Intelligent Design vs. Casino Universe

Why don't you make a computer model of an existing god? :lol

You're greatly constraining the Theory of the Big bang.

It is relevant to request the same level of evidence for your god hypothesis that you are demanding of the scientific one.

*whispers* Yours is the god hypothesis, not mine.

@Q: If you quack like a duck and believe other duck stories,...

RE: the Data

Quote:

...they suggestologize the data to match a pre-constructed fake theory ...

Let me introduce you to the concept of a mirror. All you have to do is present something better than the current standard model and the world will open their ears to you. Still waiting. How about outlining your own hypothesis and the supporting evidence for it?

The red shift has been explained to you Herald and you just ignored it.

We have 3 objects near each other represented as follows:
A.B.C.......
All are accelerating at different speed so after a certain time they would be like this
..A...B....C
A, B, and C have no reference other than themselves.

Question: "What is the God of the gaps argument?"

Answer: The “God-of-the-gaps” argument refers to a perception of the universe in which anything that currently can be explained by our knowledge of natural phenomena is considered outside the realm of divine interaction, and thus the concept of “God” is invoked to explain what science is, as yet, incapable of explaining. In other words, only the “gaps” in scientific knowledge are explained by the work of God, hence the name “God of the gaps.”

The idea is that as scientific research progresses, and an increasing number of phenomena are explained naturalistically, the role of God diminishes accordingly. The major criticism commonly states that invoking supernatural explanations should decrease in plausibility over time, as the domain of knowledge previously explained by God is decreasing.

However, with modern advances in science and technology, the tables have been literally turned. With the advent of electron scanning microscopes, we have been able to observe the intricate workings of the cell for the first time. What had originally and simplistically been thought to be nothing more than a “blob” of protoplasm is now seen to be far more complex and information-packed than had ever been conceived of previously.

Much of what had once been filed away as “solved” in the early twentieth century is now found to be inadequately explained by naturalism. Twenty-first century technology is increasingly revealing gaping holes in conventional evolutionary theory. The information-rich content of the “simple” has only recently been understood at any real level and found to be anything but simple. Information can now be understood to be inherently non-material. Therefore, materialistic processes cannot qualify as sources of information.

In reality, a belief in God can be derived by means of an objective assessment, rather than the subjective conjecture that may have been the case millennia ago. But many people simply deny what is obvious to them. The Bible addresses those very people: “The wrath of God is being revealed from heaven against all the godlessness and wickedness of men who suppress the truth by their wickedness, since what may be known about God is plain to them, because God has made it plain to them. For since the creation of the world God's invisible qualities—his eternal power and divine nature—have been clearly seen, being understood from what has been made, so that men are without excuse” (Romans 1:18-20). The God-of-the-gaps argument is an example of “suppressing the truth” because it relegates God to a “backup” explanation for those things which cannot yet be explained by natural phenomena. This leads some to the faulty conclusion that God is not the omnipotent, omnipresent, absolute Being of whom Scripture testifies.

There is much for which the natural sciences simply cannot provide an explanation, such as the origin of the time/space/matter continuum and the fine-tuning thereof; the origin and subsequent development of life itself; and the origin of the complex and specified information systems inherent in all living things, which cannot (nor ever will be) explained by natural means. Thus one cannot rationally divorce the supernatural from the observed universe, proving once again that “in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth” (Genesis 1:1).

This is classical and comical.

The “God-of-the-gaps” argument refers to a perception of the universe in which anything that currently can be explained by our knowledge of natural phenomena is considered outside the realm of divine interaction, and thus the concept of “God” is invoked to explain what science is, as yet, incapable of explaining.

In other words, only the “gaps” in scientific knowledge are explained by the work of God, hence the name “God of the gaps.”

The 'God-of-the-gaps argument' is called agnosticism and it is a school of philosophy - it is not a religion ... and there is no God there.

Wtf. It's an argument used by theists to try to dishonestly wedge their favorite invisible friend into. "Science doesn't know everything, therefore god." You're denying your own favorite tactic.

I've brought plenty of evidence and necessary (not fallacious, as you have) inference. Quid pro quo. Your turn to bring some evidence and argument for your god that is approximately equivalent in strength to the naturalistic one. Gaps in science is not evidence for your god. You're just telling us what we already know. Tell us something about your god. Like, why anyone should believe in i

The "god of the gaps" is a bit of theological reasoning which invokes divine intervention as a way to understand natural phenomena that science is presently unable to explain; since we don't know how x happens, it is assumed that Goddidit. Of course, scientists and most rationalists would argue that naturalistic explanations for still-mysterious phenomena are always possible.[1]

The god of the gaps is one way for intelligent and scientifically literate theists to deal with the cognitive dissonance of believing in a transcendent god.
...
Life and evolution

One of the more prominent examples of current "God of the Gaps" thinking is the Intelligent Design movement, which claims that some aspects of how life formed are impossible to explain — not only with today's scientific knowledge, but ever.

Another well-worn God-gap is that of abiogenesis. Again, as there is no generally accepted explanation for the appearance of life on the planet, the position that Goddidit is taken as default by creationists.

Philosophy

The God of the Gaps argument finds what is perhaps its most popular manifestation in ideas about first cause. Ultimately, some people will always believe that something cannot come from nothing, and that any scientifically explained manifestation/creation of our universe will require that something "caused" it to exist. (There is, of course, rarely if ever a serious question of what caused the causer.)

Amusingly, Gödel's incompleteness theorems prove that God will always have a little gap left to hide in, no matter how much humanity learns.