Christian Response | "god of the gaps" & science
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 29 мар 2022
- ◆ Apologetics ◆ Polemics ◆ Theology ◆ Street Evangelism
🖐️ Click JOIN to become a channel member and help growing this ministry!
/ @danielapologetics
🧡 Patreon - bit.ly/3uZzo4A OR 💙 PayPal - bit.ly/3gkWIVs
👀 SUPPORT by boosting the RUclips algorithms (Like, Comment, Share, blablabla..!)
🙏 PRAY for this work - and for fellow Christians, especially those that are persecuted...
... "GOD takes NO pleasure in the death of the wicked; but rather that they turn from their ways and live." ... ✝️ (Ezekiel 33;11, OLD TESTAMENT) ✝️
⬛🟨⬛
The good old skeptic argument; "god of the gaps" is still alive and well. The objection is that theists just reply with "We don't know, so therefore God" - while the skeptic might say that science will continue to find natural explanations to the big questions in life that ancient people previously attributed to a god or gods. But is "We don't know, therefore God"
- REALLY what Christians are doing? How to answer this skeptic polemic? I show one way in this video.
⬛🟨⬛
👀 BUT, BUT, BUT?
Why am I not a muslim? ... What about gratuitous evil? ... Divine hiddenness? ... Trinity? ... Atheist objections? ... Bad things in the Old Testament? ... Objections to the New Testament and Jesus' resurrection?
→ Watch This Playlist: bit.ly/3ErEdZA ←
🦁 ABOUT THE CHANNEL:
I hope to serve you all well here on the channel, both Christians and non-Christians, with what mostly is aimed to be topical and concise 5 minute videos related to Apologetics, Polemics, Theology and Street Evangelism - though longer and different videos is not off the table.
🙋♂️ ABOUT ME:
Let the content presented speak for itself, and fact-check it with reliable sources.
Regarding sharing my background and credentials etc... Who I really am, is not important...
I am not a RUclipsr, I have a very busy offline life working a 50 hrs/week self-employed day-job.
Just consider me a random dude on the internet for all I care.
If the content is good and helpful, to God be the glory!
🌍 WEBSITES:
★ Official Website ★
www.danielapologetics.com
▬ All links for Social Media, Backup, Support and more:
linktr.ee/danielapologetics
💬 COMMENTS:
⬬ No heart or reply to your comment, does NOT mean that I'm not grateful for your support.
⬬ Unanswered skeptic comments, does NOT mean it was solid refutation that I can't answer.
⬬ 50 hrs/week day-job, family and video production allows LIMITED time for the comment section.
📈 MONETIZED:
For the first 3 years, I didn't want to monetize the channel for a good handful of reasons. But upon requests from subscribers who wanted to support the channel through RUclips Supers' features, and learning that RUclips indeed promotes monetized videos to a higher degree than non-monitized videos, I decided to activate it.
🎬 FOOTAGE & MUSIC:
■ RUclips.Com
🛑 DISCLAIMER:
Copyright Disclaimer Under Section 107 of the Copyright Act 1976, allowance is made for fair use for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research. Fair use is a use permitted by copyright statute that might otherwise be infringing. Non-profit, educational or personal use tips the balance in favor of fair use.
#danielapologetics
“God is the explanation for why explanations exist at all.” 💪
Mic drop
The old "future science of the gaps" argument. Without God, there is no science, no uniformity of nature, no mind with which to reason.
The problem of induction.
Great video, bro!
To God be the glory! Glad you like it brother. Peace of Christ be with you, Summer and the ministry. I appreciate you support of mine very much
There are no deities in science, so what was your excuse again?
Well said, the case for Christianity is based on what we know, not what we don't know.
Amen brother. Our faith can be tested, because its based on a historical public event, on which it stands or fall. Very different compared to other religions.
@@DanielApologetics lol "faith" is what you use when you DO NOT have evidence. As for historical accuracy of the bible has *ZERO* relevance to its authenticity. Even if the bible were written by mere ordinary superstitious primative tribesmen. They would still know about towns , places, people , leaders kings ect . That's the very LEAST we would expect.
Herodotus wrote about life in 500bc he spoke of real people and places does that mean his works are inspired of god ??? Of course not .
If some future archeological dig discovered the ruins of New York and the empire state building would they be justified in thinking *KING KONG* was therfore real ???? Nonsense.
There is no archeological evidence for anything supernatural only the normal mundane stuff we find with everything else.
Almost every fictional book ever written will contain references to real places and people even Harry Potter it means nothing.
However if there were historical INACCURACIES (and there are lots ) that's a different story.
When was jesus born for example ? Because the historical evidence disagrees alarmingly with the bible on that for starters .
Quirinius's census for example we know conclusively did not occur until 7 ad not 3 years before the death of herod but several years after. And yes I know there was more than one herod, I can go into detail if you like about how we know exactly which one it was and can cross reference with Mathew ect.
Commenting for algorithm
I appreciate that my friend
Here from your comment on DWood's video. God bless
Peace of Christ be with you
I am glad I found your channel. Great videos 👍 enjoying watching.
Love the last point!
The end there reminds me of an example by Professor John Lennox.
Thanks for this!
Highly inspired by him. To God be the glory! Glad you enjoyed the video
So many great scientists in history were Christians. The more you learn about science the greater God becomes. The universe is not a mistake or an accident and we did not evolve from space matter. We are too well made and engineered.
Lovely video :)
I'm sending this to my atheist friend ;) . He'll be Mad XD
Soli Deo Gloria!
Greet him 💙😁
Amen 🙏
Saying Christianity is false because other religions have been disproven is like saying all science is false because other scientific theories have been disproven.
That beginning animation. 😍😍😍👍
Yes, its pretty cool. A viewer of the channel who is a graphic designer made that intro and logo last year. =)
Pagans also wouldn't be bothered by bothered by "science". They didn't thing Zeus caused lightning because they didn't know what caused lightning. Lightning was appropriate to the power of Zeus. The intermediate cause of naturalism wouldn't change that. The idea that ANY religion exists because of gaps in causal understanding is just whack.
What is _"the cause of naturalism"_ ???
@@trumpbellend6717 Naturalism AS the intermediate cause.
So tell me , just why do you think a god exists ???
@@trumpbellend6717 Do you believe that any value statement at all can be true? If so, that requires God. So do all axioms. God does not exist FOR. God grounds all things.
@@trumpbellend6717 Why do you think atheism is true?
Haven't watched your videos since 2 months ago lol
Hi Daniel! Would you ever be up for an interview to learn about Christianity in Slovakia?
Contact me on: danielapologetics@gmail.com
@@DanielApologetics just seeing this! Contacting you now. :)
It’s not about science but the epistemology used. At the end of the day the “god of the gaps” is what it says independent of what science might or might not find out.
0:39 I think sceptics talking about gods causing thunderstorms are actually strawmanning since they believed they could do it which is what made them think that even though they knew about there must be natural processes in general.
We know it wasn't really Zeus but that's not to say they didn't know about natural explanations.
'ScIeNcE cAn ExPlAiN eVeRyThInG'
Can Science explain that?
...uh
Daniel, a quick question. Can the Peterine authorship of 2 Peter be defended?
Yes. Not as easy with 2nd as for his 1st. But yes it can. I would say that what the earliest Christians had to say about our books is crucial. I have no plans to make a video on it as of date. I need to re-study the topic again first too, pro and cons.
@@DanielApologetics only 2nd*, no 3rd Peter
Correct. I was thinking of John for a sec there.
0:18 Yes, it is a pity, but that's not the fault of opponents of theism but of theists themselves. If they want their opponents to stop mentioning this fallacy, then all they have to do is to stop using it themselves. It's an outright fallacy that I'm sure we'll see in a while just why (and if it isn't featured then I'll explain it myself).
0:40 Well that's actually not a bad example of God of the Gaps, but the actual explanation behind it is simply the argument from ignorance. God of the Gaps is simply that fallacy applied to a theistic setting where God is assumed to be behind things we do not know.
0:49 I can already see that this is going to go the route of the "you atheists are guilty of the SCIENCE OF THE GAPS argument you hypocrites". Well while there are in fact people who say that science will eventually give answers to questions we don't know (which is certainly not a given I agree), this reasoning, while fallacious in nature, is based on a trend of how science has explained (and continue to explain) things that we didn't know previously.
More importantly, it has ALWAYS been, through scientific discoveries, a naturalistic explanation that has replaced previous supernatural explanations for things (like your example of how science now explains how lightning is formed and that explanation removes any assertion of any God of Thunder). Not ONCE has it been the other way around, where a previously naturalistic explanation is replaced by a supernatural explanation. So no we are not likely to wake up one day and suddenly the explanation that God created rain replaces the explanation of the water cycle for example.
So such an assertion does have a basis, but even if I grant (and I do actually grant) that this is technically "science of the gaps", it still doesn't absolve the use of the God of the Gaps fallacy (which is still being used by theists even now). To claim that because the other side is guilty of the same therefore your side can be absolved of that same thing is a fallacy in itself called Tu quoque.
1:14 We could also honestly argue that those philosophical arguments and such have been debated to death and debunked just as much. But I don't think we're going to go there now are we? That would be a mite too revealing.
1:32 Yup, we're going there as I predicted. Yes this is technically the same argument from ignorance, but you have to note that this is based on a trend that is factual and has a record that speaks for itself. Theism cannot say the same for its own arguments though. No theistic explanation has ever replaced a natural explanation so far.
1:33 It's not QUITE a non sequitur in that trends ARE a thing and can be taken into consideration. From a purely logical standpoint, maybe, but then this also applies to God of the Gaps, so that makes it 2 fallacies in 1 I guess?
1:45 Only Christians find the new testament reliable, the evidence for it actually being reliable isn't a thing. So Christians basically find it reliable because they want to find it reliable. It's why things like the Spider-Man fallacy keep cropping up when Christians argue for Biblical reliability (or even just NT reliability).
1:51 Or what we want to be true. Simply because you have an answer or explanation in your head, doesn't make that the right answer. It bears to mind that it's not that opponents of such apologists are not addressing all the things being brought up, it's because they HAVE been addressed....and have always been found wanting. Doesn't stop theists from bringing them up over and over anyway. Why else do you think God of the Gaps is still a thing?
1:57 I kind of want to ask what those facts are, but I think we're going to get the minimal facts argument in response and...that's not even anywhere CLOSE to actual proof of the resurrection. I mean one of those minimal facts is an empty tomb for goodness sake (an empty tomb that is only mentioned in the Gospels and nowhere else too). That's as much proof for a resurrection as an empty bridge that I should try selling to those who posit the empty tomb argument.
2:05 Ah, ad populum, also I think I have to keep breaking out Georges Lemaitre whenever I see the "look at all those Christians professors!" line.
2:27 Well thanks for admitting that God can't be proven by science (which scientists already know and accept by the way), and if God can't be proven by science, then God has no place in science. God should simply remain in faith. Of course, this admission also contradicts what you just said about God being IN the universe. If God is in the universe, then science should be able to observe at least SOME signs of God. And yes, that includes the scientific method, unless you want to explain why God seems to be something that cannot be observed or proven by such when it has has no trouble doing exactly that for everything we know about the universe so far. At the very least God should be observable in some form or fashion other than simply "look at the trees! God was responsible for them!"
2:47 Logic and mathematics are derived from direct observation of the universe as we know it. In a way it's through basic observations that we lay such as the foundations for science to explain stuff. So yeah science doesn't derive logic and mathematics because logic and mathematics are things that form the basis of science. As for metaphysics, that's entirely the realm of philosophy, and not the jurisdiction of science, but philosophy has always had trouble with actually proving stuff in reality, something science is supposed to do.
3:01 Again, these are things outside the jurisdiction of science, but science CAN help us explain WHY we have values and ethics. And specifically why we have the ethics we do now.
3:05 "There are things that cannot be proven by the scientific method, therefore God cannot be proven by the scientific method". You do realize that this is a non-sequitur as well right?
3:40 Which is of course a full on cop out. God can't be proven and God is the basis of everything. The only way we can accept this is simply through blind faith since there's pretty much no other way to reach this conclusion (it's a practically unfalsifiable statement, and it's also a statement that presupposes God as the "explanation behind all explanations" to begin with). What I do appreciate however is that this admission is the very reason why no one should try and bring God into the classroom. After all, a God that is definitionally incompatible with science has no place in it.
Sorry I far to moral to ever adhere to the God of biblical naratives, even if he exists ( he doesn't )
LOL you use fallacy to support why you are attached to superstition in a faux argument about how you use fallacy. Talk about nonsense.