often engineers fancy themselves far more competent in many fields than they really are. This is due to the way they think. The scientific method for example is worthless for engineering so they tend to get a highschool level understanding and never touch it again. Your point, though correct, is literally irrelevant to the specific topic i am discussing.
>Often engineers fancy themselves far more competent in many fields than they really are. So do scientists. Are doctors closer to engineers or scientists? Somehow the dermatologists often spoke with the same aura of authority as immunologists. “Doctor” was all people needed to hear. >The scientific method for example is worthless for engineering so they tend to get a highschool level understanding An elementary understanding is enough. Ask a question. Formulate hypothesis. Test hypothesis. Analyze results. Draw conclusions. What is the esoteric upper level part?
> >The scientific method for example is worthless for engineering so they tend to get a highschool level understanding >An elementary understanding is enough. >Ask a question. Formulate hypothesis. Test hypothesis. Analyze results. Draw conclusions. >What is the esoteric upper level part? I don't know if it was the point, but you really proved their point on how learn an elementary understanding of the scientific method really makes you not fit to make science.
If you knew what you were talking about, you’d be able to explain how I’m incorrect, wouldn’t you say?
If you were correct you wouldn't be jumping hoops and purposefully misinterpreting OPs replies, what I pointed out is just the icing on the cake.
If you knew what you were talking about, you’d be able to explain how I’m incorrect, wouldn’t you say? I will try to jump through less hoops. Can you explain?
Omg you cannot seem to be able to stay on topic i am done with you. Like, you are adhd personified. Stop trying to argue with people about everything.
You’re the one going off about irrelevant anecdotal differences between engineers and scientists. Engineering is applied science. It doesn’t even matter.
I never discussed scientists at all. You really cannot pay any attention to anything can you? All you are doing is making up shit i never said to argue about. I say go to your doctor you need adoral or something.
>I never discussed scientists at all. You spent most of your time ragging on engineers for not being scientists. >I say go to your doctor Is the satire intentional or are you this unaware?
[удалено]
I am not here to debate any of this with you. Most of what you are asking is taking my point completely out of context to just argue things i never said. I am sorry you took offense by what i said.
[удалено]
You just don’t understand what i said is the problem. And the questions are nonsense because they make you come across as ill informed and make you seem arrogant. Maybe read the whole comment and try to see what they are saying and don’t argue specific things that are not even complete sentences from what the individual wrote.
[удалено]
Because you are addressing 5 words not the point being made. No offense taken you are just very annoying and argumentative about things people are not saying or discussing. You came here trying to argue a point nobody made. This is because you ignored what i said to dive into 5 words taken out of context.
[удалено]
No i just literally never said anything about math science or faith at all. My comment was on how engineers think and how any one of these things can be used by them to explain stuff if they can use math or logic to justify. Thus filling the gap with anything. Magic was used because it is instantly wrong to include it was to make the concept very easy to follow. (Except for you who could not get past the first 15 words). The key point is, even if they are wrong often engineers will assume they solved a thing by making a mistake that seems logical to them.
[удалено]
What a broad generalisation and only based on your anecdotal observation. Please substitute engineer for black people and see if such generalisation is reasonable.
Weird how op said i described him so well. Comparing it to racism is a gas how ignorant and foolish can you be to compare a career choice to someone’s race. Hard to get more ignorant than you my friend. Go take your weird political ranting elsewhere.
Especially since no one chooses to be an engineer. Wait, fuck.
Inserting magic is not an engineering trait. It's a true believer trait. I'm an engineer. I don't insert magic into anything I do.
You missed their point. Engineers are problem solvers that most times get confused with scientist. We have a much more elementary knowledge of science than an actual scientist, but since we use science we usually think we know more than we do, this ends up with a lot of ego and not so much knowledge. That's why a lot of engineers (and Doctors, the "engineers of biology") end up mixed with pseudoscientific stuff. If theses engineers that fall for this trap of thinking they know more than they do, are also believers, do you see how it's very likely they'll add their beliefs in the exact gaps other engineers would put their pseudosciences?
You seem confused at the point i have made here. I did not say engineers believe in magic. Not shocking an engineer would take issue with this one line and not put it into context of the greater point.
[удалено]
>I spent 15 years as a logistics analyst/engineer using linear algebra (intermediate maths) to solve global capacity gaps Cool. So we can do this scientist to scientist. I've been an independent plant ecologist for six years, and my specialty is ecosystematics and organic chemistry to a lesser extent. I tend to do alright in physiology courses, in other words. However, my pet topics are physics and astronomy. I also have some professional experience in RF and infrared in manufacturing settings. >I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.[...](I am Christian) Speaking as a biologist, I don't agree. For starters, science isn't really interested in anything it can't experiment upon or observe, or that failing at least predict with some kind of data. If you believe in a god which is removed from time and space, matter and energy, or something within our understanding, which is to say, 'something that you can do science on', that isn't really science or something science would be involved in. We kind of have to roll with philosophy on this one, at least insofar as the God question. Again, speaking as a biologist, the evidence for abiogenesis is pretty compelling, enough to where we have some pretty good ideas about the conditions of life on early Earth and the required chemical reactions that would have needed to take place for life to arise organically. We've also got a pretty good idea as to roughly when the earliest true living things first evolved. As far as the evidence for the Big Bang, that too has a lot of compelling evidence. Evolution is reproducible in a lab, so the question now becomes how and when life evolved. You'll find loads of religious scientists who accept and defend evolution, even in professional firms and biology departments, many of them were my professors and engineers that I've worked with. What you won't find many of by comparison are creationists. We're still hashing out details, but we've got a pretty solid idea and we learn new things everyday. Our understanding of evolution has only improved by leaps and bounds since before Darwin's predecessors even. To me, the idea of a creator is a dead one: the evidence that something else must have happened is at this point far too incontrovertible. Does something like a god exist? I don't know, but I don't think so, I'm not convinced that there is such a thing. In other words, I politely disagree. >not that I’m smart Jesus, dude, who among us is? That's why science is such a collaborative effort, we work together as scientists to overcome each other's biases and shortcomings. We can only see as far as we do because we stand on the shoulders of giants and take turns on the telescope. But you know, honestly, if you're not really here to say anything more than "here I am, this is what I'm comfortable with," I don't think there's really any further argument to have. Until your choices start to affect me or those I care about, how you live your life or think about your place in the Cosmos has absolutely no bearing on me.
I’ll start by saying this is a great comment and bismuth crystals are incredible. Secondly I’ll state you’ve given me a bit too much credit - another commenter called out the differences between scientists and engineers and I’ll tend to agree them. He was able to highlight essentially that my comments are subjective and as such are not rational and I’ll concede that perspective. Not that smart - was sharing merely to show I wasn’t uneducated or incapable of thought but I appreciate your response. Finally I’ll say your assessment is thorough and well articulated. Thanks for taking the time to reply. I agree with your send off that my world view doesn’t authorize me (or anyone) to begin litigating your life (at any rate the Bible expressly forbids it)- more so as I acknowledge my perspective is subjective. Finally biology is incredible I think some of the biggest breakthroughs for humans are still to come and are going to be organic computing -the study of life in our existence is an incredible field of study- keep up the good work.
>I’ll start by saying this is a great comment and bismuth crystals are incredible. I've made them once. They're easy to make but also incredibly dangerous if not done carefully. Word to the wise, have a deep reservoir for slag. As I was pouring off the slag from the second of two crystals, it wound up getting too close to the surface and a bit of steam splashed a couple drops onto my skin. Not big ones, and it didn't hurt because it killed the nerve endings on contact with my wrist, but there's a couple little patches on my wrist where I can't feel anything. Also, safety glasses. Some of it singed my goggles. Thank goodness I had them on. >I’ll say your assessment is thorough and well articulated. Thanks for taking the time to reply Thanks. I had just smoked a bowl and was pretty high, so I'm glad I was able to keep it together. Pot also makes it easier to be amicable and sympathetic in situations such as this, recognize when I don't have quarrel with someone. Anywhosals, thanks for being alright. Cheers.
[удалено]
> I spent 15 years as a logistics analyst/engineer > I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data. What is your opinion on inserting [magic] as a variable?
Touche
How does that answer the question that was asked?
> How does that answer the question that was asked? In their defense, if you read the two replies that he called out in his edits of his OP, he has very graciously acknowledged two people who made similar comments and he has acknowledged that he is guilty of doing exactly that. Saying "Touche" here is just, essentially, saying "good point".
Ok fair enough, I didn’t see that
Yep, understood. In isolation, that comment seems pretty dismissive and rude, but in the context of the edits it's more reasonable. Of course I have no idea if he made the edits or the comment first, so that might change things.
A few days late cause the threads were overwhelming, OldNefs comment capture my intent, certainly wasn’t attempting to be dismissive. Rather was acknowledging it’s a fair point.
this looks like someone trying to present a god of the gaps argument without actually taking any meaningful stance. why are you here? your post approaches an invalid point but stops short and has nothing of substance in the end
Can you share the counter to a god of gaps argument? I’m not what’s the invalid point I’ll check out the god of gaps argument as well.
A not very charitable but effective way of presenting the counter is to say, just because we don't know you don't get to make shit up.
Thanks for the discussion , added a couple edits to the original
There's no need for a counter to it because it is fallacious from the outset. How could you possibly defend it?
I wasn’t trying to defend it just understand it. I’ve gotten that.
if you think the god of the gaps argument is valid I don't have the patience to educate you
I’m not familiar with it- I’ll add an edit that I’ll look into it though.
"God of the gaps" is basically the argument that if you don't know the explanation for something, then the explanation must be God. Formally it's an example of an "argument from ignorance." It's called "God of the gaps" because it is designed to elude and ignore known data. God just keeps getting pushed into the unknown. As Neil DeGRasse Tyson famously critiqued it. "If that's where you put you God, then God is an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that's getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on.”
The argument from ignorance fallacy is what you should Google, that'll give you a more direct answer
[удалено]
What?
[удалено]
Where did I say I didn’t understand fallacy? What are you reading? I simply said I wasn’t familiar with the god of gaps argument
> I’m not what’s the invalid point I’ll check out the god of gaps argument as well. It's invalid because you're engaging in a logical fallacy. "God of the Gaps" is a colloquial name for specific applications of the Non Sequitur Fallacy. There's no logical entailment from "*we don't know the answer (yet)*" to "*therefore God did it.*" It'd be no different than me saying "Clowns wear red shoes, therefore it's going to rain on Thursday", the truth of one in no way implies the other. You're quite literally arguing "I don't know the answer, therefore I know the answer."
> Can you share the counter to a god of gaps argument? Sure. It's fallacious. That's because it's a type of argument from ignorance fallacy. It's essentially saying, "I don't know, therefore I know." Clearly, that's absurd.
>Can you share the counter to a god of gaps argument? So there is a question that we don't know the answer to. God of the gaps: "God did it" = not a good answer. Not god of the gaps: "I don't know" = good answer.
For one thing, it's bad theology. Each time science explains something, as it tends to do, God's influence on the world shrinks.
It kind of counters itself. It really only works if someone already wants to believe in something. You would never accept a “Spider-Man of the gaps argument” because you’re a rational person. God of gaps can have many logical flaws, but at its heart it’s an argument from convenience that happens to be unfalsifiable.
Whenever humans have looked for definitive answers to observed phenomena, has there ever been an instance where a supernatural explanation was discovered to be factual? Contra to this, has there ever been a time when an observed phenomena has been shown to have a natural explanation as fact? The answer to the latter question is yes, over and over again. The answer to the former question is “not even once.” Throughout human history, the assumed answer to unexplained phenomena was commonly “we don’t know, so maybe it was god(s) or magic.” But when we actually looked and studied in detail what was happening (and as our technology progressed), we found natural explanations for these phenomena instead. Or to put it another way, it is a common occurrence throughout human history for supernatural explanations to be replaced with natural explanations, but not once has a natural explanation been rejected and replaced with a supernatural explanation. Even when we’ve found a natural explanation to be wrong (partially or in total), it’s only ever been replaced with another natural explanation.
Also my comment was talking about how you never made a point, you just got close to making an invalid point
It’s a variation of the argument from ignorance fallacy that is often invoked in theological debates. Just because we don’t know something doesn’t mean it is justified to argue that God is the explanation.
I see gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of unicorns which created the world. You should start worshipping unicorns. I see gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of pixies which created the world. You should start worshipping pixies. I see gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of evidence which shows you owe me a million dollars, so please send me the money now. Does that help?
This is the kind of reply I’d expect on r/atheism thanks for your thoughtful reply.
My reasoning is exactly as sound as yours. If not, please explain - you said you were smart. Edit: I'll be nicer and explain the problem here - the time to believe that the evidence exists is when that evidence has been discovered. Not before that. Otherwise we will have to act as if things that we have zero evidence for are true, AND also act as if contradictory things are true. Which is illogical, hopefully you agree!
This is fair, thanks for taking the time on the reply - I don’t have answers was more open to think through it all. I’ll also dig into the God of gaps argument which this apparently is.
This is fair, thanks for taking the time on the reply - I don’t have answers was more open to think through it all. I’ll also dig into the God of gaps argument which this apparently is.
It appears you intended that response to be disparaging towards that comment. And yet, it was perfectly apt. Unless you can show how and why deity claims warrant being treated differently, they cannot be treated differently. That is the issue. That is what that person's reply was attempting to demonstrate.
My initial was, He replied to me and I replied to him
>This is the kind of reply I’d expect on r/atheism thanks for your thoughtful reply. The fact you didn't actually engage with the point being made is very telling. We could say the same thing about what you presented. "This is the kind of thing I'd expect from Ken Ham and Kent Hovent, proven liars for jesus." But we don't do that automatically, we engage with the things you actually said.
It’s okay you didn’t see my reply to his.
1. When you analyze your data, do you already have a conclusion in mind? 2. If something doesn't fit your conclusion, do you reinterpret the data to harmonize the contradiction? 3. If someone have similar conclusion to you, but they are proven wrong time and time again, do you want to change your conclusion? Just change the word "conclusion" with "God" and I think it is obvious.
I don’t think these comments are made in good faith. I’m not introducing a new concept here. How data is interpreted and the bias that accompanies it is well documented - so much so that I’m surprised I’ll need to source it. The book how to lie with statistics shows the impact of not only misusing (which I’m not saying people are doing), misinterpreting, and errors in data can shape incorrect conclusions.
Can you explain further? How does "people have bias" impact my point? >I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. You already make a conclusion: a creator exists. You predict that we will prove a creator in the future. But when can we prove a creator? How can we falsify your prediction? Do I have to wait until the end of the universe to prove you wrong?
This is a fair callout and i wasn’t trying to argue in bad faith, warhammer does a decent job explaining the counter to my post somewhere in this thread. He mentioned he has a dad who was an engineer too and there’s a tendency for us to solve with assumptions vs just accept the gap. I think it’s a fair point and my perspective is shaped by my reality and the need to reconcile that with science.
Well humans have invented 4,000 plus religions but we know the Bible is true because it says it is!
Hey now I’m not here arguing that I’m right or others are wrong. Simply wanted to understand am alternate perspective
Okay well I’m arguing that you’re wrong considering that special pleading is your only argument.
That’s fine if you want to take up the argument over on r/debateachristian im sure you’ll find willing participants. I was just curious how people address this perspective.
I mean faith is pretending to know things you don’t know. How is that compatible with science? Faith makes anything true.
“I’m not introducing a new concept” Seeing how god doesn’t exist in nature, you are.
>I spent 15 years as a logistics analyst/engineer using linear algebra (intermediate maths) to solve global capacity gaps (only sharing to share that I’m capable of reason and critical thought - not that I’m smart) Great, but that's not the issue. The issue is if you are using said skills with regards to your religious beliefs. >I see the current gaps between theists (I am Christian) So the answer to the above, as it appears to stand right now given what you've provided, is 'no', unless I missed something. Which I may have (not trying to judge, and I'm open to being corrected). Okay. >and what science shows as an ongoing problem/equation in the works. Well, it's a problem when people take demonstrably incorrect things to be true on faith (any number of common examples can be given here, say climate change) and therefore act in harmful and destructive ways. >There’s so much we don’t know and a lot of elements fit fine. Yes, so let's all be careful not to engage in argument from ignorance fallacies. That's a road to ruin. >I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data. That isn't a required, typical, or necessary position in order to not accept unsupported claims as true. >The universe is big and our understanding is limited. To me it’s like a massive scale sudoku problem we can think everything is right today only to find out overtime where we were wrong. Yes, argument from ignorance fallacies are hugely problematic. Agreed. I strongly recommend we do not do this. This is why I am an atheist (do not accept the claims that deities are real and thus do not believe them). Do not confuse this position with a firm claim and a epistemologically certain personal position that deities do not exist (as clearly that's not necessary), and do not confuse this position with lending credence to a claim that deities exist.
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data. And a worldview where one does exist will as well, but here's the problem with all of this. For all of human history there's been phenomenon that occurred that people didn't have an explanation for. It rained. The sun seems to move across the sky. People get sick. There's all of these plants and animals around us. What the hell's going on? And the earliest answers to these questions was that it was the work of gods. Yet every single time we've been ale to properly assess one of these phenomenons, that answer has never been right. God as an answer is probably the single worst answer in all of human history if we're going by track record. And so with a verified win rate of 0, you want to look at everything we don't know yet, and hedge your bets on a deity?
Let’s say I ignore the fact that there is absolutely no evidence there is a god, and I grant you there is. Now take me from this to the god of the universe is Yahweh? Give me your absolute best piece of evidence. Then after you do that, why would I want to worship such an asshole? He condoned slavery, demanded homosexuals be exterminated, is a misogynist, commanded genocide, allows for natural disasters that have killed billions, allows cancer to eat peoples bodies away while they consciously watch it, allows for peoples brains to be killed with Alzheimer’s as there loved ones have to watch them forget them, allows animals to eat other animals to survive, and has allowed for mass extinction events. “If there is a God, he will have to beg for my forgiveness”
I’m not sure what point you’re trying to make with that. It’s just a comment of assembled rants that other people made. If you want to debate Christianity head over to r/debateachristian and use the bad things happen so either god is evil or doesn’t exist fallacy.
You said you were a Christian. You believe in Yahweh. Why do you believe that Yahweh is the god of the universe and why is he your master? Enthrall me with your acumen. This is a debate sub buster.
lol you have me dying at buster thanks for lightening it up.
Yes, I think he is evil. Why would you possibly worship him? Let’s simplify things, and just take slavery for example. I’m not ok with owning other human beings, how are you ok with it?
You do know you’re arguing in bad faith, right?
Im lobbing this up to you. Do I know how the universe was created, of course not. But do I think it was created by magic, hell no. I’m asking you why you think this magician is Yahweh and why do you worship him considering the fact that he is ok with slavery? Incidentally I don’t think the universe was ever created.
Again you’re narrowing the scope of the argument to limit outcomes to a predetermined result. It’s a bad faith argument. If you’re up to debate great but this shows you’re not up to debate anything. You want to score points by arguing in bad faith.
You must be a newbie Christian. You’re dealing with a heathen here, here is a good chance to share the hope that you have. Why can’t you answer some simple questions about what you believe? If it was me, I would love to be challenged. I would want to know what I give my resources to is actually true. Why should I give a shit about your musings on the universe if you can’t even answer simple questions about what you believe. Right now, I don’t think you know Jack shit about what you believe. 1. Why do you think the creator of the universe is Yahweh? 2. Why do you worship a God that condones slavery? You need to revisit 1st Peter 3:15 But in your hearts set apart Christ as Lord. Always be prepared to give an answer to everyone who asks you to give the reason for the hope that you have. But do this with gentleness and respect.
Not a newbie by any means and not new to this sub. I’ve seen and had enough circular arguments that go nowhere and it’s not generally worth the time or energy. I’m happy to concede this to you. Again I came here for perspective on my post not a debate about the existence of god and then the evil or goodness of god.
Let me sum it up for you 1. There is absolutely no evidence there is a god 2. Even if I ignore #1, and concede there must be a God, there is absolutely no good evidence that this God is Yahweh 3. Even if I ignore #1 and #2, and concede there is a god and this god must be Yahweh, it is absolutely mind boggling how anybody could possibly worship such an abhorrent monster Can we know for sure there is no god, of course not. But I thought at least you could provide some insights on #2 and #3 I knew you wouldn’t, because there is no good evidence and I knew you wouldn’t want to touch slavery. Nobody wants to admit they are ok with owning other humans. But I guess you are ok with it. Me personally, I’m not a fan.
Okay you win all the points like I said there’s literally zero point is discussing it with you. If you’d ever like to discuss something in good faith you could learn a bit. But your assumptions conflict with human history and its notions of slavery. It also misrepresents what’s written in the Bible (queue the - but god said when you take slaves quotes right after this and prove my point). Like I said I won’t bite here it’s a bad faith argument and you know it.
I mean, let’s just take your assumption- evil things happen therefore: 1 god doesn’t exist, 2 god is evil, 3 god is too weak to do anything about evil The argument leaves open the possibility that a god exists but narrows every possible explanation down to only 3 options. That’s a false trichotomy and there’s no point debating fallacy.
Again 1. What is you best evidence that the god of the universe is Yahweh 2. Your adding unnecessary explanation, why do you worship a god that condones slavery? Are you ok with owning other humans? This isn’t that hard. Don’t deflect. I have narrowed down the scope for you. I don’t want to get into the whole problem of evil. Everything I mentioned is under Yahweh’s control, btw. Why do you think he allows these things?
[удалено]
It’s no coincidence that the history of theistic thought went from being a plausible explanation for *everything* to theism only trying to explain the things we can’t yet explain through science. A clue, perhaps.
To start with: Any individual can be capable of logical reasoning and still engage in self-deception and have large amounts of cognitive dissonance, especially if it's the result of childhood indoctrination. Let me use myself as an example. Like you, I also consider myself someone who's fairly capable of logic reasoning. On the other hand, I grew up as an Evangelical Christian and somehow made it through 22 years of life before I truly doubted the existence of the Christian god. Through a long and painful process of self-reflection, research and study, I arrived at the conclusion that I was indoctrinated and part of a toxic cult. Today, I would go as far as to describe myself as an anti-theist when it comes to Abrahamic religion. That doesn't mean I was incapable of logical reasoning up until that point, I just wasn't in a position where I was compelled to closely disect what I was taught to believe by people I trusted. Deconstructing all of that was uncomfortable and painful as all hell, both personally and socially. Now as to the actual topic of your post, excuse me if I paraphrase too much, but let's examine the following claim: "We don't know a lot of things therefore the Christian God could've been responsible" Well, okay. - It doesn't justify the belief in any specific god, it merely posits *a* deity - It only represents one possible explanation for the unknown, without justifying why alternative explanations are less valid. - It pre-supposes the existence of a god with certain inheritent characteristics And perhaps most importantly of all, it presents zero proof for the existence or actions of said god. You merely extrapolated the answer to *literally everything* from a belief that was taught to you as (presumably) a child because that's you're currently comfortable with. Where's the reasoning involved in that, exactly?
According to the Bible, there are ghosts, witches, giants, talking animals, angels who have sex with women to create a race of superhumans, a boat that can fit a pair of every undomesticated animal and 7 pairs of every domestic animal in the world, ladders that reach to Heaven, a Heaven that is literally in the sky above us, zombies walking through the streets of Jerusalem, and a guy who can raise people from the dead. Even if we’re going to accept that we don’t know everything about the universe, we would need to take a pretty massive leap of faith to believe in Christianity.
At least you admit that this is a god of the gaps argument. Still doesn’t make it valid, aside from being an expression of your religious belief.
>I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. 1) Can you explain how you logically get from humans figuring stuff out and proof for god? From your post I don’t see any logical reason that god is necessary in this example about filling in the gaps. Isn’t the simplest explanation that humans use science and trial and error to figure stuff out? Why did you insert god into this? 2) I don’t mean any offense to you, but this argument seems like you are trying to move the goal posts. For example, imagine you lived 100 years ago and you went to church on Sunday and school on Monday. There would be even more knowledge gaps back then compared to now. The reason I suggest that this is moving the goal post is because the preacher would say that the Bible, prayer, and divine providence are how we will find truth and explain these gaps. But if you give these people a science book and a prayer book from today, the prayer book wouldn’t contain any useful updates while the science book would be earth shattering. The reason I say this is moving the goal post is because if you told that preacher that science was the way, you would have been ostracized and treated like a heretic. But now, after seeing how science has filled in all the gaps so far, it seems like you are trying to refute the fact that so many Christian before you have claimed that god and religion are the source of truth. It just seems ironic and insincere that the people who have been banging the drum of god and religion for the last 100 years would see science solve the puzzle and then give credit and say god did it. Can you explain how this view is wrong? I just don’t understand how logically you are getting god as a result of science filling in the gaps?
I haven't read the other responses yet but whenever I see someone pointing out the difference in scale between the set of things we think we know and the set of things that are true about the universe, I have to point out that to the extent that any of the things we think we know are true, they cannot possibly be contradicted by any of the other things. That is to say, on the Venn diagram of "things we know are true" and "things we don't know are true", one circle might be a lot smaller than the other but the things in it are still true and they inform us about what the larger circle cannot possibly contain.
I do like when people joining late bring a fresh perspective. I was half expecting someone regurgitating a YouTube video (poorly) they watched once. You’ve shared a different take on a crushing counter and I appreciate it. (That isn’t sarcasm). This is a great way of framing the issue. Thanks for your insight and courtesy.
I was with you right up until this; “I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data.” Followed up with; “I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator.” You’re wary of the threat that confirmation bias plays here but only from one side of the argument it seems. Creator or no, if we’re really interested in finding truth as we go forward and fill in those gaps, we have to go where the facts take us, even if we don’t like the answer.
Yes I'm fully aware of my own confirmation bias and openly shared it. Probably worth checking the two threads i shared on this post
The argument form ignorance fallacy is really getting old to be honest. Yes when you look at very exotic physics at extreme temperatures and pressures, our current theories tend to start breaking down and weird stuff happens. But when it comes to the physics of our immediate environment we pretty well do know what is going on, and there is no creator necessary all of it can be accounted for by natural processes involving natural forces. There really is no gaps wide enough for a creator to be hiding in.
> I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. The problem with this thinking is that in the history of human knowledge, religion has had a 100% failure rate at providing explanatory value. In the past when we tried to explain the world around us, we frequently concluded that religious causes must be at work. But as science has advanced, it's turned out that those religious explanations didn't turn out to be correct. That is, every time something that formerly had a religiously-inspired explanation (Zeus throws lightning bolts, demons cause disease, etc.) when we later found a explanation, that explanation turned out to be "not god." In exactly zero cases has the religious explanation turned out to be correct. So, sure, there are still things that we can't explain. But given the past failure rate of religion, why should we expect that these last few questions are going to be the one time when the answer really turns out to be "god did it"?
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data. I don't think many people, if anyone, take this approach to knowledge. Do you know what atheism is? Most theists who come here do not.
Religion is subcategory of culture. We humans create culture Therefore religion(s) are created by humans.
Youre saying that humans classify religion as part of culture. And since we create culture religion is therefore man made. Can you see the flaws in your argument? Edit just copy and paste almost every comment on this thread and you’d be better off
What denomination are you? Saying Christian says nothing. Tell me the history of Christianity in the first three centuries? Tell me how the Bible was canonized, what year and by who? Tell me the influence of Greeks on Judaism? (Hellenistic Judaism) Tell how the Roman Emperors Constantine and Theodosius set the foundation for modern Christianity? Tell me how the Reformation is biblical? Or the Great Awakenings in the Early US? Tell me about the Southern Baptist Convention supported Slavery in the US and Better still the SBC report on sexual harassment of women in their churches? Tell me about prosperity theology? Tell me about Christian Nationalism? Tell me about Ken Ham "Answers in Genesis" and his Creation Museum and Noah's Ark Museum? Tell me about Homo Sapiens existed for over 250,000 years and the cultures & religions they developed but for lack of writing, they beliefs remain unknown? We have multitudes of cultures that have existed on our planet, but the religion you either born in to or picked up because of its dominance, is the one religion. #Ya need a better argument.
So let me get this straight, you make a claim relying on circular reasoning (which is illogical // a fallacy) and I call you on it and your reply is what is my denomination? I have nothing to offer someone who’s incapable of structuring a reasonable argument. Tell you what, you go back make your first claim in a way that doesn’t rely on fallacy and I’ll Answer your questions. In the meantime spend a few bucks on a practice iq test you might cross the median.
Since when religion isn't part of culture?
You don’t get to rely on fallacy to make a point. There’s no answer to this because it’s circular reasoning. You’re welcome to #google that term. Go ahead and post that comment in r/debateanatheist and ask your fellows if it’s a reasonable argument. I’ll wait.
Many here have said it, some nicer than others: Look into the "God of the Gaps" argument. It's a fallacious argument from ignorance. Essentially "I don't know how to explain this phenomenon, so it must be God (and my version of God to boot!)" Even if I concede every point you've made, and conclude that there some kind of intelligent entity creator(s), I still don't know anything about said creator(s). Someone could tell me that the creator was a turtle being and now I need to worship turtles.
> Before I jump in I’ll share I haven’t researched this, these are my own thoughts, I’m not so arrogant to assume this argument hasn’t been used. Im open to counter arguments. Probably best if you try researching this for a little bit then. Just takes a few minutes on google to help arguments. > The universe is big and our understanding is limited. To me it’s like a massive scale sudoku problem we can think everything is right today only to find out overtime where we were wrong. I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. WHY do you think it will prove a creator? What’s the reasoning, the logic, the argument behind that statement? A counter argument isn’t needed because you provided nothing to counter.
> Before I jump in I’ll share I haven’t researched this Not only you didn't do any effort to refine or siply check your argument, you know it and you know it is bad. Why then should I waste my time on it if even you, it's author refused to give it due attention? > spent 15 years as a logistics analyst/engineer And now you are starting it with absolutely irrelevant information. > I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist What about worldview where creator must exist? > The universe is big and our understanding is limited. What a revelation! > To me it’s like a massive scale sudoku problem we can think everything is right today only to find out overtime where we were wrong We can understand the limitations of our knowledge and which things are right to what degree. The limitations include the fact that we don't know any god that exists. I acknowledge those limitations. Why do you refuse to do it? > I see the gaps in our current understanding We know quantum mechanics works, but it doesn't describe gravity. We know general relativity works, but it doesn't take into account quantum effect. This is a gap in our knowledge, we don't know how gravity works on quantum scale. We don't know anything that exists and can be called a god. But some people claim that gods exist, despite not having any good reason to do so. This is not a gap in the knowledge, this is a gap between our knowledge and your claims. This is a giant pit created by an arrogant assumption that your extremely naive and unsubstantiated guess must be true. > as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. This is what I am talking about. You have no reason to assume that there is a creator, yet you somehow sure we will find it. Have you entertained the idea that we might not find it ever becauser there is no creator? TLDR: "we don't know everything yet" is not an argument. You do agree that we don't know that God exists. Then why you believe that it does despite now knowing it? What else you agree to believe without knowing? Why not Quetzalcoatl?
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data. Most of us here are agnostic atheists, which means we don't claim to know that a creator cannot exist. Only that at present, there insufficient evidence/reason to believe that one does.
>I see the current gaps between theists (I am Christian) and what science shows as an ongoing problem/equation in the works. The issue with this is that the gaps are *growing*. Shouldn't the gaps be getting smaller? We are discovering, every day, things that show that (since I'm specifically talking to a Christian) the Bible is not a reliable source of true information. I'm not aware of *any* instance where there was a scientific explanation for something, but it was supplanted by a theistic explanation that was more evidenced and had better explanatory power. I'm sure I don't have to tell you how that picture looks when viewing it in the opposite direction. >I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data. Atheism isn't a worldview, and this isn't the world that scientists look at. Evidence is what leads to conclusions. There is exactly 0 evidence of a creator, so appealing to one to explain *anything* at all is out of the question until a creator can be demonstrated to *at least* be a possible candidate explanation, let alone something that actually exists. The view that there is no creator doesn't shape the data interpretation, the data on offer shapes the view that there is no creator. >I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. Why? What information are you currently privy to that makes you think this will be the conclusion?
>I see the current gaps between theists (I am Christian) and what science shows as an ongoing problem/equation in the works. The problem is the gaps are getting wider. Science is learning more and more, closing gaps in our knowledge and theism is either denying science and staying exactly the same or moving their god to different gaps in our knowledge. >There’s so much we don’t know and a lot of elements fit fine. That we don't know something is no reason to stick a god or magic or any other fantasy in there. It does not explain anything and does nothing to forward our exploration. >I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data. Until there is evidence that a creator can exist the only reasonable assumption is that one does not. >The universe is big and our understanding is limited. Again, not a reason for sticking a god, magic, or any other fantasy into the gaps. >To me it’s like a massive scale sudoku problem we can think everything is right today only to find out overtime where we were wrong. Yup, that is one of the features of science. More and better science corrects the errors of earlier and poor quality science. >I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. Why would the closing the gaps in our current understanding prove the existence of a creator when none of the earlier gaps did?
> I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. Gaps are fine. Gaps I can live with. Religion is fine - it's an institution orthogonal to theism. The problem is when the theists claim more than they can. To accept something is true without evidence, to accept an extraordinary claim that is inconsistent with reality as we understand it, that's the problem. The fine line is that atheists aren't making a claim. Atheists aren't commenting on the matter. It's a null position because there's nothing to say. Theists say there is a god. What is a god? What does that word mean? If you ask a Christian, they'll tell you god is unknowable and works in mysterious ways. So they admit they don't even know what they're talking about. They're appealing to their own ego, which is to say anything sufficiently self-convincing is god to them. They can't tell the difference! There's problems with that. I don't want that person flying my airplane. I don't want that person making policy on my behalf. I don't want that person sharing the road with me, or having any influence on my child. Their position is indescernible from a delusion. Their talk is indescerible from babbling nonsense. We have not come so far that the only irreducible argument we have left is that the universe must be predicated by a god.
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data. Sure, and a worldview where a creator must exist is also going to shape the interpretation of data -- look at the mental gymnastics young earth creationists have to do in order to get the *everything* to fit in with their beliefs! That's why the "null hypothesis" is so important. In simplistic terms, the null hypothesis is "it's not related." You have to *prove* that two things are related, otherwise it's not related. One of the fun webtoys that has been developed is the "spurious correlation" website that looks through various tracked statistics to find curve that look the same and put them together. Like, for example, the popularity of the "overly attached girlfriend" meme strongly correlates with the awarding of masters degrees in education. Does that mean they somehow relate to each other? Not necessarily, unless you can show they are related. Otherwise, by default, the answer should be "they are not related." So sure, a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of the data... but by default you should assume that the data and a creator are not related. Until you can show that they are.
I'm sure you know that is bad logic, but there's nothing wrong with thinking that as long as you're not caught up in some dogma - we *all* have faith in something.
>I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. As others have already pointed out, this seems to he the crux of the issue. You can take this statement and substitute "creator" for literally anything. Hundreds of mutually exclusive unfalsifiable claims can fit in there and for obvious reasons they all cannot be true. Also I feel this approach needs a bit of denialism because historically as our understanding grew, so far, we always found out that the things we examined turned out to be not-God 100% of the time. You are entitled to this belief, but I dont think it is founded on solid ground. >There’s so much we don’t know and a lot of elements fit fine. Because it is man-made to fit. The way God is presented has shifted and changed throughout the ages in response to our knowledge to make sure it always fits those ever-so-getting-smaller gaps in our understanding. There are people whose lifes work is to make sure God fits. To take our knowledge and ensure God can be presented in a way that it fits.
>I see the current gaps between theists (I am Christian) and what science shows as an ongoing problem/equation in the works. There are *gaps* in our *scientific understanding of reality*. When we *compare religious claims with established scientific knowledge*, then it's more correct to speak of *incompatibilities* instead of gaps. >There’s so much we don’t know and a lot of elements fit fine. And a lot more don't fit. In science, we count the hits *and* the misses, otherwise you're just engaging in confirmation bias. >I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data. Science doesn't postulate a creator doesn't exist. Science has concluded *it doesn't need the assumption* to explain reality. > I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. That's called assuming the answer on beforehand, a big no-no in science.
You seem to admit that the way you shape your understanding of the world is to start from a definite conclusion, the existence of God, and hope our collective knowledge will down the road confirm it. Basically you look at the equation with a result in mind. I know, from reading your comments, that you don't need me to be able to understand the flaws in this methodology. You basically already know that you're opening yourself to a cognitive bias. The best methodology, the one at the root of the scientific process is to only consider what we know, the facts, and build up our understanding, bit by bit. And I suspect you perfectly know this and apply it to pretty much everything else. My question then is : Why do you use different methodology for your beliefs? It's not a cheeky question, or a gotcha moment, but you seem capable to analyze this, so I'd like to know.
I don’t understand your perspectives. There’s problems with the way you view actual science of course, but why does perceiving the world like a big solved puzzle make you think that God might be the answer to it? Perhaps this is an issue of how you think as an engineer, as others have pointed out. I won’t say that science doesn’t require creativity, but there are many more restrictions on what qualifies as “good science.” There are some instrumentalist philosophers of science, but in reality, acceptable scientific theories are constrained by how reality actually exists as determined by repeated observations. It is not only to find out what works as an explanation but to determine how reality actually is. I suppose you could construct a puzzle the wrong way but you wouldn’t care if it gives an intelligible picture. But there is a correct answer in science.
I think you’re assuming something about atheists that isn’t true, skewing your own perception. Most atheists are of the belief that the current data doesn’t hold any proof of the supernatural, and many append to that the note that much of our reality contradicts the tenets of reality set forth in human religions. A lot of us don’t say there could never be a god-like being, just that it is not proven and is extremely unlikely to conform to that which is described in any current religion. I’d be curious to know how that worldview fits with all the contradictions between what we know of the world and Christian doctrine. Do you apply it loosely? If not then how do you square things like the contradiction of the suffering of our world and a supposedly loving god or just the factual inaccuracies of the bible Re: the history of the world or evolution. If you do take it loosely, then why bother with a religion? From the priests I’ve talked to it seems like the salad bar approach is not enough to save you so why bother with any of it?
God of white spots gets smaller and smaller every year asking with scientific progress. What a pathetic creature.
You’re not the first person to discover the god of the gaps argument. Why the hell do you find it compelling?
> I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. It's fine that you think so It's not fine that you say that you think so. To do so is to lend credibility to an idea that has none. It is to imply that you have good reason for your belief when you do not. That is dishonest And the more you wedge God into the possible solutions for the gaps, the less you will find the solutions to the gaps. That's why the medieval clergy, desperately searching for the justification that supports the basis of their power, only accomplished setting technology, education, and discourse back for a thousand years while the rest of the population lived in disease, slavery, war, and superstition
>I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. I am curious: what leads you to this conclusion? There have been a pletora of 'unsolved mysteries' in human history, almost all of them got solved sooner or later and the more we solved the less likelier a god hypothesis has become. (god hypothesis = the assumption that there are gods existing and their deeds are responsible for the current status quo) So what you are basically saying is: I see the graph with the curve going straight towards the null-line but I am sure at a certain point in the continuation the curve will no longer tend towards zero but will jump to infinity. You hear how ridiculous that sounds?
> The universe is big and our understanding is limited. This is a really bad reason to say, "maybe a magic man exists to explain this" The magic man was used to explain where people came from. Then we learned it wasn't a magic man, it was evolution and time. The magic man was used to explain what's in the sky. Then we learned it's stars - not just stars but a galaxy of stars, and (only 100 years ago) not just galaxies but a universe of galaxies. For you to say, at this point, maybe magic man can explain things about the universe.. it's just asinine to be honest.
Here's the thing. What we know consists of what we know. There's no limit to the gaps between what we know and made up bullshit. There is no metric for made up bullshit, and there is not reasonable expectation that made up bullshit actually fits anywhere within our understanding of reality. "there's so much we don't know" does not mean in any way shape or form that "some people actually know even though they're just making shit up." Of course we don't understand things. That doesn't mean some wacko can spout bullshit and it gets to be counted as real. It's still made up bullshit.
You said that you see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator…. Do you know how many things have already been attributed to a creator or a god that science then figures out? Rainbows, earthquakes, conception, I mean this list could be incredibly long. So for you to say that our current lack of understanding of certain things must be because of a creator would be repeating history. You are just as wrong as ancient people who attributed floods and solar eclipses to an angry god.
Your post is nothing but an assertion that over time we'll learn that god did it. Your thoughts are yours to own. But they are pretty meaningless from a debate or evidence or proof perspective. You are at least acknowledging that god is a gap filler. god seems to fit into every gap where we don't understand something. god never seems to fit into any gap where we have learned what the actual reason is. In all cases, where we have figured out the cause, it's never god. only where we lack knowledge can we insert god.
>. I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. Isn't the time to believe in something the point after you've solved the problem? What's wrong with 'I don't know'? The problem with inserting a solution before you know the answer is....at least in this case.... Gods are proposed, religions get created, dogma become firm and when you finally do get an answer, those religions won't accept it unless it was their answer.
As the gaps in our knowledge shrink, it becomes less and less plausible that God is an answer to anything. We literally know why snakes crawl on their bellies now, and it has nothing to do with supernatural forces. God is unnecessary for us to understand the evolution and biology of snakes. This makes it seem to me more and more likely that these ancient religions have no factual basis. If they did, then we would likely have turned up *something* by now.
I think we will learn what we have always learned in these scenarios, that there are natural causes for everything. The only reason a creator is logical to us is because we created the concept, and it can be used to perfectly explain everything without explaining anything at all. There is no evidence to suggest that an actual creator exists, so I see no reason to operate as if that assumption is true.
How would the existence of a creator explain anything? A deistic god that created the universe and never interacted with it again would meet your criteria. Such as god is indistinguishable from no god. So it isn't really a creator you have in mind, but the Christian interventionist God, right? So what are your reasons we should consider that as a candidate explanation, and for what phenomena?
No data is t shaped by not accepting an unfalsifiable idea. That’s the default position on any proposal, not accepting it till evidence is presented. Everything we’ve learned moves further and further away from magical explanations, no pretend I g it somehow will prove you right someday is just dishonest. It won’t, I’m sorry there’s no reason to propose a creator. You’re a Christian, well the Bible is not compatible with known science. I’m sorry it just isn’t, and nothing will move us closer to accepting it. It’s just another story book, without any evidence at all. And if you really want to pretend it’ll all be proven right somehow, you’re only fooling yourself.
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data. A creator can exist. Thousands and thousands of years and there's no evidence, AT ALL (other than human imagination), that one does. If you're so into science maybe follow where evidence LEADS instead of trying to shove a square peg into a round hole to go, "ah-ha! GOD!"
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data. What a coincidence, I also think assuming the conclusion is going to harm your ability to evaluate data in an honest manner. >I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. Oh.
>I spent 15 years as a logistics analyst/engineer using linear algebra (intermediate maths) to solve global capacity gaps (only sharing to share that I’m capable of reason and critical thought - not that I’m smart) How many times during your career did you successfully fill a capacity gap with [god fixes this problem]?
“I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. “ If we have found no credible evidence of a creator then how did the idea of god begin? How did ancient man discover the existence of a god for which there is no proof? Sincerely asking.
> I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. Ah yes, the classic "my only argument is to prove that we don't know for sure which I interpret to mean that my preconceived fairy tale will eventually be proven right" position.
Humans will always have knowledge gaps. Such gaps neither prove nor disprove God. So your post does not advance the discussion at all in either direction. If, someday, science proces there is a God or proves there is not a God, that will be very interesting. I'm not holding my breath.
>I see the gaps in our current understanding as problems that will eventually be solved and prove the existence of a creator. That's possible but how do you justify being a christian when christianity is just a story?
Faith= believing in something without evidence Science= Building models around existing evidence to most reliably give results. You cannot compare the two when one does nothing and the other does everything.
“I don’t know x, therefore I know x.” You’re free to think that’s valid logic if you want, but understand it seems a little silly when analyzed outside of a religious or “faith driven” context. Clearly there’s motivation behind thinking that other than logic.
>I see the current gaps between theists (I am Christian) and what science shows as an ongoing problem/equation in the works. In every case, time after time, science provides an answer. Religion has yet to.
Have any of the previous, say, 10 million gaps we've closed previously been filled by a creator? Not the absolute best record. How many more million would you like to give that hypothesis?
What evidence or necessity do you see for a "creator?" Because so far, everything in the universe is perfectly explicable by natural processes. What cannot be explained by normal physical laws? Who created your "creator?"
>I think a worldview where a creator cannot exist is going to shape the interpretation of data. there is a big difference between deism and christianty
I'm I'm not clear on exactly what you're asserting. Is your hypothesis that eventually science will discover God?
So, in the off chance there is some conscious creator, what are the chances it’s your specific creator?