Sentences with phrase «of god of the gaps»

Darwin ripped the heart out of one of the God of the Gaps arguments (i.e. we don't know how complex life forms arose, therefore the Judeo - Christian god did it) but Hubble showed that the whole idea of there being any cosmic importance to planet Earth is naked parochialism to the highest mathematical degree possible.

Not exact matches

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.

What you have provided is called the God of the Gaps argument.

The truth project was blatantly intelligent design and loaded with quote mines, arguments from ignorance, god of the gaps, strawmen, etc...

God using evolution to create shows way more time and dedication to the emergence of humans, but of course the fundamentalists know best and claim to KNOW that genesis was meant to be 100 % literal despite gaps and missing pieces translating from a very simplistic language into English.

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.

your god of gaps has been moved from mountain tops to the farthest reaches of space; why?

Changing your theology to keep up with science is called using the «God of the Gaps» theory.

2) May I remind you that this God of the Gaps has been steadily on the retreat in the last few thousand years and especially in the last couple of hundred years.

Modernity sought to secure knowledge in the structure of human rationality, and relegated God to the «gaps» or denied Him all together.

He admits to not knowing and thus is being honest, you plug a god of the gaps in to it and thus are being dishonest.

That is why we call it the God of the Gaps argument.

Everytime science has new insight the god of the gaps must step aside on that point.

That is just a re-spun version of the «god of the gaps» fallacy, (and most other scientists disagree with him, and his arguments are easily refutable).

There is nothing of god - of - the - gaps here.

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.

I don't have a «god of the gaps».

The only things that points to any «god» are lazy, underdeveloped minds like yours that just want to conveniently fill in the gap with «goddidit» instead of tracing cause after cause backward to the beginning with provable, empirical EVIDENCE.

The book helps fill a gap in the history of thought and practice that aims at serving God through serving Mammon.

Regarding Meyer's 2013 Darwin's Doubt: The Explosive Origin of Animal Life and the Case for Intelligent Design, paleontologist Donald Prothero asserts that Meyer, not a paleontologist nor a molecular biologist, does not understand these scientific disciplines, therefore he misinterprets, distorts and confuses the data, all for the purpose of promoting the «God of the gaps» argument.

The root of his bias is his «God of the gaps» approach to knowledge and the sentimental quest to «provide solace to those who feel their faith undermined by secular society and by science in particular».

For 2000 years your god has been pushed further and further into the gaps of our ignorance, and still you cling to it.

which ever one, yours or the previous models had wanted to impress the world a description and location of where they could be found would have gone a long way to fill the god credibility gap that is getting larger by the day.

Your argument is the «god of the gaps» argument.

You make a fallacious claim...no - one can possibly know with 100 % certainty if a god exists, so why bother using the God of The Gaps argument to explain away the unknogod exists, so why bother using the God of The Gaps argument to explain away the unknoGod of The Gaps argument to explain away the unknown?

fred, that is the «god of the gaps» fallacy.

We are only beginning to understand the brain — one of the last few gaps for god to hide.

God is not a «god of the gaps,» reduced to being the explanation for the inexplicable; instead He is the very reason for there being explanations at aGod is not a «god of the gaps,» reduced to being the explanation for the inexplicable; instead He is the very reason for there being explanations at agod of the gaps,» reduced to being the explanation for the inexplicable; instead He is the very reason for there being explanations at all.

The visual representation of God was a vital link in the chain of reality and closed the gap between absence and presence.

We just can't insert God in the gaps of what science has not yet been fully able to explain.

there is no logical path that one can take that would lead one to the conclusion that an all powerful creator existed outside of space and time... that claim is nothing more than a god of the gaps argument.

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.»

Gaps in our knowledge is not evidence of a god.

Your argument is a version of the classic «God of the Gaps» argument.

Christians who work in the natural sciences are dogged by a persistent bogeyman: a singular creature called the God of the gaps.

But I think there is a gap between the first few verses, so there is an uncertain period of time in pre-history during which God's kingdom was administered by angels.

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.

Wolfhart Pannenberg concluded his incisive overview of the period with the observation that one must «spare the Christian doctrine of God from the gap between the incomprehensible essence and the historical action of God, by virtue of which each threatens to make the other impossible,» and went on to state that «in the recasting of the philosophical concept of God by early Christian theology considerable remnants were left out, which have become a burden in the history of Christian thought.»

Believers grasp at the God of the Gaps (because we don't know, Goddidit) because he's been driven away from everything else.

Of course, the mere complexity of creation or the inability of a theory to explain certain «gaps» does not allow anyone to conclude immediately that God existOf course, the mere complexity of creation or the inability of a theory to explain certain «gaps» does not allow anyone to conclude immediately that God existof creation or the inability of a theory to explain certain «gaps» does not allow anyone to conclude immediately that God existof a theory to explain certain «gaps» does not allow anyone to conclude immediately that God exists.

The benefit of this approach is that God is not consigned to the gaps in scientific knowledge.

u r preventing critical thought whenever u say god did it (god of the gaps).

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.

But how the transcendent God bridges the gap to become immanent, and why his grace touches some events and not others, are left to the realm of mystery.

There is no room for the «God of the gaps» in the new world, nor is this the God of whom the Bible speaks.

Today nothing can be achieved any longer by means of the traditional location of the concept of God in the gaps of natural science, by means of the assertion that the concept of God is necessary to explain the world, by means of any transformation of the world by theistic proofs.

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).

If you want to fill in the gaps of our unknowns with God, that's fine and I respect your choice.