Sentences with phrase &laquo;as god of the gaps&raquo;

Religious believers are likely to get further in discourse with the current generation of secular academics by 1) continually demonstrating, as Posner himself seems to intuit, that only a moral theory founded on God can actually «work,» in the sense of bridging the gap between «is» and «ought»; and 2) demonstrating the inherent self «contradictions of the moral theories advocated by the «secular liberals.»

There is no evidence in your post, this is what is known as the «God of the Gaps» argument.

This is a show, after all, that once painted God as a gap - toothed rhinoceros - monkey, portrays Satan as a simpering milquetoast and regularly features Jesus as a superhero - the kind who's not afraid to ignore the peaceful teachings of the Sermon on the Mount to smite his opponents.

The Science behind the big bang has some gapping holes yet its put forward all the time to the public as the only other option is..., as well as Macro evolution but well we all know that they say its the only option... Could it be that science doesn't accept a concept of God from the outset so then the big bang and evolution are the only options.

Betz is on safer ground when he suggests that «the ultimate point of the analogia entis, as employed by Przywara, is precisely not by philosophical means to close the gap between God and creatures, grace and nature, reason and revelation (as Barth seems to have feared), but rather to widen it.»

However, as time is marching forward and scientific progress is being made, it is becoming harder and harder to use the God of the Gaps argument, as science «is» unquestionably «continuing» to fill in those gaps and answGaps argument, as science «is» unquestionably «continuing» to fill in those gaps and answgaps and answers.

While science can't «understand» everything YET the the crux here is «YET» The god of the gaps is becoming more and more useless as science grows our understanding of the universe.

Discussing at length three biological structures that ID supporters cite as evidence of «irreducible complexity» (and therefore the need, they say, for divine intervention), Collins shows how ID remains no more than a modern version of a «god of the gaps» hypothesis, which posits a «clumsy Creator, having to intervene at regular intervals to fix the inadequacies of His own initial plan for generating the complexity of life» and therefore completely unsatisfactory.

This is a God - of - the - gaps approach, where God has less and less to do as we understand more and more how nature works (and a view I reject).

https://rachelheldevans.com/

Their «God» - of - the - gaps doesn't work as well as it did in the past.

Your God, though, becomes a God - of - the - gaps, and as questions are answered with evidence and study your God continually shrinks.

For Garaudy, religion is an opiate only (1) when it devalues the problems of this life as relatively unimportant, (2) when it conceives God as jealous of the autonomy of man, and (3) when it has recourse to a God of the gaps who supernaturally intervenes to solve human problems (RE 115 - 17).

To re-make our «God - of - the - gaps» point, as the first modern philosopher of science, Francis Bacon, prophetically warned, holistic levels safe from science's influence will prove to be chimeras, andleave us all reductionists.

If I could now turn to some of the more specific criticisms, it is simply not true to describe ID as a «God of the gaps» philosophy.

The thought of Deism and Intelligent Design is rejected as is the related «God - of - the - gaps» approach, which is rightly described as dangerous because it makes itself very vulnerable to further scientific discovery closing those gaps.

It can also be criticized theologically as a continuation of the «God of the gaps,» attempting to invoke God as explanation for an area of ignorance.

Dawkins also criticises, as we ourselves do, any notion that God is invoked merely to explain away gaps in our understanding of the universe.

Ultimately, the Arian / feminist dislocation of meaning from words results in either a remotenessof God which can never be accessed and whose gap no creature (not even the Logos creature of Arianism) can ever hope to bridge (i.e. Arianism); or it means an immanence of God who is one with creation and its articulation in such a way that every articulation of meaning can be surpassed by a further better one, as evolution / God evolves to a higher state of being.

• «the God for which we are arguing is not a God of the gaps, not a God who is brought in to paste over the gaps in our present scientific knowledge, which might be filled later as science progresses.

Surely that qualifies as an argument from ignorance» the materialist's God of the gaps.

today hes reduced to hopping from gap to gap as science progresses — god of the gaps.

Now that kind of thinking about God which looks for evidence of His activity in phenomena which have no natural explanation is often referred to as a belief in the «God of the gaps».

Bonhoeffer rejects the «God of the gaps» for the Incarnate Christ who is in the world, not as an idea, but as Person.

«It seems we have a «Darwin of the Gaps» just as much as you think we have a «god of the gaps».&raGaps» just as much as you think we have a «god of the gaps».&ragaps».»

Creationist «well, what about the origin of the universe, the fact that the universe obeys laws, the origins of life on this earth, the fact that the largest «gaps» in the fossil record correspond exactly with the organisms identified in the bible as being created by God, namely fish, birds, land animals and humans»

Unfortunately, this approach can not help but make God appear as the «God of the gaps.»

It falls foul of the same weaknesses: as scientific explanation of these gaps gradually becomes easier, (being done by the same methodology as the former set of «easier» material explanations) we have no further need of metaphysics or of God.

Low - level achievement may well be insensitive to this gap either because the original resources are too meager or because there is insufficient awareness of the aims as received from God.