ChatterBank0 min ago
"God of the Gaps"
29 Answers
explains the concept of God based on a god filling in the missing links, or gaps, between what we do not understand or know. Evolution before its theory was explained by the concept of a god. When an American theologian in the middle of the 20th century proclaimed that "God is Dead," he was referring to this notion. People could make a conjuncture that soon science will replace all concepts of god, or the filling in of missing links with scientific knowledge. If you visualise this concept as lying on a continuum with its missing parts getting filled in by scientific inquiry throughout mankind thus far, and approaching its infinity through progress, two things can happen.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by fantastical. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
That is said is to clarify. Now, my point is that there is no religion, there really might not even be "real" science, even though there are universal truisms that are assumed to be properties throughout the universe. My thing is that science is "my" definition of God. God is science. God does not discriminate, even against those who, by some intricate mix of factors, were led astray on the wrong path in life, and consequently committed some "crimes" or "harm" toward others that give him the lable of "criminal" or "sinner."
Philosophy has proved that "for something to be everything, it is also nothing." God, to me, is everything - he is the universe, and he is nothing. Our human brains cannot accurately conceive "nothingness." Every "body" and every "thing" though is or was made from a component of God. God, himself, evolves. God is like a system of varables (i.e. the universe), that through interactions of random events and series, produces "life" as we know it. I don't believe that God ever created the universe and life in it from an outside view, and then watches over his "creation." He simply is it.
Philosophy has proved that "for something to be everything, it is also nothing." God, to me, is everything - he is the universe, and he is nothing. Our human brains cannot accurately conceive "nothingness." Every "body" and every "thing" though is or was made from a component of God. God, himself, evolves. God is like a system of varables (i.e. the universe), that through interactions of random events and series, produces "life" as we know it. I don't believe that God ever created the universe and life in it from an outside view, and then watches over his "creation." He simply is it.
Think about this assertion. I have spent basically the last 9 years thinking very hard on this (during college and my post-graduate work). Its generalisability is fitting in scientific terms, it meets the universal criterium in science by not discriminiting over anything, and its observations are based from my personal history (life-altering event has changed the way I view things in life).
The one thing that might fail entry into my inclusive god-framework is human thought - human consciousness. Can a thought be measured in scientific terms? The firing of synopses and axioms in the brain that faciliates the passage of thoughts, or at least electrical impulses, throughout one of the most complex systems that humans know of (i.e. the human brain)?
The one thing that might fail entry into my inclusive god-framework is human thought - human consciousness. Can a thought be measured in scientific terms? The firing of synopses and axioms in the brain that faciliates the passage of thoughts, or at least electrical impulses, throughout one of the most complex systems that humans know of (i.e. the human brain)?
fantastical; My initial thoughts upon reading your latest posts is that your definition of "God" has some similarities to my definition for reality, that stuff out there that does not respond to thoughts but is perceived by the mind and after being processed through reason into understanding allows us to choose a course of action which will sustain or promote our human existence.
I confess, I have not had time to attempt a proper digestion of your latest input (being as I have to do some self maintenance in the way of producing income), but in the meantime I'm hoping you can clarify and summarize in basic terms so that I can better understand where your coming from.
Are you defining "God" as reality inclusive of cause and effect, throughout time but excluding human existence or influences or just human consciousness and thought (cognition) and/or volition?
Once we have agreed upon the meaning of the term �God�, I suspect I may have some observations about your questions.
In the simplest and most basic terms what is your �personal definition� for �God�, (what set of concepts does it relate to, and what distinguishes from other concepts in that set).
Can you relate this to common human experience so that it can be understood by others?
Sure M2C, I will do my best to clarify and respond accordingly. I've mentioned a few properties of my conception of god in the posts I've contributed. The thing that should stand out is the inclusivity of the being, or force. To me, he is like a force, a "system of variables," components, and qualities that randomly interact with each other to produce things - things in our life that we can marvel at, condemn, glorify, or appreciate, and assign meaning to in the process. It is these interactions that allow us to percieve cause-and-effect relationships (and rightly define them as such in the scientific field).
This might be where you see the lines of my definition of god start to blur with your definition of reality. I guess to me, God is nothing more THAN reality. When people attest to an enlightened experience with God somehow, I think many times that was actually the case, but the experience only happened in their minds. Is that reality, or just "their" reality?
This might be where you see the lines of my definition of god start to blur with your definition of reality. I guess to me, God is nothing more THAN reality. When people attest to an enlightened experience with God somehow, I think many times that was actually the case, but the experience only happened in their minds. Is that reality, or just "their" reality?
So God is everything - literally (I think so at least). It's so inclusive, referring to God as "it" or "the it" would be more accurate I imagine. But I need to regress (it's very complex, my conception of god). For too long in history, we have resorted to relying on religion and god as explaining things almost as a crutch.
Christ, I border on the agnostic side but still think he was one of the most powerful men ever for mobilizing such a large crowd, never really defined God. He of course said he was god, but also that he was seperate of god at the same time. A paradox? Well, what if Christ wasn't wrong like some people think? Christ may have been god no more or less as every other person was, and is. Christ just had the charismatic forethought and aptitude to understand this idea and persuade others to follow.
Christ, I border on the agnostic side but still think he was one of the most powerful men ever for mobilizing such a large crowd, never really defined God. He of course said he was god, but also that he was seperate of god at the same time. A paradox? Well, what if Christ wasn't wrong like some people think? Christ may have been god no more or less as every other person was, and is. Christ just had the charismatic forethought and aptitude to understand this idea and persuade others to follow.
one more - its on the neurological side.
People behave based on nothing more than how their genes influence the collection of experiecnces they have accumulated throughout life, and vice versa. Perception of life is controlled in the brain. The stability of that system of neurological processes effects how one thinks, learns, and ultimately behaves. What if someone received impact to this system (i.e. a blow of some sort)? They may possibly become a "different" person. What if the trauma effected upon the person was not from their volition? Their system would be disrupted from no choosing of their own. What if this person has different thoughts than before the system interruption? They might not believe in god the same way anymore, but still appreciative of the fact that they didn't have a "system failure" just a "system interruption" - that may as some people feel be from the workings of a higher power. Funny, but I'm trying to explain what happened to me from 3rd person...very difficult mind you.
So I survived an MVA with a TBI (comatosed for 11 days). Logic says that that should've produced some differences, but I'm hardpressed to find any in the 9 years since. An MS from a presitgious university and 100% physical health supports that null relationship. Is my example a miracle - devine intervention? Or just the chance product of random variation - i.e. being at the right place at the right time, though in the wrong situation? I've learned to side more with the latter, but the former warrents my attention and calls for an understanding.
People behave based on nothing more than how their genes influence the collection of experiecnces they have accumulated throughout life, and vice versa. Perception of life is controlled in the brain. The stability of that system of neurological processes effects how one thinks, learns, and ultimately behaves. What if someone received impact to this system (i.e. a blow of some sort)? They may possibly become a "different" person. What if the trauma effected upon the person was not from their volition? Their system would be disrupted from no choosing of their own. What if this person has different thoughts than before the system interruption? They might not believe in god the same way anymore, but still appreciative of the fact that they didn't have a "system failure" just a "system interruption" - that may as some people feel be from the workings of a higher power. Funny, but I'm trying to explain what happened to me from 3rd person...very difficult mind you.
So I survived an MVA with a TBI (comatosed for 11 days). Logic says that that should've produced some differences, but I'm hardpressed to find any in the 9 years since. An MS from a presitgious university and 100% physical health supports that null relationship. Is my example a miracle - devine intervention? Or just the chance product of random variation - i.e. being at the right place at the right time, though in the wrong situation? I've learned to side more with the latter, but the former warrents my attention and calls for an understanding.
fantastical, Forgive me if I am mistaken because I am still in a situation of having to guess your meaning. I use a very refined & distilled thought process. I have no faith that my brain will provide me with the right answer if I just trust it and allow it to do its thing. The reason for this is that I assume responsibility for my mistakes and by relying on my �intuition� and the parental programming I received, I have had to assume a lot of responsibility, (if you get my meaning).
Also; I eschew �altruism�; I believe people claiming an �altruist� motivation are actually attempting to get something (probably not something good) for nothing; (impossible!).
I enjoy helping others because I believe I can learn something for and/or about myself in the process. If I actually succeed in helping someone, I believe that they will return the favor if or when the opportunity arises. Value recognizes value.
Now with that context in place here is what comes to mind.
You under went a traumatic experience. Your wondering why this happened to you and if it happened because of something you did which made you a deserving victim. (Again, this is just a guess?)
I believe the answer to this is yes and no with the following qualification/s. Because we are not omniscient, (we are born only with the potential to learn), we will always be vulnerable to unknown factors, (the stray bullet, or random earthquake, tsunami, lightning bolt etc.). Under these circumstances we may all fall victim to our ignorance. This is where knowledge can play an important role; for instance: If we knew the area was a war zone we might choose to avoid that area if possible; eventually science will most likely be able to predict when and where an earthquake, tsunami etc., will occur; you are probably aware that it is not wise to fly a kite using a wire during an electrical storm.
The facts here as I see them is that there are no guaranties in life for wealth, happiness, success, love, etc.; all we can do is minimize or risk through awareness and maximize our opportunities through education. I appears to me that you are doing both of these. I believe you are among those of us that believe we are born innocent but still such are nonetheless victims of random acts of misfortune as are we all too some degree.
I would not attempt to compare the �trauma� of my childhood to the traumatic experiences of anyone else, but for me, because of choices I have made in light of, or in spite of this, I cannot imagine the person I would be if fate had allowed me to just cruise through life without the necessity of undergoing an extensive self-education on; how to justify my existence (including my right to breath in the air I was not sure I had any right to) and to discover the meaning of happiness and how to achieve it.
I hope this helps but whether it does or not I thank you for your patience and your thought provoking posts.
Your very welcome M2C, thank you very much for you response and insight.
I'm on the same page with everything you say, except one thing. I do not believe that I was an underserving victim of a traumatic experience. Albeit, I was a passenger in the car and had no control over the driver's decisions to not slow down around a sharp curve, but I made the choice not to wear my seatbelt. Anyway, I understand adverse things may happen in the face of random variation of life's components, and that principle has changed how i view things in life - especially significant by having first-hand experience of it.
That's why my God needs to be nothing, and the same time everything. You believe that, and the rest of our prinicples of life, and what life means, logically will follow (for me at least). This is the time in entire life where I feel most comfortable with my thoughts on life and God.
Best wishes to all the AB'ers
I'm on the same page with everything you say, except one thing. I do not believe that I was an underserving victim of a traumatic experience. Albeit, I was a passenger in the car and had no control over the driver's decisions to not slow down around a sharp curve, but I made the choice not to wear my seatbelt. Anyway, I understand adverse things may happen in the face of random variation of life's components, and that principle has changed how i view things in life - especially significant by having first-hand experience of it.
That's why my God needs to be nothing, and the same time everything. You believe that, and the rest of our prinicples of life, and what life means, logically will follow (for me at least). This is the time in entire life where I feel most comfortable with my thoughts on life and God.
Best wishes to all the AB'ers
