God of the gaps
iaoua iaoua
just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
offensive both to God and to his servants. Not only is it offensive
and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'. So let's
just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
JC
chris thompson
Weep me a river.
Chris
Ernest Major
<iaoua-df45e1b1-eb87-4...@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
>, iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> writes
Exodus 20:7 "Thou shalt not make wrong use of the name of the Lord your
God; the Lord will not leave unpunished the man who misuses his name."
That would seem to cover arrogating to yourself the right to speak on
God's behalf, and also arrogating to yourself the right to say who are
God's servants.
>
>JC
>
--
alias Ernest Major
r norman
I suppose it is also offensive to claim that the cosmos and the earth
and humanity were not created in six 24 hour periods less than ten
thousand years ago. I suppose it is also offensive to claim that a
massive flood initiated by forty days and nights of rain did not
inundate the entire earth and kill all living things (animals, at
least) except for the few occupants of one wooden boat. I suppose it
is also offensive to claim that no individual human has ever lived for
900 years, begetting a child at almost 200 years of age. I suppose it
is also offensive to claim that human languages did not originate
during the construction of a single tall building.
Science makes claims about processes in the physical world. There are
gaps in the knowledge that science has so far developed. To claim
that any or all gaps in our knowledge must be due to failures in
science and hence can only be attributed to divine action is offensive
to science. So there.
alextangent
Fixed it. Probably annoyed a lot of squid lovers, but hey ho.
Will in New Haven
Who would want to be near YOUR fucking community, you imbecile.
Cordially as always
--
Will in New Haven
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> In message
> <iaoua-df45e1b1-eb87-426e-b528-305914b8d...@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
> �>, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> writes
Do you have a written and signed contract, that will stand up in
court?
By "God of the gaps", are we meaning, "Everything that happens is God
doing it, except for things that we now know from science to pretty
much just happen, such as rain"? (Matthew 5:45)
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps> presents a list of
Christians reproaching the "god-of-the-gaps" "proof" of God's
existence.
Notable quotations there include:
"Gaps of this sort have the unpreventable habit of shrinking"
"Meaning, soul, spirits, and life are subjects incapable of physical-
chemical explanation or formation"
(See if you can guess which side each speaw!ker is on)
Ernest Major
<e4707b99-ecec-4ab0...@s17g2000yqs.googlegroups.com>,
"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com> writes
was invented by a Christian. (It has often being argued here that it is
bad theology.)
--
alias Ernest Major
Randy C
What would you prefer to call it?
The "God of the Gaps" involves inserting "God" as an explanation for
anything that RIGHT NOW has no known naturalistic explanation and
therefore a "gap" exists.
People have done that throughout history. The Native American "rain
gods" are a perfect example.
If you don't like the expression "God of the Gaps" to explain a real
phenomenon, what phrase would you prefer?
The "Pink Unicorn of the Gaps"?
John Harshman
> Hi all,
>
> just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> offensive both to God and to his servants.
How do you know it's offensive to God? Did he mention that at your
weekly breakfast meeting, or what?
And why does an omnipotent being even need servants?
> Not only is it offensive
> and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'. So let's
> just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
>
> My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
In my experience, you are unlikely to respond to anything, at least in a
way that actually engages in discussion.
J. J. Lodder
> Hi all,
>
> just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> offensive both to God and to his servants. Not only is it offensive
> and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'. So let's
> just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
Then tell your fellow servants not to make claims
about fine-tuning of fundamental constants,
Jan
Frank J
> Hi all,
>
> just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> offensive both to God and to his servants.
If people like you stopped using the fallacy, it wouldn't have a
name. Actually I prefer "alien of the gaps." But I know your "kind."
All it takes is one person to say something you find offensive and you
go into a paranoid frenzy.
> Not only is it offensive
> and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'. So let's
> just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
You go first. Tell us "what happened when" according to your "theory."
>
> My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> then please do continue.
Who exactly is in these "communities"?
iaoua iaoua
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 06:33:37 -0700 (PDT), iaoua iaoua
>
>
>
>
>
> <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi all,
>
> >just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> >offensive both to God and to his servants. Not only is it offensive
> >and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> >God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'. So let's
> >just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
>
> >My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> >then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> >science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> >then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> >nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> >justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
>
> I suppose it is also offensive to claim that the cosmos and the earth
> and humanity were not created in six 24 hour periods less than ten
First of all Genesis does not make this claim. It talks about 7 Hebrew
'yohm'. It is very much an open linguistic debate what exactly was
meant by that. In any case, there are many religions that believe in
an almighty God. There are also people who believe in such and do not
accept the bible as scripture. There are those who do accept it as
scripture but take issue with its current shape and seek, by analysis,
to reconstruct its original shape. The point is that it is offensive
to put words into other people's mouths and misrepresent them. To
erringly say that there position is one of a God hiding in the gaps is
a complete misrepresentation. In fact, many you would accuse of this
position most likely consider quite the opposite to be the truth. That
God shows himself in nature and the more we understand about nature
the more we see and understand God.
> thousand years ago. I suppose it is also offensive to claim that a
> massive flood initiated by forty days and nights of rain did not
> inundate the entire earth and kill all living things (animals, at
Again, a matter of open debate. The phrase 'cohl haarets' could quite
easily mean 'all the land'. Which land? What is completely clear was
that no culture had a concept of a planet with the name Earth and this
was not the sense intended. In any case for the main reason of offense
in the statement 'god of the gaps' see above.
> least) except for the few occupants of one wooden boat. I suppose it
> is also offensive to claim that no individual human has ever lived for
> 900 years, begetting a child at almost 200 years of age. I suppose it
Unsubstantiated is the word that comes to mind rather than offensive.
Many a record would claim the contrary. Thousands of years from now
many may find it difficult to believe that most people don't make it
to 90 (or whatever). Also, what was the term translated 'year'? What
sense was meant? Was it the trip around the Sun sense? Was it the 4
seasons have passed sense? Was it the we have seen the full moon at
least 12 times and the barley has ripened sense? Did a trip around the
Sun take longer or less then than it does now? etc. etc. etc. So, No!
I don't find such statements offensive as they are not a
misrepresentation of anything I have said. In fact, I agree that such
a hypothesis raises a great deal of interesting research questions.
Surely, the person who wrote down such long life spans if he meant a
year in approximately the way we understand the term didn't live that
long and understood that such life spans were unusually long. Surely
he would have been aware that lying about such long life spans would
stimulate disbelief. And yet he wrote them as is. Why?
> is also offensive to claim that human languages did not originate
> during the construction of a single tall building.
>
Not offensive. Just strikes one as strange how you could be so sure
not having been witness to the events. If all languages did not come
from some common culture one begins to wonder why so many diverse
languages all have ancient flood traditions, even cultures which have
never been related to Judaism in any way since its inception. Again,
this doesn't particularly inspire offense, just raises many research
questions.
> Science makes claims about processes in the physical world. There are
> gaps in the knowledge that science has so far developed. To claim
> that any or all gaps in our knowledge must be due to failures in
> science and hence can only be attributed to divine action is offensive
> to science. So there.
If ever you see anybody making such claims then do let me know. I will
be the first to agree with you.
You see your fundamental problem here is that you seem to have
misunderstood the point. The main reason it is offensive is that you
misrepresent people's positions. Most God lovers would claim the more
we know about science and nature the more we understand God, his ways
and the more we have to give him glory for. To say that such people
despise science or claim that God is hiding in the gaps is offensive
because it is downright calous and slanderous. I hope I've managed to
now make this more clear to you.
JC
iaoua iaoua
wrote:
Wow! Now, that's going to do a lot toward converting Christians
towards your way of thinking now isn't it. If in doubt swear and call
people imbeciles. They are now sure to see your way of thinking.
JC
iaoua iaoua
In your wise opinion just who do you think designed the laws of
Physics etc from the point of view of somebody who believes that God
created all things?
Are we yet starting to see how 'god of the gaps' is a slanderous
misrepresentation?
JC
Frank J
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 06:33:37 -0700 (PDT), iaoua iaoua
>
>
>
>
>
> <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Hi all,
>
> >just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> >offensive both to God and to his servants. Not only is it offensive
> >and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> >God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'. So let's
> >just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
>
> >My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> >then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> >science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> >then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> >nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> >justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
>
> I suppose it is also offensive to claim that the cosmos and the earth
> and humanity were not created in six 24 hour periods less than ten
> thousand years ago.
6 months and 1000s of posts later, he must surely know that many self-
described creationists and "design proponents" have also made that
claim. But I have yet to hear him whine about them. Let alone *to*
them.
> I suppose it is also offensive to claim that a
> massive flood initiated by forty days and nights of rain did not
> inundate the entire earth and kill all living things (animals, at
> least) except for the few occupants of one wooden boat. I suppose it
> is also offensive to claim that no individual human has ever lived for
> 900 years, begetting a child at almost 200 years of age. I suppose it
> is also offensive to claim that human languages did not originate
> during the construction of a single tall building.
>
> Science makes claims about processes in the physical world. There are
> gaps in the knowledge that science has so far developed. To claim
> that any or all gaps in our knowledge must be due to failures in
> science and hence can only be attributed to divine action is offensive
> to science. So there.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Burkhard
> On Jul 8, 9:33 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> > offensive both to God and to his servants.
>
> If people like you stopped using the fallacy, it wouldn't have a
> name.
Is it a fallacy? I'd say it is bad theology, but can't quite see why
it would be a fallacy - not formal and abstract enough for this (not
every mistake is a fallacy)
Ernest Major
<29e1bce9-2eb0-4bd3...@n35g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>,
Burkhard <b.sc...@ed.ac.uk> writes
>On Jul 8, 5:20 pm, Frank J <f...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 9:33 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi all,
>>
>> > just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
>> > offensive both to God and to his servants.
>>
>> If people like you stopped using the fallacy, it wouldn't have a
>> name.
>
>Is it a fallacy? I'd say it is bad theology, but can't quite see why
>it would be a fallacy - not formal and abstract enough for this (not
>every mistake is a fallacy)
>
Depends on how finely you slice fallacies, I would think. It seems to me
that it can be boiled down to
X is unexplained. Ergo diety of arguer's choice.
which is an example of a non-sequitur.
Or you could present it as a false dichotomy.
A1. Either there is a (current) scientific explanation for X,
A2. or X is supernatural
B. There is no (current) scientific explanation for X.
C. Therefore X is supernatural.
--
alias Ernest Major
r norman
You, personally, may not be a biblical literalist but you claim to
speak on behalf of all God's servants, many of whom are indeed such
literalists.
Your fundamental problem, at least the current problem -- you have
many -- is your abuse of the term "God of the gaps". This is not a
claim that God is cowering or hiding in the gaps. It is rather a
claim that the gaps are evidence for God's existence.
True believers do not need evidence; they rely on faith. Arguing that
gaps in science demonstrate that God is at work demeans science by
suggesting that it cannot fill the gap itself (despite the numerous
gaps constantly being filled).
Scientists never argue FOR "God of the gaps". Instead we protest
AGAINST the claim of "God of the gaps". If you creationists would
stop making the "God of the gaps" argument, we would be delighted.
Randy C
>
> - Show quoted text -
I refer to "Pink Unicorns" in jest, of course. But many people may
not know that many Biblical apologists claim that the Bible speaks of
genuine unicorns.
The creationist site Answers in Genesis says this at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/aid/v2/n1/unicorns-in-bible
[quote]
Some people claim the Bible is a book of fairy tales because it
mentions unicorns. However, the biblical unicorn was a real animal,
not an imaginary creature. The Bible refers to the unicorn in the
context of familiar animals, such as peacocks, lambs, lions, bullocks,
goats, donkeys, horses, dogs, eagles, and calves (Job 39:9–12)
[end quote]
Actually there are many other reasons to consider the Bible to be a
book of fairy tales, though this is surely one of those reasons.
alextangent
Says the guy that calls people pricks. I'm wondering if there are two
people posting here, both contained in a single skull.
iaoua iaoua
And so when exactly did you think I made such a claim? I hope we are
starting to understand the meaning of the term slander here.
JC
Kermit
Indeed. The man who first taught me some evolutionary science (my
workout buddy in college) was a PhD grad student in microbiology. He
said that "Science is studying how God does things." But he used
science
to do that; he *never said that "we don't know how that happened, so
it must have been god." He instead implied "This is how God does
evolution
and rain; we don't know how he did this or that."
> To say that such people
> despise science or claim that God is hiding in the gaps is offensive
> because it is downright calous and slanderous. I hope I've managed to
> now make this more clear to you.
>
> JC
So... You have stopped arguing that if we cannot prove conclusively
that natural processes created life, it must have been God?
Perhaps I have misunderstood your position.
[Not knowing with high confidence how abiogensis occurred] is *not
[evidence for any god], even Chthulu. If there is a creator God, then
what we know of rain is how he does rain. Other stuff we don't know
yet.
Kermit
chris thompson
I will make a deal with you. I will stop putting words into your mouth
and misrepresenting you, if you stop misrepresenting the theory of
evolution.
Shake on that?
Chris
snip
r norman
Oh, good, you already stopped! Now I am delighted.
And you can also tell me just who claims that "God of the gaps" means
God is hiding in the gaps and mention even one person other than
yourself who is actually offended by the reference.
Randy C
> > and humanity were not created in six 24 hour periods less than ten
>
> First of all Genesis does not make this claim. It talks about 7 Hebrew
> 'yohm'. It is very much an open linguistic debate what exactly was
> meant by that.
As I am sure you know, many of your fellow creationists make the
PRECISE claim that the cosmos and earth and humanity were created in
six 24 hour periods.
The well-known Answers in Genesis web site at
http://www.answersingenesis.org/articles/nab/could-god-have-created-in-six-days
says:
"Taking Genesis 1 in this way, at face value, without doubt it says
that God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon and stars,
plants and animals, and the first two people within six ordinary
(approximately 24-hour) days."
I especially like the "without doubt".
Therefore different people, all of whom wish to believe that the Bible
is the inerrant Word of God, get different messages from the same
passages in the same book.
How do they do so?
You explain it. They engage in "linguistic debates". You just have to
determine ahead of time which side of a "linguistic debate" you wish
to be on. In this case, if you have seen the scientific evidence
supporting an old Earth and Universe, you get on the side of the
"linguistic debate" where "days" are much longer than 24 hours.
On the other hand, if you find that scientific evidence unconvincing,
you can get on the other side of the "lingusitic debate" and claim
that "without doubt" the Earth and universe were created in six
literal 24 hour days..
We see again how the Bible can be used to support either side of any
debate through the use of "linguistics".
Therefore we also see yet another example that the Bible can say
anything to anyone.
But a book that can say anything, actually says nothing.
chris thompson
Will was speaking metaphorically, of course- and I agree with him. In
a spiritual sense, I can think of few things less abhorrent than
biblical inerrancy and young-earth creationism. (Note: I am limiting
myself here to things not beyond the pale, like NAZIsm and NAMBLA).
In a concrete sense, Christians- even creationists- often make good
neighbors. They're decent people as a rule, mow their lawns, take care
of their kids and pets, and help their neighbors when they're in
need.
You, on the other hand, while you might do all those nice things,
would seem to be philosophically and spiritually bankrupt.
Chris
Burkhard
> Burkhard <b.scha...@ed.ac.uk> writes
I'd say your reconstruction is very convincing, and that makes it
indeed a fallacy (the first arguably a version from argument from
ignorance. I tend to read the argument a bit weaker, and then it is
logically sound if methodologically or theologically weak: Axiomatic:
There is some Y that God did that nature did not do. Statement of
fact: There is currently no natural explanation for X. Therefore it is
possible that X = Y.
History then has a tendency to make the factual premise wrong, the gap
shrinks (if you buy into the implied dichotomy in the axiom) which
makes it bad theology, but nothing prevents you on logical grounds
alone to try it with the next X that comes along (bad methodology)
Mark Isaak
> just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> offensive both to God and to his servants.
If you know that, why do you keep derogating God by specifying it?
> Not only is it offensive and derogatory but it is also logically
> inconsistent as no servant of God makes any such claims that 'God is
> hiding in the gaps'.
Well, you make such claims, so you must not be a servant of God. That
has been obvious for a long time.
> My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer then
> stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the science.
My aim it to promote good science. The *last* thing I want is for your
community to be close.
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Ron O
> and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
>
> then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
>
Then why do you try to keep putting your god in the gaps like
abiogenesis. Why not put your god into what is already known? Why
are the gaps in our scientific knowledge your only arguments? Most
competent theologians understand that it is a losing proposition, so
why can't you realize the same thing?
If you don't like it, stop doing it.
Ron Okimoto
Boikat
> Hi all,
>
> just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> offensive both to God and to his servants.
Too bad.
> Not only is it offensive
> and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'.
Actually, they do. For example, the entire concept of ID is based
upon the "God of the gaps".
> So let's
> just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
Since that would dispose of the entire "god of the gaps", what
justification would you leave IDiots?
>
> My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> science.
If that is your goal, then you should not be attempting to force
science to accept creationism.
> If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
Does that mean you'll crawl back under your bridge?
Boikat
iaoua iaoua
The simple laws of logic demand that in order to stop doing something
you first have to start.
> Perhaps I have misunderstood your position.
>
Indeed.
> [Not knowing with high confidence how abiogensis occurred] is *not
> [evidence for any god], even Chthulu. If there is a creator God, then
Evidence of God is something you receive once you start putting faith
in him. A matter quite irrelevant to the present discussion but
nontheless an interesting one.
> what we know of rain is how he does rain. Other stuff we don't know
> yet.
>
Agreed. However, where we perhaps disagree is that we do not know for
a fact how life came about.
JC
> Kermit
iaoua iaoua
At what point did this thread become about the theory of evolution.
For quite some time I have been talking about the origin of life not
the origin of species.
JC
iaoua iaoua
> On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 10:26:40 -0700 (PDT), iaoua iaoua
>
>
>
>
>
> >> claim that God is cowering or hiding in the gaps. 锟絀t is rather a
> >> claim that the gaps are evidence for God's existence.
>
> >> gaps in science demonstrate that God is at work demeans science by
> >> suggesting that it cannot fill the gap itself (despite the numerous
> >> gaps constantly being filled).
>
> >> AGAINST the claim of "God of the gaps". 锟絀f you creationists would
> >> stop making the "God of the gaps" argument, we would be delighted.
>
> >And so when exactly did you think I made such a claim? I hope we are
> >starting to understand the meaning of the term slander here.
>
>
In order to stop you first have to start. Please stop misrepresenting
me. It's not doing anything to bridge our gaps.
> And you can also tell me just who claims that "God of the gaps" means
> God is hiding in the gaps and mention even one person other than
> yourself who is actually offended by the reference.
I think it was Ilas who talked about God hiding in the gaps the last
time before I started this thread. I've heard the comment several
times since coming here but just ignored it and put it down to
immaturity. I finally felt it was time to address this offensive word
play.
JC
iaoua iaoua
Your idea of good moral behaviour includes somebody who mows his
lawn?!?
JC
iaoua iaoua
> > > I suppose it is also offensive to claim that the cosmos and the earth
> > > and humanity were not created in six 24 hour periods less than ten
>
> > First of all Genesis does not make this claim. It talks about 7 Hebrew
> > 'yohm'. It is very much an open linguistic debate what exactly was
> > meant by that.
>
> As I am sure you know, many of your fellow creationists make the
> PRECISE claim that the cosmos and earth and humanity were created in
> six 24 hour periods.
>
> says:
>
> "Taking Genesis 1 in this way, at face value, without doubt it says
> that God created the universe, the earth, the sun, moon and stars,
> plants and animals, and the first two people within six ordinary
> (approximately 24-hour) days."
>
> I especially like the "without doubt".
>
> Therefore different people, all of whom wish to believe that the Bible
> is the inerrant Word of God, get different messages from the same
> passages in the same book.
>
> How do they do so?
>
> You explain it. They engage in "linguistic debates". You just have to
> determine ahead of time which side of a "linguistic debate" you wish
> to be on. In this case, if you have seen the scientific evidence
> supporting an old Earth and Universe, you get on the side of the
> "linguistic debate" where "days" are much longer than 24 hours.
>
> On the other hand, if you find that scientific evidence unconvincing,
> you can get on the other side of the "lingusitic debate" and claim
> that "without doubt" the Earth and universe were created in six
> literal 24 hour days..
>
> We see again how the Bible can be used to support either side of any
> debate through the use of "linguistics".
>
> Therefore we also see yet another example that the Bible can say
> anything to anyone.
>
> But a book that can say anything, actually says nothing.
Stop trying to make each thread into something that it wasn't. I'm not
interested in perpetuating debates which largely return to bad
linguistic practice and a failure to interact with linguistics. If you
want to discuss your dodgy opinions of theology start a thread with an
appropriate title and I will show you the linguistic tools you need to
deal with ancient texts more professionally but not here.
JC
iaoua iaoua
> On Jul 8, 8:33 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> > offensive both to God and to his servants.
>
> Too bad.
>
> > Not only is it offensive
> > and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> > God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'.
>
> Actually, they do. For example, the entire concept of ID is based
> upon the "God of the gaps".
>
Really? Do they agree with you? Not knowing any of them I can't ask
them for myself. In any case, why do you feel so compelled to put me
in the same box? You do realise that prejudiced is considered a low
quality in modern society?
> > So let's
> > just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
>
> Since that would dispose of the entire "god of the gaps", what
> justification would you leave IDiots?
>
Who are these people? I don't know any of them. Why do you feel I
would want to defend them? At some point in the future can we dump the
sociology and get back to the science please?
>
>
> > My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> > then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> > science.
>
> If that is your goal, then you should not be attempting to force
> science to accept creationism.
>
Excuse me. The point is that we should be open to all possibilities
not force one particular interpretation.
> > If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> > then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> > nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> > justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
>
> Does that mean you'll crawl back under your bridge?
>
I'm beginning to feel that we will never have a proper scientific
communication. This is just going to be name calling ping pong
backwards and forwards isn't it. If so, I think I've lost interest in
replying to you. If I no longer don't reply to you please don't assume
that it is because there are no replies to your mistakes. It is just
because your unpleasantness has gotten unbearable and you
unreasonableness takes away the desire to even try.
Feel free to have the last word. I've lost interest.
JC
> Boikat
Nathan Levesque
> Hi all,
>
> just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> offensive both to God
How do you know this?
> and to his servants.
I think the appropriate word is slaves. Particularly because of the
derivation from the word Christianos. The adjectival ending denotes
slavery to.
> Not only is it offensive
> and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'.
Actually they do. They do it all the time, just not so straight
forwardly as that. They say something to the effect of this is
unknown therefore god, or god did it.
> So let's
> just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
If criticism = insults then you're an idiot. It goes both ways
right? So I'll just count calling you an idiot as a criticism. Or
should we keep the meaning of words to some sort of standard. Hey
yeah! And we can make a book with standardized definitions of words,
we'll call it a definitionary. Hmm..note to self work on name of
book.
> My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> then stop using such offensive language
If you want to hear offensive language then listen to yourself every
time you insist that a nonbeliever is going to hell.
> and concentrate on the
> science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
>
You're generally unlikely to respond to anything honestly, so not
responding at all won't make much of a difference.
Boikat
> On Jul 9, 12:18�am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 8:33�am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hi all,
>
> > > just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> > > offensive both to God and to his servants.
>
> > Too bad.
>
> > > Not only is it offensive
> > > and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> > > God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'.
>
> > Actually, they do. �For example, the entire concept of ID is based
> > upon the "God of the gaps".
>
> Really? Do they agree with you?
Feel free to present any ID argument that does not rely on "science
can't explain it, so some undefined superiour intelligence 9God) did
it".
> Not knowing any of them I can't ask
> them for myself.
Why not?
> In any case, why do you feel so compelled to put me
> in the same box?
You put yourself in that box, not me.
> You do realise that prejudiced is considered a low
> quality in modern society?
You mean your prejudic e against real science?
>
> > > So let's
> > > just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
>
> > Since that would dispose of the entire "god of the gaps", what
> > justification would you leave IDiots?
>
> Who are these people? I don't know any of them. Why do you feel I
> would want to defend them? At some point in the future can we dump the
> sociology and get back to the science please?
Sure. That would leave out creationism and any talk of supernatural
entities as causal agents. What does that leave you with, besides
arguments from ignorance?
>
>
>
> > > My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> > > then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> > > science.
>
> > If that is your goal, then you should not be attempting to force
> > science to accept creationism.
>
> Excuse me. The point is that we should be open to all possibilities
> not force one particular interpretation.
If you have any alternate scientific 'possibilities", please present
them, by all means.
>
> > > If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> > > then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> > > nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> > > justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
>
> > Does that mean you'll crawl back under your bridge?
>
> I'm beginning to feel that we will never have a proper scientific
> communication.
That is because you are pig-ignorant of what constitutes science, as
evident by your insistance of claimin cretionism should be given equal
treatment.
> This is just going to be name calling ping pong
> backwards and forwards isn't it. If so, I think I've lost interest in
> replying to you.
IOf that makes you happy. I shall continue to point out your
ignorance, however.
> If I no longer don't reply to you please don't assume
> that it is because there are no replies to your mistakes.
By all means, when I make any mistakes, feel free to point them out.
> It is just
> because your unpleasantness has gotten unbearable and you
> unreasonableness takes away the desire to even try.
If you can't stand the heat, get out of the oven.
>
> Feel free to have the last word. I've lost interest.
Feel free to run away, if you like.
Boikat
iaoua iaoua
> On Jul 8, 8:33 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> > offensive both to God and to his servants. Not only is it offensive
> > and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> > God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'. So let's
> > just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
>
> > My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> > then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> > science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> > then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> > nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> > justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
>
> > JC
>
> Then why do you try to keep putting your god in the gaps like
> abiogenesis. Why not put your god into what is already known? Why
The point is that life arising from a chemical reaction is not the
only viable hypothesis. In fact, it has a lot of associated problems
and is the weakest I can see. Whether God did it this way or that is
irrelevant to the question and so it is you who brings it up not I.
> are the gaps in our scientific knowledge your only arguments? Most
Arguments for what? Why do you make so many assumptions all the time?
> competent theologians understand that it is a losing proposition, so
> why can't you realize the same thing?
>
At any point in the near future would you like to consider not talking
to an imaginary opponent but read my posts and talk to me?
> If you don't like it, stop doing it.
>
Are you still talking to yourself?
JC
> Ron Okimoto
Arkalen
iaoua iaoua says many, many offensive things but insisting that
nonbelievers are going to hell isn't one of them.
Randy C
But ALL arguments about how to interpret the Bible are "bad linguistic
arguments".
YOU clearly have the obligation to address the claims of Answers in
Genesis which say that the Bible "without doubt" refer to six 24-hour
days for the creation of the Earth and the Universe.
How can YOU have doubts when they don't?
David Hare-Scott
> Hi all,
>
> just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
>
> science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
>
You have said (summarising) that the first life on earth was created by God.
You have also said (sumamrising again) that you are not anti-science but
that science explains many phenomena. If the sun is shining you would say
that this due to radiation from a very large ball of plasma a long way off
undergoing fusion reactions that liberate a great deal of energy. Correct?
So God is (and has been) responsible for some things but not others.
So we can best avoid offence please explain the rule that you use to
determine which phenomena God is responsible for and which ones He is not.
David
Ron O
> On Jul 9, 12:04 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 8:33 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hi all,
>
> > > just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> > > offensive both to God and to his servants. Not only is it offensive
> > > and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> > > God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'. So let's
> > > just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
>
> > > My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> > > then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> > > science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> > > then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> > > nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> > > justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
>
> > > JC
>
> > Then why do you try to keep putting your god in the gaps like
> > abiogenesis. Why not put your god into what is already known? Why
>
> The point is that life arising from a chemical reaction is not the
> only viable hypothesis. In fact, it has a lot of associated problems
> and is the weakest I can see. Whether God did it this way or that is
> irrelevant to the question and so it is you who brings it up not I.
"Viable" is not the same as scientific. The universe could have been
created a few seconds ago after you wrote your post with all our
memories intact. That is a viable hypothesis, but a pretty worthless
proposition.
What you need to do is figure out a way to make your hypothesis
competitive with the science of abiogenesis if you want to claim
equivalence. Like I said abiogenesis is among the weakest of
scientific endeavors and your hypothesis isn't even in the same
ballpark (criket field). Instead of harping on the gaps and the
unknown, what you need to do is get your hypothesis to be consistent
with what is known and use what is known to validate your hypothesis,
or develop the evidence that would validate your hypothesis.
>
> > are the gaps in our scientific knowledge your only arguments? Most
>
> Arguments for what? Why do you make so many assumptions all the time?
Well, your only arguments have been about the gaps in our scientific
knowledge. Do you deny it? Put up a counter example.
>
> > competent theologians understand that it is a losing proposition, so
> > why can't you realize the same thing?
>
> At any point in the near future would you like to consider not talking
> to an imaginary opponent but read my posts and talk to me?
Then change your god of the gaps argument into something else. Empty
denial is just stupid. What you need to do is actually do something
else.
>
> > If you don't like it, stop doing it.
>
> Are you still talking to yourself?
Just stop doing it. If you think that you are doing something else
demonstrate it. Put up the post where you actually did something
other than a god of the gaps type argument. What do you think that
your abiogenesis argument is? Why do you claim that your hypothesis
could be viable when the only reason that it is viable is because we
don't know the answer at this time? It isn't viable because of
something that we actually know.
Ron Okimoto
>
> JC
>
> > Ron Okimoto
Garamond Lethe
> On Jul 8, 2:33 pm, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Hi all,
>
> > just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> > offensive both to God and to his servants. Not only is it offensive
> > and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> > God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'. So let's
> > just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
>
> > My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> > then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> > science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> > then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> > nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> > justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
>
> > JC
>
"What we cannot explain must have already been eaten."
chris thompson
What the thread is about is immaterial. Do you want to make that
agreement or not?
Chris
Boikat
> On Jul 9, 12:04 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 8, 8:33 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Hi all,
>
> > > just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> > > offensive both to God and to his servants. Not only is it offensive
> > > and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> > > God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'. So let's
> > > just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
>
> > > My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> > > then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> > > science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> > > then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> > > nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> > > justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
>
> > > JC
>
> > Then why do you try to keep putting your god in the gaps like
> > abiogenesis. Why not put your god into what is already known? Why
>
> The point is that life arising from a chemical reaction is not the
> only viable hypothesis.
What are the alternatives?
> In fact, it has a lot of associated problems
> and is the weakest I can see. Whether God did it this way or that is
> irrelevant to the question and so it is you who brings it up not I.
Whenever ypou feel like presenting an alternate scientific
hypotheisis, please feel free to do so.
>
> > are the gaps in our scientific knowledge your only arguments? Most
>
> Arguments for what? Why do you make so many assumptions all the time?
Did you have some other point?
>
> > competent theologians understand that it is a losing proposition, so
> > why can't you realize the same thing?
>
> At any point in the near future would you like to consider not talking
> to an imaginary opponent but read my posts and talk to me?
>
> > If you don't like it, stop doing it.
>
> Are you still talking to yourself?
What kind of lubricant do you use on the wheels of your goal posts?
Lithium?
Boikat
Garamond Lethe
> Hi all,
>
> just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> offensive both to God and to his servants.
Insecure gods are really thin-skinned that way.
<snip>
Arkalen
jillery
Perhaps the topic shous be relabeled "Gods of the gasps"
John S. Wilkins
Should we mention that the person who coined the phrase was a Christian?
--
John S. Wilkins, Associate, Philosophy, University of Sydney
http://evolvingthoughts.net
But al be that he was a philosophre,
Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
I think it did come up, and it was doubters of creationism who were
challenged to reconsider their wicked position soon, before they die
and are resurrected and judged.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> On Jul 8, 3:41 pm, "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-
>
> orig...@moderators.isc.org" <rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote:> > > <iaoua-df45e1b1-eb87-426e-b528-305914b8d...@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
> > > >, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> writes
>
> > > >Hi all,
>
> > > >just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> > > >and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> > > >just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
>
> > > >science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> > > >then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> > > >nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> > > >justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
>
> > > God; the Lord will not leave unpunished the man who misuses his name."
>
> > > That would seem to cover arrogating to yourself the right to speak on
> > > God's behalf, and also arrogating to yourself the right to say who are
> > > God's servants.
>
> > Do you have a written and signed contract, that will stand up in
> > court?
>
> > By "God of the gaps", are we meaning, "Everything that happens is God
> > doing it, except for things that we now know from science to pretty
> > much just happen, such as rain"? (Matthew 5:45)
>
> In your wise opinion just who do you think designed the laws of
> Physics etc from the point of view of somebody who believes that God
> created all things?
>
> Are we yet starting to see how 'god of the gaps' is a slanderous
> misrepresentation?
The Wikipedia article that I posted a link to,
> > <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps> presents a list of
> > Christians reproaching the "god-of-the-gaps" "proof" of God's
> > existence.
- contains the argument that the universe as we perceive it through
rational examination and science is a more glorious work of God's than
most miracles.
But can you remind me of the argument for believing that God, for I
suppose that's who you mean, "designed the laws of Physics". Maybe
the laws of physics were just there, like the laws of mathematics.
jillery
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 9:23 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 8, 6:33 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Hi all,
>
> > > > just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> > > > offensive both to God and to his servants.
>
> > > Insecure gods are really thin-skinned that way.
>
> > Perhaps the topic shous be relabeled "Gods of the gasps"
>
> Should we mention that the person who coined the phrase was a Christian?
A good idea. At the same time, I would mention the debt we owe to
those who believed the Universe is comprehensible. Without their
faith, the Enlightenment never would have happened.
Ernest Major
<jo...@wilkins.id.au> writes
>jillery <69jp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 8, 9:23 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Jul 8, 6:33 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > > Hi all,
>> >
>> > > just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
>> > > offensive both to God and to his servants.
>> >
>> > Insecure gods are really thin-skinned that way.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps the topic shous be relabeled "Gods of the gasps"
>
>Should we mention that the person who coined the phrase was a Christian?
We already have.
--
alias Ernest Major
John S. Wilkins
In particular we should note the role of secondary causes in traditional
Christian thought...
Arkalen
to the effect that the Bible doesn't support the doctrine of Hell -
basically he thinks that judgement day will involve a very painful death
vs eternal life, instead of eternal torment vs eternal bliss.
That said you are right: a very painful death is still something it's
mean to threaten people with, which he has implicitly done.
So much for trying to be fair :)
iaoua iaoua
> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Jul 9, 1:02 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
> > > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Jul 8, 9:23 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > On Jul 8, 6:33 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > > Hi all,
>
> > > > > > just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> > > > > > offensive both to God and to his servants.
>
> > > > > Insecure gods are really thin-skinned that way.
>
> > > > Perhaps the topic shous be relabeled "Gods of the gasps"
>
> > > Should we mention that the person who coined the phrase was a Christian?
>
> > A good idea. �At the same time, I would mention the debt we owe to
> > those who believed the Universe is comprehensible. � Without their
> > faith, the Enlightenment never would have happened.
>
> In particular we should note the role of secondary causes in traditional
> Christian thought...
> --
> But al be that he was a philosophre,
> Yet hadde he but litel gold in cofre
Of course, pretty much all modern science came about through Jewish
and Christian efforts. But the logical problem is this. The God of the
gaps arguments contains a logical fallicy. For there are those who
both believe that knowledge of nature give glory to God and that life
may not have come about by some chemical process which is reproducible
by humans. Therefore the argument would then become both God of the
gaps and God of the none gaps. The insult thus becomes meaningless and
only serves to highlight an extreme misrepresentation of the views of
others.
JC
Boikat
If the God of the gaps "insult" is meaningless, why did you originally
claim that it was insulting, troll-boy?
Boikat
Bill
> Hi all,
>
> just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
>
> science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
>
Actually, the first time I came across the phrase "God of the Gaps,"
was in Dietrich Bonhoeffer's "Letters and Papers from Prison." He,
quite a heroic Christian, was objecting to what he saw as other
Christians locating the evidence for God in the existence of mysteries
which science had not yet explained. His perception of the "god of the
gaps" issue was pretty much identical to that of the atheists in t.o.,
except that he thought one could find ample evidence of God in all
sorts of ordinary, daily things which were perfectly well explained by
science.
r norman
<iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 9, 8:04�am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > On Jul 9, 1:02 am, j...@wilkins.id.au (John S. Wilkins) wrote:
>> > > jillery <69jpi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > On Jul 8, 9:23 pm, Garamond Lethe <cartographi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> > > > > On Jul 8, 6:33 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > > > > > Hi all,
>>
>> > > > > > just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
>> > > > > > offensive both to God and to his servants.
>>
>> > > > > Insecure gods are really thin-skinned that way.
>>
>> > > > Perhaps the topic shous be relabeled "Gods of the gasps"
>>
>> > > Should we mention that the person who coined the phrase was a Christian?
>>
>> > A good idea. �At the same time, I would mention the debt we owe to
>> > those who believed the Universe is comprehensible. � Without their
>> > faith, the Enlightenment never would have happened.
>>
>> In particular we should note the role of secondary causes in traditional
>> Christian thought...
>
>Of course, pretty much all modern science came about through Jewish
>and Christian efforts.
That is, if you wish to ignore some 800 years of Islamic astronomy,
mathematics, chemistry, and medicine.
iaoua iaoua
As far as I recall you already accept death as a given. Therefore
there is no threat of death only a promise of salvation.
'I did not come to judge the world but to save it'
JC
Steven L.
"iaoua iaoua" <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iaoua-df45e1b1-eb87-4...@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> Hi all,
>
> just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> offensive both to God and to his servants. Not only is it offensive
> and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'.
It's not intended to be derogatory.
Its meaning is this: Many proponents of creationism take the position
that because scientists haven't figured out something, that thing must
have been created by God.
You yourself have done that with abiogenesis. Scientists are a long way
from figuring out exactly how life begins naturally. So you argue that
because they don't know exactly how it could be done naturally, it must
have been done supernaturally.
UFO proponents are similar: "Because scientists haven't been able to
explain what that mysterious light in the sky was last month, it *must
have been* a spaceship crewed by space aliens."
-- Steven L.
Arkalen
I don't accept *dying by being burned alive in a lake of fire* as a given.
Steven L.
"iaoua iaoua" <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iaoua-42b7a641-5411-4...@gc3g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 8, 2:49 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > On Fri, 8 Jul 2011 06:33:37 -0700 (PDT), iaoua iaoua
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >Hi all,
> >
> > >just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> > >offensive both to God and to his servants. Not only is it offensive
> > >and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> > >God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'. So let's
> > >just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
> >
> > >My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> > >then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> > >science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> > >then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> > >nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> > >justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
> >
> > I suppose it is also offensive to claim that the cosmos and the earth
> > and humanity were not created in six 24 hour periods less than ten
>
> First of all Genesis does not make this claim. It talks about 7 Hebrew
> 'yohm'. It is very much an open linguistic debate what exactly was
> meant by that. In any case, there are many religions that believe in
> an almighty God. There are also people who believe in such and do not
> accept the bible as scripture. There are those who do accept it as
> scripture but take issue with its current shape and seek, by analysis,
> to reconstruct its original shape. The point is that it is offensive
> to put words into other people's mouths and misrepresent them. To
> erringly say that there position is one of a God hiding in the gaps is
> a complete misrepresentation. In fact, many you would accuse of this
> position most likely consider quite the opposite to be the truth. That
> God shows himself in nature and the more we understand about nature
> the more we see and understand God.
>
> > thousand years ago. I suppose it is also offensive to claim that a
> > massive flood initiated by forty days and nights of rain did not
> > inundate the entire earth and kill all living things (animals, at
>
> Again, a matter of open debate. The phrase 'cohl haarets' could quite
> easily mean 'all the land'. Which land? What is completely clear was
> that no culture had a concept of a planet with the name Earth and this
> was not the sense intended. In any case for the main reason of offense
> in the statement 'god of the gaps' see above.
>
> > least) except for the few occupants of one wooden boat. I suppose it
> > is also offensive to claim that no individual human has ever lived for
> > 900 years, begetting a child at almost 200 years of age. I suppose it
>
> Unsubstantiated is the word that comes to mind rather than offensive.
> Many a record would claim the contrary. Thousands of years from now
> many may find it difficult to believe that most people don't make it
> to 90 (or whatever). Also, what was the term translated 'year'? What
> sense was meant? Was it the trip around the Sun sense? Was it the 4
> seasons have passed sense? Was it the we have seen the full moon at
> least 12 times and the barley has ripened sense? Did a trip around the
> Sun take longer or less then than it does now? etc. etc. etc. So, No!
> I don't find such statements offensive as they are not a
> misrepresentation of anything I have said. In fact, I agree that such
> a hypothesis raises a great deal of interesting research questions.
> Surely, the person who wrote down such long life spans if he meant a
> year in approximately the way we understand the term didn't live that
> long and understood that such life spans were unusually long. Surely
> he would have been aware that lying about such long life spans would
> stimulate disbelief. And yet he wrote them as is. Why?
>
> > is also offensive to claim that human languages did not originate
> > during the construction of a single tall building.
> >
>
> Not offensive. Just strikes one as strange how you could be so sure
> not having been witness to the events.
But you weren't witness to the events either. Neither was any
creationist.
When the Lord was supposed to have said "Let there be light," there were
no humans around to see that either. So how can you be sure THAT
happened?
All anyone can do--whether a proponent of evolution or the Big Bang
theory or creationism--is examine the evidence available to us today.
> If all languages did not come
> from some common culture one begins to wonder why so many diverse
> languages all have ancient flood traditions, even cultures which have
> never been related to Judaism in any way since its inception.
Probably because sudden catastrophic floods happen all over the world.
(Japan just had a big one.) And people migrate; they travel elsewhere,
taking their myths and folklore histories with them to spread to
whichever peoples they meet along the way.
I'm in the camp of those who believe that the Middle East really did
suffer a sudden catastrophic flood. We've seen what the Indian Ocean
tsunami did in 2004. A similar tsunami in the Indian Ocean, caused by a
major tectonic event or even by meteorite impact, could have sent giant
tidal waves crashing everywhere from the east coast of Africa to the
Middle East and as far away as India. That could have given rise to
flood myths in all those places: Noah, the Epic of Gilgamesh, etc.
Remember, Abraham's followers likely knew nothing of central and
southern Africa; nor of China, Japan, and the Americas. To them, the
Middle East was their "whole world." A catastrophic tsunami that
inundated much of the Middle East would have been "worldwide" as far as
they were concerned.
> > Science makes claims about processes in the physical world. There are
> > gaps in the knowledge that science has so far developed. To claim
> > that any or all gaps in our knowledge must be due to failures in
> > science and hence can only be attributed to divine action is offensive
> > to science. So there.
>
> If ever you see anybody making such claims then do let me know. I will
> be the first to agree with you.
That is actually the basis of Intelligent Design: Since scientists
allegedly can't explain the evolution of "irreducibly complex"
structures in life forms, *then* an Intelligent Designer "must be"
responsible for designing those structures.
And you're right, that's illogical. You can't reason from "No one
knows" to "But I know".
If a bunch of people see a mysterious light in the sky, and scientists
can't explain it (yet), one is not justified in concluding that it "must
have been" an alien flying saucer from another planet.
> You see your fundamental problem here is that you seem to have
> misunderstood the point. The main reason it is offensive is that you
> misrepresent people's positions. Most God lovers would claim the more
> we know about science and nature the more we understand God, his ways
> and the more we have to give him glory for.
You and all people of faith should feel that way.
But we've seen too many of them recoil when scientists discover that the
universe is billions of years old, the Earth is billions of years old,
the speed of light in free space is a constant of our Universe, life on
Earth is a couple billion years old, and that before Homo Sapiens there
were hominids who walked upright, the earliest of which evolved from
non-hominid primates and others of which evolved into Homo Sapiens.
You can't claim you love science, while reserving to yourself the right
to cherry-pick which parts of science you accept and which parts you
reject, even though you yourself are not a scientist doing research in
those fields.
No one would buy such a claim of love where your wife is concerned: "I
love my wife because I like her face and her legs, even though I reject
the rest of her."
-- Steven L.
Kleuskes & Moos
The invention of '0' and our modern day numbering systems in India,
and we haven't even mentioned any of the ancient Greeks, whose
science, curiously, is still quite modern in many respects. No ship
builder ignores what Archimedes had to say, after all, and i bet most
of the engineers know about Pythagoras, too and fire the ones that
don't.
The Chinese might have an objection or two against such blunt
statements, as well. Chandrasekar-limit springs to mind and a couple
confirmed atheists/non-theists shouldn't be that hard to come by.
In short: the OP's sayso just does not cut it.
Steven L.
"iaoua iaoua" <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iaoua-a8ca2616-4098-4...@t7g2000vbv.googlegroups.com:
Good point.
And I would add, for many of us, death won't even come peacefully.
Dying of cancer is rarely peaceful and easy. It's only "relatively
painless" in the sense of being so stoned on morphine that one doesn't
remember his own name.
Believe me, I wish there is some greater meaning to be had out of such
horrific experiences.
I haven't found it yet.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"David Hare-Scott" <sec...@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:iv88a1$5v1$1...@news.albasani.net:
I thought the rule was obvious: The Bible states which phenomena God is
responsible for, from the creation of Light, to creating Adam from dust
and Eve from a "rib" of Adam, to getting the Sun to stand still as
Joshua asked, to resurrecting His Son after he died.
All other phenomena, scientists can ascribe to natural law. But they
can't contradict what the Bible says.
-- Steven L.
Burkhard
I've been given tickets to a Meat Muppet concert, does that count?
Mark Isaak
> On Jul 8, 2:49 pm, r norman <r_s_nor...@comcast.net> wrote:
> [...]
>> is also offensive to claim that human languages did not originate
>> during the construction of a single tall building.
>>
>>
> Not offensive. Just strikes one as strange how you could be so sure not
> having been witness to the events. If all languages did not come from
> some common culture one begins to wonder why so many diverse languages
> all have ancient flood traditions, even cultures which have never been
> related to Judaism in any way since its inception.
A harder question is how all those various cultures could have the
ancient flood traditions they have, if all languages *did* come from a
fairly recent common origin.
Does the term "earth diver" mean anything to you?
--
Mark Isaak eciton (at) earthlink (dot) net
"It is certain, from experience, that the smallest grain of natural
honesty and benevolence has more effect on men's conduct, than the most
pompous views suggested by theological theories and systems." - D. Hume
Mark Isaak
> On Jul 9, 12:04�am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
>> On Jul 8, 8:33 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> > just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
>> > offensive both to God and to his servants. [...]
>>
>> Then why do you try to keep putting your god in the gaps like
>> abiogenesis. �Why not put your god into what is already known?
>
> The point is that life arising from a chemical reaction is not the only
> viable hypothesis. In fact, it has a lot of associated problems and is
> the weakest I can see.
How so? The only alternative you have suggested has a 100% failure rate.
It has *never* explained anything. Life arising from chemical reactions
cannot help but be a better explanation. Heck, life from a runaway
nuclear fission reaction has to be a better hypothesis.
>> Why are the gaps in our scientific knowledge your only arguments?
>
> Arguments for what?
Pretty much everything you have ever argued.
Mark Isaak
> "iaoua iaoua" <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:iaoua-df45e1b1-eb87-4...@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com:
>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
>> offensive both to God and to his servants. Not only is it offensive
>> and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
>> God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'.
>
> It's not intended to be derogatory.
iaoua is offended because he wants to be offended. Let him have his
little pleasures.
Steven L.
"Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-o...@moderators.isc.org"
<rja.ca...@excite.com> wrote in message
news:d2687554-1b8c-4add...@q1g2000vbj.googlegroups.com:
That's a Deist view. Thomas Paine might have approved. I do too.
But Deism hasn't been too successful as a religious doctrine. There's
no personal payoff for being a believer.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"iaoua iaoua" <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iaoua-218fc6c8-0770-4...@q17g2000vby.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 9, 12:18 am, Boikat <boi...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 8:33 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > > Hi all,
> >
> > > just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> > > offensive both to God and to his servants.
> >
> > Too bad.
> >
> > > Not only is it offensive
> > > and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> > > God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'.
> >
> > Actually, they do. For example, the entire concept of ID is based
> > upon the "God of the gaps".
> >
>
> Really? Do they agree with you? Not knowing any of them I can't ask
> them for myself. In any case, why do you feel so compelled to put me
> in the same box?
Can you restate your current view?
If you consider evolution and abiogenesis to be weak theories and
hypotheses, do you know of stronger ones?
I'm not going to engage in insults and personal attacks on you. But I'm
going to be persistent and keep asking you to tell us how YOU believe
the variety of life on Earth came to be.
-- Steven L.
Steven L.
"iaoua iaoua" <iaoua...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:iaoua-626c6803-54e5-4...@g12g2000yqd.googlegroups.com:
> On Jul 9, 12:04 am, Ron O <rokim...@cox.net> wrote:
> > On Jul 8, 8:33 am, iaoua iaoua <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > > Hi all,
> >
> > > just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> > > offensive both to God and to his servants. Not only is it offensive
> > > and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> > > God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'. So let's
> > > just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
> >
> > > My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> > > then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> > > science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> > > then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> > > nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> > > justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
> >
> > > JC
> >
> > Then why do you try to keep putting your god in the gaps like
> > abiogenesis. Why not put your god into what is already known? Why
>
> The point is that life arising from a chemical reaction is not the
> only viable hypothesis. In fact, it has a lot of associated problems
> and is the weakest I can see.
What other hypotheses have you considered?
I only know of three basic alternatives:
1. Life arose as a consequence of natural scientific laws.
2. Life arose as a deliberate act by some other conscious entity.
(God, aliens, whatever)
3. Life came to Earth from somewhere else in space (panspermia),
meaning that life didn't arise here on Earth at all, but just traveled
here.
Do you have another one?
> Whether God did it this way or that is
> irrelevant to the question and so it is you who brings it up not I.
>
> > are the gaps in our scientific knowledge your only arguments? Most
>
> Arguments for what? Why do you make so many assumptions all the time?
You've changed your view on this somewhere along the line.
Are you no longer claiming that life on Earth was intelligently designed
by some conscious entity?
Because you used to.
-- Steven L.
Ernest Major
<sdli...@earthlink.net> writes
When listing alternatives, I mention spontaneous abiogenesis,
supernatural abiogenesis, directed abiogenesis, local panspermia, global
panspermia, directed panspermia and any others which have escaped my
attention, but in a universe with a finite age the origin of life,
rather than the origin of life on Earth, these collapse down to two
alternatives - spontaneous abiogenesis and supernatural abiogenesis.
But for really out there hypotheses
3) Life was present at the singularity, and somehow has managed to
change substrate (from a quark-gluon plasma shortly after the Big Bang
to the current CHON) maintaining continuity ever since. Such a
hypothesis is probably less unconvincing if directed abiogenesis steps
are included.
4) Life has been eternally present in the multiverse, and somehow was
introduced to this universe from another one.
--
alias Ernest Major
Burkhard
> In message <V_idnXw3RboPPoTTnZ2dnUVZ_r-dn...@earthlink.com>, Steven L.
> <sdlit...@earthlink.net> writes
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >"iaoua iaoua" <iaoua.ia...@gmail.com> wrote in message
5) there is no life, just a sim by a robot culture that wants to find
out how a world with life would look like, and we are part of it.
6) everything is alive, life and matter are co-existent
Victor Eijkhout
the apes".
Would have been more accurate too.
Victor.
--
Victor Eijkhout -- eijkhout at tacc utexas edu
Walter Bushell
Ernest Major <{$to$}@meden.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> In message
> <iaoua-df45e1b1-eb87-4...@hd10g2000vbb.googlegroups.com
> >, iaoua iaoua <iaoua...@gmail.com> writes
> >Hi all,
> >
> >just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> >offensive both to God and to his servants. Not only is it offensive
> >and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> >God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'. So let's
> >just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
> >
> >My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> >then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> >science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> >then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> >nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> >justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
>
> Exodus 20:7 "Thou shalt not make wrong use of the name of the Lord your
> God; the Lord will not leave unpunished the man who misuses his name."
>
> That would seem to cover arrogating to yourself the right to speak on
> God's behalf, and also arrogating to yourself the right to say who are
> God's servants.
> >
> >JC
> >
There is this guy in a city inside Rome who claims that right. He
appears on ceremonial occasions wearing a dunce cap. Could you tell him.
--
The Chinese pretend their goods are good and we pretend our money
is good, or is it the reverse?
r norman
wrote:
It is not a dunce cap, silly. It was modeled after the design of one
of the pieces on a chess board.
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
> "Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-orig...@moderators.isc.org"<rja.carne...@excite.com> wrote in message
Not according to the attribution by Wikipedia, I find.
> But Deism hasn't been too successful as a religious doctrine. There's
> no personal payoff for being a believer.
Unless getting to skip regular church attendance - and subscription -
is a payoff.
Walter Bushell
r norman <r_s_n...@comcast.net> wrote:
I'd egg you on, but some people can't take a yolk.
Evidentially the dunce cap was modeled after the Papal hat.
John S. Wilkins
John S. Wilkins
According to this it was the wizard's hat:
http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1793/whats-the-origin-of-the-du
nce-cap
The whole thing smells of post hoc rationalisations, though. Duns
Scotus, from whom the name arises, was in fact a master of philosophy,
and his work is anything but stupid or reactionary, and the humanists of
the renaissance were not beyond using rhetorical tricks and lies to make
themselves seem smarter and more modern than they actually were (hence
the dismissal of Aristotle in favour of the new fangled neo-Platonism).
It's a rhetorical trick designed to advance a particular style. I'd be
surprised if the actual dunce caps were used before around 1650.
Stuart
> Hi all,
>
> just in case none of you knew language such as 'god of the gaps' is
> offensive both to God and to his servants.
Tough nuts. If you prefer blasphemy laws go to Pakistan.
Not only is it offensive
> and derogatory but it is also logically inconsistent as no servant of
> God makes any such claims that 'God is hiding in the gaps'.
Yeah they do. They do it without thinking about it, but they do.
So let's
> just keep to the science and leave insults aside shall we.
>
> My request is this. If your aim is to bring our communities closer
> then stop using such offensive language and concentrate on the
> science. If your aim is to generate animosity between our communities
> then please do continue. I expect this post will generate lots of
> nonsense posts outlining reasons why you feel such language is
> justified. I am unlikely to respond to any of them.
Oh goody.
Stuart
Robert Grumbine
And Hindu mathematicians, who, after all, invented nothing.
--
Robert Grumbine http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/ Science blog
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
J. J. Lodder
You ain't seen nothing yet.
The really great invention was the empty set,
Jan
Richard Harter
What's the big deal with the empty set? After all, there is nothing
to it.
Boikat
> On Wed, 13 Jul 2011 18:41:02 +0200, nos...@de-ster.demon.nl (J. J.
>
>
>
>
>
> Lodder) wrote:
The way I understand it, it filled a void.
Boikat
r norman
What I would like to know is how many different empty sets are there?
Are they all the same or is the empty set that contains, for example,
all the transcendentals that can be expressed as the ratio of two
integers a different set from the empty set of all white crows or the
empty set of all sensible and intelligent creationists?
Robert Carnegie: Fnord: cc talk-origins@moderators.isc.org
The only difference is their contents. Yes, they're the same - except
that sets are very abstract mathematical thingies, so puttting
everyday things into them is a bit of a mismatch.
Mitchell Coffey
Actually, their only differences is what they don't contain.
Mitchell Coffey
Richard Harter
wrote:
It all depends upon whether you are talking about extension or
intension. Maybe an analogy with telephones will help. The empty set
is like not having an extension so you can't make a call whereas if
you need to make a call and don't have a phone you are in tension -
which empty set (no phone) you have depends on whom you need to call.
People need to know these things; I'm thinking of writing an Axiomatic
Set Theory For Dummies book.
r norman
The set theoretic definition of equality says all empty sets are equal
to each other. But it doesn't say they are the same. In other words,
is the cardinality of the equivalence class of empty sets equal to
one?
Walter Bushell
c...@tiac.net (Richard Harter) wrote:
Followed by _Galois Theory for Dummies_, _Abstract Covering Spaces of
Locally Euclidian Spaces (Bozhe moi!)_and _The The Banach-Tarski Theorem
for Dummies_, no doubt.
r norman
wrote:
>In article <4e1e1548...@text.giganews.com>,
I thought Schaum's Outline guide to Wiener's "Extrapolation,
Interpolation and Smoothing..." was handy.