- Joined
- Sep 19, 2016
- Posts
- 3,556
- Reaction
- 7,216
- Points
- 2,570
There are many fallacies in claiming that God does not exist. One of these is the claim that God only exists in the gaps in science. Is this true? Inversely, are atheists immune to filling the gaps with the unfounded claim that God does not exist?
It is true that many religious people have used “God of the gaps” excuses for not exploring further, but only because they feared the retaliation of their church, not because they genuinely felt they were not allowed to go further by God. Being religious does not automatically mean that the person is going to ever resort to a God of the gaps excuse. I have yet to hear of a single modern example of this from religious scientists because churches are no longer allowed to torture people and burn them at the stake.
The failure of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” cuts both ways. You cannot establish anything, one way or another, upon an absence of evidence. But as I will show, there is ample physical and logical evidence and witnesses to God's existence that atheists cannot claim for atheism at all. It is “an abrogation of the intellect” (Peter Atkins, a devout atheist) whether theists do it or atheists do it. It is hypocritical to claim that one's own use of such bad reasoning is somehow immune to its fallaciousness. If they do not know one way or the other, then they should not make a claim one way or the other. Making a claim without support just closes them off to any proof to the contrary.
The claim that it is theists alone who are under obligation to provide proof is itself fallacious. Burden of proof is only one-sided where it contradicts the known facts. No known facts can be declared about where the universe came from in the atheist perspective. Also, as I will show, there is ample evidence for God's existence, so the onus is now on atheists to prove otherwise, which they have spectacularly failed to do, as this site seeks to establish.
Besides this, atheism is the interloper, not theism, as atheism is a late development in human history. If the Bible is correct (I speak hypothetically), then God was known by Adam and knowledge of God passed to his offspring. Even if theism is an invention of cavemen (polytheism aside), it maintained dominance for ages with little to no opposition. Also, before one can claim God does or does not exist, they are proto-agnostic (Having no knowledge of God one way or the other), not atheist. Both theists and atheists are therefore under equal obligation to prove their sides to the agnostic. Thus, any gap argument will fail no matter which side uses it.
Even Peter Atkins, quoted above, acknowledged that science is still in need of a [provable] mathematical model for a spontaneous self-existent universe. The idea that the universe has always existed is an untenable argument. That is why many scientists, by and large, reject it. There are a few who support it, but there is no argument they can make to support it that is not circular. The very claim itself begs the question, which is a terrible position from which to begin any argument. It takes more faith than believing in God.
Roger Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology, in which the universe springs eternal from a finite point in the past that forever remains at a fixed point in the past in relation to the observer, is the best explanation of such a universe, but it remains to beg the question and unabashedly embraces the circuity of the argument. But neither ignoring the fallaciousness of the argument nor embracing it improves the argument, which is why it has not superseded the big bang theory, which points directly at a first cause.
Abiogenesis requires a staggering number of astronomical coincidences to occur. One “little" change in the single-celled organism requires a whole host of accidents and complex organic machinery to happen according to evolutionists. Many of these have proved impossible to ***** and all of them must occur in a lab because they have never been shown to occur in nature, except those changes explained by preprogrammed adaptation (not random evolution) which is now accepted as fact.
Gaps in our understanding are unavoidable. How we fill those gaps is what defines whether we are being intelligent or obtuse. Certainly, “God did it” is not a scientific explanation. There can be no question about it. We might as well say “Tim did it.” Okay, but where's the proof? What prevents us from exploring further? The Bible certainly does not tell us not to. It simply says that we will not be able to figure out how God did it (in the sense of repeating it ourselves), not whether he did it or what it consists of. (Ecclesiastes 3:11) We have full reign to seek to figure out the history of the universe and what it is made of.
All of it shouts that it was designed. A gap can only be created there by rejecting that evidence, and then the gap belongs to the atheist, not the theist. How does such organization speak to no Creator? That is a gap that has never been explained by atheists because it contradicts entropy. All the things atheists suggest are just more gap arguments because they have no evidence.
It takes fewer postulates to claim that God is pure consciousness arising from waveform perturbations in the nothingness, than consciousness arising after many millions of cosmic coincidences only to generate waveform perturbations generating thought patterns. They claim that matter just pops out of the darkness to generate between 1078 to 1082 atoms in the universe each made from many smaller particles and waves, each and every one requiring great amounts of energy to generate, but they cannot imagine consciousness arising from an infinite number of mild perturbations in that darkness.
Occam's razor easily destroys the self-generated universe theory, especially when comparing it to an eternal consciousness, which relies only on the tiniest of perturbations, not matter, which is said to be made of bundles of wave packets made of extremely strong waves.
If you walk into a house, well-furnished, its food stores fully stocked, its walls decorated, its surfaces dusted and full of furnature and books, you conclude that the house is lived in and take it for granted that it had a designer. No one has to prove that to you. Thus, the Bible says, “Of course,” because it is obvious, “every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.”
But now imagine someone walks in and says, I see no evidence of a designer and it certainly wasn't designed to be lived in. Look, it has knives and outside there are dangerous dogs and cars that could kill us. Clearly it's not designed, no one would design it to kill us.
If the universe wasn't designed, it wouldn't organize. In fact, entropy is the natural inclination of matter and energy to dissipate, yet it collesces, yet it organizes, yet it makes life possible. To assume that this is the natural state of the universe is against all other observed phenomena.
But is the universe really trying to kill us as atheists claim? No. The fact that we exist in spite of the odds testifies to exactly the opposite. All the cosmic coincidences claimed by atheists testifies that something wants us to exist. That is a fact that many scientists claiming to be atheist have ackowledged.
The Bible puts it succinctly where it says, “What may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened."—Romans 1:19-21.
God's love for life on earth up to this point speaks to the truth that he will soon step in to stop the destruction of the earth's ecosystem that mankind is heading inexorably towards by getting rid of those who disregard their stewardship and responsibilities towards God, the earth and mankind. (Genesis 1:27, 28; Revelation 11:18) They can't say they didn't know because he gave everyone the same information and opportunity to get to know him. Some have responded, but most have wilfully disregarded him. (Psalm 19:1, 7, 8; Jeremiah 29:18, 19) But the fact that some have responded condemns the rest.—Hebrews 11:7.
It is true that many religious people have used “God of the gaps” excuses for not exploring further, but only because they feared the retaliation of their church, not because they genuinely felt they were not allowed to go further by God. Being religious does not automatically mean that the person is going to ever resort to a God of the gaps excuse. I have yet to hear of a single modern example of this from religious scientists because churches are no longer allowed to torture people and burn them at the stake.
Burden of Proof Applies Both Ways
Atheists certainly are not immune to this fallacy. The very claim that “evolution did it” is itself a “God of the gaps” argument that gets used by evolution communicators ad nauseum. The fact that there is no proof of evolution makes it such an argument. (We will get to that lack of evidence in other posts.)The failure of “absence of evidence is not evidence of absence” cuts both ways. You cannot establish anything, one way or another, upon an absence of evidence. But as I will show, there is ample physical and logical evidence and witnesses to God's existence that atheists cannot claim for atheism at all. It is “an abrogation of the intellect” (Peter Atkins, a devout atheist) whether theists do it or atheists do it. It is hypocritical to claim that one's own use of such bad reasoning is somehow immune to its fallaciousness. If they do not know one way or the other, then they should not make a claim one way or the other. Making a claim without support just closes them off to any proof to the contrary.
The claim that it is theists alone who are under obligation to provide proof is itself fallacious. Burden of proof is only one-sided where it contradicts the known facts. No known facts can be declared about where the universe came from in the atheist perspective. Also, as I will show, there is ample evidence for God's existence, so the onus is now on atheists to prove otherwise, which they have spectacularly failed to do, as this site seeks to establish.
Besides this, atheism is the interloper, not theism, as atheism is a late development in human history. If the Bible is correct (I speak hypothetically), then God was known by Adam and knowledge of God passed to his offspring. Even if theism is an invention of cavemen (polytheism aside), it maintained dominance for ages with little to no opposition. Also, before one can claim God does or does not exist, they are proto-agnostic (Having no knowledge of God one way or the other), not atheist. Both theists and atheists are therefore under equal obligation to prove their sides to the agnostic. Thus, any gap argument will fail no matter which side uses it.
“Abiogenesis Did It” and the Self-Existence of the Gaps
Atheism, itself, by necessity of the absence of God in its assumption, is a spontaneous self-existent universe argument. It is therefore a gap and atheists just handwave it. Theirs is therefore a faith argument. A deist agnostic, on the othe hand, needs no faith because he follows the evidence and ignores the implications. Abiogenesis and a self-existent universe are both absolutely necessary to any atheist claim. How is abiogenesis not a “god of the gaps" argument? It lacks any evidence whatsoever, saying simply, “abiogenesis did it.” How is spontaneous self-existence of the universe not a "god of the gaps" argument? It is filling a gap without knowledge. It fills it with atheism, but no facts that make any sense, as I will show. It says, simply, “the universe itself did it."Even Peter Atkins, quoted above, acknowledged that science is still in need of a [provable] mathematical model for a spontaneous self-existent universe. The idea that the universe has always existed is an untenable argument. That is why many scientists, by and large, reject it. There are a few who support it, but there is no argument they can make to support it that is not circular. The very claim itself begs the question, which is a terrible position from which to begin any argument. It takes more faith than believing in God.
Roger Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology, in which the universe springs eternal from a finite point in the past that forever remains at a fixed point in the past in relation to the observer, is the best explanation of such a universe, but it remains to beg the question and unabashedly embraces the circuity of the argument. But neither ignoring the fallaciousness of the argument nor embracing it improves the argument, which is why it has not superseded the big bang theory, which points directly at a first cause.
Complexity Speaks
There are many witnesses to God who have left thorough and cooperative accounts and many who exist today. That there are many false witnesses to the claim does not nullify the true witnesses to his activity, who not only have direct dealings with him, but observe the fulfillment of his prophecies. Even the endless complexity and organization of the universe testifies, but where are their witnesses to a self-generated universe, to abiogenesis?Abiogenesis requires a staggering number of astronomical coincidences to occur. One “little" change in the single-celled organism requires a whole host of accidents and complex organic machinery to happen according to evolutionists. Many of these have proved impossible to ***** and all of them must occur in a lab because they have never been shown to occur in nature, except those changes explained by preprogrammed adaptation (not random evolution) which is now accepted as fact.
Gaps in our understanding are unavoidable. How we fill those gaps is what defines whether we are being intelligent or obtuse. Certainly, “God did it” is not a scientific explanation. There can be no question about it. We might as well say “Tim did it.” Okay, but where's the proof? What prevents us from exploring further? The Bible certainly does not tell us not to. It simply says that we will not be able to figure out how God did it (in the sense of repeating it ourselves), not whether he did it or what it consists of. (Ecclesiastes 3:11) We have full reign to seek to figure out the history of the universe and what it is made of.
All of it shouts that it was designed. A gap can only be created there by rejecting that evidence, and then the gap belongs to the atheist, not the theist. How does such organization speak to no Creator? That is a gap that has never been explained by atheists because it contradicts entropy. All the things atheists suggest are just more gap arguments because they have no evidence.
Occam's Razor
But the most common problem with filling gaps with theories is when the theories get burdened by complexity. Thus it is important to ask if the theory is multiplying too many steps to the process until the likelihood is reduced to absurdity. At what point does it break down?It takes fewer postulates to claim that God is pure consciousness arising from waveform perturbations in the nothingness, than consciousness arising after many millions of cosmic coincidences only to generate waveform perturbations generating thought patterns. They claim that matter just pops out of the darkness to generate between 1078 to 1082 atoms in the universe each made from many smaller particles and waves, each and every one requiring great amounts of energy to generate, but they cannot imagine consciousness arising from an infinite number of mild perturbations in that darkness.
Occam's razor easily destroys the self-generated universe theory, especially when comparing it to an eternal consciousness, which relies only on the tiniest of perturbations, not matter, which is said to be made of bundles of wave packets made of extremely strong waves.
Proof of God
Atheists love to generate the gap claim that theists have no evidence that God exists. They claim that the universe does not testify to God's existence. But calling evidence "not evidence" does not magically make that evidence for God disappear. The sheer complexity of the things that exist, and the minutia, abundance and complexity of sub-microscopic robots prove God's existence.If you walk into a house, well-furnished, its food stores fully stocked, its walls decorated, its surfaces dusted and full of furnature and books, you conclude that the house is lived in and take it for granted that it had a designer. No one has to prove that to you. Thus, the Bible says, “Of course,” because it is obvious, “every house is constructed by someone, but the one who constructed all things is God.”
But now imagine someone walks in and says, I see no evidence of a designer and it certainly wasn't designed to be lived in. Look, it has knives and outside there are dangerous dogs and cars that could kill us. Clearly it's not designed, no one would design it to kill us.
If the universe wasn't designed, it wouldn't organize. In fact, entropy is the natural inclination of matter and energy to dissipate, yet it collesces, yet it organizes, yet it makes life possible. To assume that this is the natural state of the universe is against all other observed phenomena.
But is the universe really trying to kill us as atheists claim? No. The fact that we exist in spite of the odds testifies to exactly the opposite. All the cosmic coincidences claimed by atheists testifies that something wants us to exist. That is a fact that many scientists claiming to be atheist have ackowledged.
God's Personality Is Evident
Likewise, we have evidence for God's personal qualities in the creation. God's power is evident by the immense power needed to create just one atom. His wisdom is evident in his creating a universe that is self-sustaining without needing to constantly tweak it. His love is evident in his taking care of life on earth with abundance, taking care of even the unrighteous in hopes they repent. His eternality is evident in his creating a universe that has existed for billions of years and will continue to exist without end.The Bible puts it succinctly where it says, “What may be known about God is clearly evident among them, for God made it clear to them. For his invisible qualities are clearly seen from the world’s creation onward, because they are perceived by the things made, even his eternal power and Godship, so that they are inexcusable. For although they knew God, they did not glorify him as God nor did they thank him, but they became empty-headed in their reasonings and their senseless hearts became darkened."—Romans 1:19-21.
God's love for life on earth up to this point speaks to the truth that he will soon step in to stop the destruction of the earth's ecosystem that mankind is heading inexorably towards by getting rid of those who disregard their stewardship and responsibilities towards God, the earth and mankind. (Genesis 1:27, 28; Revelation 11:18) They can't say they didn't know because he gave everyone the same information and opportunity to get to know him. Some have responded, but most have wilfully disregarded him. (Psalm 19:1, 7, 8; Jeremiah 29:18, 19) But the fact that some have responded condemns the rest.—Hebrews 11:7.