God of Gaps & Big Bang?

Question

The 'God of Gaps' is considered as scientific stupidity; It has always failed, and so it will always failed. But if you approach this in a philosophical way, you can most likely find support fot the 'intelligent design'. If you keep asking "What is the origin of..." You'll eventually get stuck. What is the origin of the universe? The Big Bang, What is the origin of the Big Bang? (And even when we knoe this origin) What is the origin of this? You can eternally go on with this. The chance of a non-intelligent design is made eternally small. Is this a valid approach?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BgfJJKESR0A

Answer 1

The thing is that there will ALWAYS be gaps. Take a look at Gödel's theorem (link 1). It is arguably impossible to construct some systems in such a way that they are both consistent and complete. Though it specifically relates to arithmatic, one might expand the argument to things that rely on math, like pretty much all of science. So one might demonstrate thusly that science will never be both consistent and complete. Gaps will always exist.

But let's leave out those gaps for a bit. There are MUCH bigger gaps that result largely from epistemological shortfalls. The biggest one I can think of is the entirety of history.

Science is great at illustrating the parts of a machine, including the machine of physical laws. But prefect predictive power, both in the future and the past, seems to be completely impossible. Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle sets, for example, a maximum on certain things we can know. And while this impossible-to-determine amount is very small in the present, such small amounts very quickly snowball into everything possible once you start projecting in one direction or another.

So even if, say, you someday prove evolution beyond a reasonable doubt, and even somehow manage to elucidate exact geneological trees for everything alive, you will still be left with the unanswerable question, "why did this particular mutation happen at this exact time and not a different mutation at a different time?" Which, though it is a gap, is a pretty huge one.

All of which is pretty much the point. Even if you relegate your diety to a 'God of the Gaps' situation, those gaps aren't just tiny cracks in the pavement of science, but rather more akin to huge gaping holes that can't even theoretically ever be filled in. There is easily room for dozens of gods in there, as well as plenty of other bric-a-brac if a person feels inclined to include it as well.

Nor does this discredit science as a valid approach, either. Just because everything can't be definitively and emperically determined, it doesn't mean we shouldn't find out as much as we can. But the flipside must also be true - just because you can't determine what occurred, it doesn't mean that none of the explanations forwarded are invalid, either! Science is a good tool, but it is not the ONLY one!

Answer 2

You are correct that the God of Gaps approach is ridiculous. That approach basically says that if we humans don't yet know everything there is to know, then there must be a God. Clearly fallacious.

Your approach is more logical than that, although I still don't see how it leads inexorably to the conclusion that an unintelligent design is infinitely unlikely. It still just comes down to the fact that we humans do not understand or know a thing, and therefore are trying to attribute it to God.

I guess another way of stating your approach would be to say that the greater number of unknowns there are, the greater the likelihood that there is a God. I would say that this is a very egotistical view which assumes humans should be able to know everything. It ignores the possibilities that perhaps our brains just don't have the proper capacity or we simply haven't lived long enough yet.

Incidentally, the official position of the Vatican for the last couple decades has been that the Big Bang was the moment of creation. Steven Hawking was one of the scientists that consulted with the pope when the Catholic Church was trying to rectify modern science with official dogma.

Answer 3

Well I would say that God created the Big Bang and that the Big Bang is a real scientific theory and stop this crap off once for all and concentrate on saving people from dieing on hunger, do something about African Genocide, work on leeves in california and LA.

The people who talk abt Big Bang atleast have some proof and the God theory oh well people whoes math and science power is poor and dont' want to do anything productive will stick in there.

Both are true and let us do something which will affect us tomorrow. Global Warming. Ya Right before we die worrying about how we came here lets worry about how long we are gonna be here.!

Answer 4

Very interesting.

Actually, I was going to make the same point that someone already made.

Godel proved that no (mathematical) system was complete and consistent (doesn't contradict itself). This means we are always able to construct a statement that is true, but cannot be proven true.

Like this: Let P be the proposition "P cannot be proven true".
case 1) If we prove P to be true, it contradicts itself (inconsistent).

case 2) If we prove P to be false, then "P cannot be proven true" is false, which means "P can be proven true"--But since P is false, how can we prove it to be true? Another contradiction.

The only other case is, the statement "P cannot be proven true" cannot be proven to be true or false. Thus we know the statement is true, but we cannot prove it. Therefore the system is incomplete.

Now, I know this only applies to mathematical systems---But I think its similar to the idea of the universe and creation.

Hmm. However, any mathematical system is based on axioms. These are statements we accept to be true, but aren't provable. Using this analogy, maybe we have to accept some things to be true about our own creation? I don't know--I am confusing myself.

This is why I'm agnostic! haha.

Answer 5

whats up Bruce, individually, i've got self assurance that the "great Bang" is genuine. The concern is a splash diverse nevertheless. To my concepts, the Universe grew to become into created in basic terms the way the scientists have self assurance. the variety is that God reported "permit that is", and BANG! The Universe grew to become into created. Have an incredible day.

Answer 6

Typical fallacious argument. Everything is conditional space. When the conditions are there, whatever can be must be and will be. The conditions are manifest in space itself. They define, limit and generate space. Yet, it is space that sets the conditions. When space does not exist, the mono-bloc occurs and then comes the big bang.

Answer 7

if I were to explode a library would the books find their way to the right shelves eventually in alphabetical order?
If I were to explode a fish tank would all the fish eventually come back to life and grow into other fish?
If I blew up a zoo would there begin to be different species?
This makes no sense. God was there before everything. He decided to organize and synchronize the heavens. Then he turned to the earth. He places water and plant life on it then humans. If it were random nothing would work right. But the waters come from the sky..fall to the ground..run into streams...and is consumed by plant and animal life..eventually to evaporate and fall to earth again. God did this. It doesn't just happen on it's own.
The sooner we all praise God for his creation and worship him the sooner we will be back in that paradise he promised us.
The Israelites wandered in the wilderness for 40 years because of their hardheadedness and being ungrateful to God.
If we are grateful and give Him the glory we can cut short our wilderness journey.
He deserves all the honor for creating us. Please don't delay.

Answer 8

Why presume that a supreme God necesarily interacts with what is created. God is not synonymous with Creator. If God created, then it is implied that God is as impermanent as its creations, because all cause and effects share in this characteristic (having a beginning and end). All things could emmanate perfectly from God, without his intervention in any way.

Answer 9

Of course. There are no finite answers. Only doors to more questions. Ain't it great!