Is it a copout to use God to fill in the gaps in our knowledge?

Question

Is it all too easy to say that God did it and He works in mysterious ways?

Was Thomas Aquinas being intellectually lazy when he developed his Prime Mover and First Cause arguments?

Boles, you used God to fill in the gaps in your SATs? Why didn't I think of that?

Amen, Reverend Soleil

Mahal, was it educational to say God made the sun to revolve around the earth?

No 777, I'm saying I don't automatically fill in my gaps with 'God'.

Agellius, I read Aquinas backwards and forwards, perhaps you should read some others who have refuted his biased explanations.

Aquinas ignored all other explanations, but God. Rather dishonest AND lazy.

Answer 1

It certainly does nothing to increase our knowledge or understanding of the Universe...

Answer 2

there is not any short answer relatively yet i think of people have a tricky time finding out technological understanding, metaphysics, and faith and are partly arguing approximately the place to entice any lines between them. If I could study and assessment all the opportunities i think of you will lose the two persistence or interest if Y!A would not pass down and lose my answer first. :) i understand Buzz had no longer made it out of the field yet and would not deliver with batteries so i will rule him out. There are nevertheless gaps even once you believe in God; you recognize that best? The questions you cite are only the opposite of "for the reason that i will think of of this undesirable undertaking God shouldn't exist. The (insert non secular text fabric call right here) isn't clever to me whilst it says _____ so I surely have proved faith fake. " that I additionally examine repeatedly. in case you identify there is a few thing there as a reason for a definite despite the fact which you sense pressured to seem around and notice in case you will discover what it relatively is. it relatively is how technological understanding works for me too - yet I could attempt different strategies whilst technological understanding would not word itself nicely, if in any respect. Are you in specific asking after empathy, morals, the start of each thing or only why the question/why the respond? (for the reason that I in basic terms relatively replied the final one)

Answer 3

In a word - YES

it is also unnecessary because we now have 2300 years (based on Socrates, Plato, Aristotle and so many others) of developing methodology that has brought so much knowledge to us that the bronze and iron age writers just did not have.

The need for such explanations in now totally obsolete just like spear is obsolete as a weapon of war. It is a pity that there so many who wish us to limit ourselves to mythology when we now have science, philosophy and mathematics.

It is also about blind hope and not accepting the randomness of existence. The concept of God as the first mover is a cop-out because it avoids the question - and who brought God into being.

What came before the big bang - I do not not know - just like Christians do not know who (or what) was before God

Answer 4

Thomas Aquinas? Intellectually lazy? . . .

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOOD ONE!!

Have you read Aquinas? Have you seen how many steps he goes through to establish God's existence? Have you seen how many steps he goes through to establish ANYTHING? When I read Aquinas I'm like, "Come on, St. Thomas, can't we take ANYTHING for granted?", because he takes virtually NOTHING for granted, but goes through multiple steps to establish every frickin minor point in a reasoning process. Intellectually LAZY??? Are you intellectually CRAZY???

Read Summa Theologica and then get back to us, will ya?

Answer 5

No! It is a copout to believe in the 'Big Bang' without explaining what came before it?
It is a copout to claim that something material can arise out of nothing without explaining how this could happen?
It is a copout to say that life arose of its own accord out of sterile matter, without explaining where the complex information contained in the first DNA came from?
It is a copout to claim as a scientific fact, things which cannot be demonstrated by the scientific method of repeatable experiment and observation.
St.Thomas Aquinas used logic, which is a science based on commonsense and reason, and no one has yet satisfactorily been able to counter his logic, with a similar logical argument for atheism.
Edit. .....
Terry W - - and everyone else who asks where God came from does not understand Thomas Aquinas and the First Cause logic. It is obvious that a first cause is exactly that, i.e. it doesn't have a cause itself. So to ask where the First Cause (God) came from is just plain stupid. The first cause is a necessary being, not subject to the law of cause and effect, so it doesn't need a cause.

EDIT .....
Those who doubt the impeccable logic of the First Cause argument should read the logical proof below. I challenge anyone to produce a similar logical argument for an origin of the universe without a First Cause (itself uncaused).

Logical proof for the existence of God - - - -

EVERYTHING THAT EXISTS MUST HAVE A SUFFICIENT EXPLANATION FOR ITS EXISTENCE. NOTHING CAN EXIST WITHOUT A SUFFICIENT REASON FOR ITS EXISTENCE. NOW, OBVIOUSLY THIS SUFFICIENT REASON MUST BE FOUND EITHER IN THE EXISTING THING ITSELF. OR IN THAT WHICH GAVE IT EXISTENCE. TO PUT IT ANOTHER WAY; IF A THING EXISTS THEN EITHER (1). IT IS SO PERFECT THAT IT MUST EXIST AND CANNOT BE NONEXISTENT, OR (2). IT HAS RECEIVED EXISTENCE BY THE ACTION OF SOME EFFICIENT CAUSE.

NOW IF A THING IS SO PERFECT THAT IT MUST EXIST AND CANNOT BE NON-EXISTENT, IT IS SELF EXISTENT. SUCH A THING CONTAINS IN ITSELF THE SUFFICIENT REASON FOR ITS EXISTENCE. AND SINCE IT MUST EXIST BY REASON OF ITS OWN ESSENTIAL PERFECTION, IT HAS HAD NO CAUSE, IT IS ETERNAL; IT IS NECESSARY BEING (i.e. IT NECESSARILY EXISTS), AND IS NOT CONTINGENT UPON THE ACTION OF ANY PRODUCING CAUSE.
IF A THING HAS RECEIVED EXISTENCE BY THE ACTION OF SOME EFFICIENT CAUSE, IT IS NOT A NECESSARY, BUT A CONTINGENT BEING, FOR IT DEPENDS UPON, IS CONTINGENT UPON, THE ACTION OF ITS PRODUCING EFFICIENT CAUSE.

THUS THERE ARE ONLY 2 KINDS OF THING POSSIBLE:
(1). ETERNAL, UNCAUSED, NECESSARY BEING, AND
(2). CONTINGENT BEING, WHICH IS EFFICIENTLY CAUSED.
FURTHER: CONTINGENT THINGS MUST BE TRACED BACK TO A FIRST EFFICIENT CAUSE, WHICH IS ITSELF NECESSARY AND UNCAUSED BEING. FOR CONSIDER: A CONTINGENT THING IS A CAUSED THING, ITS CAUSE PRODUCED IT. IF ITS CAUSE IS ALSO PRODUCED, SOMETHING PRODUCED THAT CAUSE, AND SO ON.
IF (A) COMES FROM (B), AND (B) FROM (C), AND (C) FROM (D), AND (D) FROM (E), AND SO ON, THEN SOMEWHERE AND SOMETIME WE MUST COME TO A FIRST CAUSE WHICH IS ITSELF UNCAUSED, WHICH IS NECESSARY BEING. ONE CANNOT TRACE BACK THE CHAIN OF CAUSATION INDEFINITELY NOR TO INFINITY; ONE REALLY MUST REACH THE BEGINNING AT SOME STAGE. TO SAY THAT THE SERIES IS INDEFINITELY LONG AND TO LEAVE THE MATTER THERE, IS TO MAKE AN INTELLECTUAL SURRENDER OF THE WHOLE QUESTION. AN UNWORTHY COP-OUT. SUCH A SURRENDER IS SIMPLY A REFUSAL TO FACE FACTS. ON THE OTHER HAND, TO SAY THAT THE SERIES OF CAUSES IS INFINITELY LONG (i.e. HAS NO BEGINNING) IS TO ASSERT AN ABSURDITY. FOR AN INFINITE NUMBER OF FINITE CAUSES IS IMPOSSIBLE; FINITE ADDED TO FINITE CAN NEVER EQUAL INFINITE. REASON FORCES US TO THE CONCLUSION THAT CONTINGENT THINGS INVOLVE OF NECESSITY THE EXISTENCE OF AN UNCAUSED AND NECESSARY FIRST CAUSE.

NOW, CAN THERE BE MANY UNCAUSED AND NECESSARY FIRST CAUSES? CAN VARIOUS CHAINS OF CAUSATION BE TRACED BACK TO VARIOUS FIRST CAUSES? OR IS THE FIRST CAUSE NECESSARILY ONE CAUSE? IT IS EVIDENT THAT THE FIRST CAUSE IS ONE AND ONLY ONE. FOR A BEING THAT IS SO PERFECT THAT IT MUST EXIST MUST HAVE THE FULNESS OF PERFECTION, IT MUST HAVE PERFECTION IN A WHOLLY UNLIMITED MANNER. WHY? BECAUSE SUCH A BEING IS SELF- EXISTENT AND WHOLLY INDEPENDENT OF CAUSES.
CAUSES DO TWO THINGS: THEY MAKE AN EFFECT WHAT IT IS, AND THEY LIMIT THE EFFECT SO AS TO MARK OFF ITS PERFECTIONS FROM THOSE OF OTHER THINGS. HENCE A BEING THAT IS INDEPENDENT OF CAUSES, AS A NECESSARY BEING IS, IS INDEPENDENT OF THE LIMITATION WHICH CAUSES IMPOSE. THUS THE FIRST CAUSE IS FREE FROM LIMITATION; IN OTHER WORDS, IT IS INFINITE. NOW AN INFINITE BEING IS UNIQUE; THERE SIMPLY CANNOT BE MORE THAN ONE SUCH BEING. FOR, IF THERE WERE MORE THAN ONE, THERE WOULD BE A DISTINCTION OF BEING BETWEEN OR AMONG THEM; THIS DISTINCTION WOULD BE ITSELF A LIMITATION, AND SO NONE WOULD BE INFINITE.
SUPPOSE, FOR EXAMPLE, THAT THERE ARE ARE TWO INFINITE BEINGS, (A) AND (B). (A) HAS ITS OWN PERFECTIONS IN AN UNLIMITED DEGREE; (B) HAS ITS OWN PERFECTIONS, SIMILARLY UNLIMITED. NOW IF (A) AND (B) ARE NOT IDENTICAL [AND THUS ONE] THERE IS A DEFECT AND A LIMITATION IN (A), INASMUCH AS IT HAS NOT THE PERFECTIONS THAT ARE PROPERLY (B)'s. IN LIKE MANNER THERE IS A DEFECT AND A LIMITATION IN (B), INASMUCH AS (B) HAS NOT THE PERFECTIONS THAT ARE PROPERLY (A)'s. THUS UNLESS (A) AND (B) ARE IDENTICAL AND ONE, NEITHER IS INFINITE. HENCE, THE NECESSARY FIRST CAUSE MUST BE ONE AND INFINITE.

SUMMARY.
CONTINGENT THINGS DEMAND THE EXISTENCE OF ONE, NECESSARY, INFINITE FIRST CAUSE;

NOW THE UNIVERSE, AND ALL THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE, ARE CONTINGENT THINGS;

THEREFORE, THE UNIVERSE, AND ALL THINGS IN THE UNIVERSE, DEMAND THE EXISTENCE OF ONE, NECESSARY. INFINITE FIRST CAUSE.

THIS WE CALL GOD.

Answer 6

If you believe this, then you must also think that it's a copout to use universities to fill the gaps in our knowledge.

Can't we accept education wherever it's offered?

*******************
If you want to pull out historical nut jobs, was it educational for the Greek philosophers to say that everything in the world was made from the four elements of soil, wind, fire and water?

None of them are relevant to us.

This is just another way for liberals to pull big names out of a hat to prove how smart they are, but to ask a question that could never be less relevant.

(Do you think maybe you have a few gaps in your education?)

Answer 7

Some things are too simple for words.

Theists tend to use "god" as a poetic gesture towards That; Zen types use "thusness" or "original nature" ... or just serve you a cup of tea.
.

Answer 8

Where were you when I asked the question about the SAT's? I think it does overly simplify things.

Mahal- is that another way of saying "believe everything you hear"? If you call that 'knowledge', more power to you, I guess.

Answer 9

Christian = God did it and He works in mysterious ways
sceintist = we dont know what happened

i dont seem much of a copout here....

Answer 10

Nu huh, it's hippieish in making someone else shoulder the burden of explaining, I like it!