Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Actual left/right wing discussion -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: one_less who wrote (2670)	10/12/2006 6:57:12 PM
From: Jim S	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 10087

"...I've never actually met any of those people..." Depends on where you live, I think, Gem. Visit a Penacostal church sometime. Or maybe a 7th Day Adventist church.

To: one_less who wrote (2670)	10/12/2006 7:11:05 PM
From: TimF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 10087

I've heard of the idea before, the "God of the gaps" but I also haven't seen someone actually supporting such a belief, only people assigning the belief to someone else. Now it is true that some believers use the argument "X can not be explained by science so it must be from God", which is could be an argument from ignorance or at least related to it, or it can be considered an argument with the unstated premise "all things that science can't understand, must be due to God", but I find that a rather weak even silly premise, and I think most other people, at least people sophisticated enough to understand the structure of a logical argument, would agree. Actually more common that "X can not be explained by science so it must be the direct creation of God", is "X can not possibly have a natural explanation, so it must have a supernatural explanation." One problem (for some supporters) is that the supernatural explanation doesn't have to be anything like any specific deity or cosmic force. Another problem is that its pretty hard to demonstrate, either logically or empirically that something can not possibly have a natural explanation.