Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Quote:
Originally Posted by LadyShea
Quote:
Originally Posted by peacegirl
Just because you don't understand does not mean that it's impossible. The brain is mysterious, and scientists don't know enough regarding this uncharted territory to be sure of what's going on.
|
If we were debating the existence of a deity, this would be called the God of the Gaps argument. Lessans of the Gaps doesn't have the same ring to it, but it fits.
A few simple substitutions and voila! Lessans of the Gaps
Quote:
Does it mean, if you don’t understand something, and the community of physicists don’t understand it, that means God did it Lessans was right? Is that how you want to play this game? Because if it is, here’s a list of things in the past that the physicists at the time didn’t understand [and now we do understand] [...]. If that’s how you want to invoke your evidence for God Lessans ideas, then God is Lessans ideas are in an ever-receding pocket of scientific ignorance that’s getting smaller and smaller and smaller as time moves on - so just be ready for that to happen, if that’s how you want to come at the problem.
"The Moon, the Tides and why Neil DeGrasse Tyson is Colbert's God". © 2007-2011 The Science Network. January 20, 2011.
|
|
I can't even begin to dissect what you think disproves Lessans. It is so convoluted that I refuse to go there. I may read it later on, but I believe it will not make a difference Ladyshea. Use this to discredit him. It's really okay. As I told Spacemonkey, he won, and you did too. I hope you are happy. |
Huh? I posted a simple quote demonstrating a particular type of argument you used that is similar to what religious people use. There's nothing else to read, nor is there anything to dissect.
As to your feeling I've offered convoluted arguments, that's the pot calling the kettle black sister. |
You did the same thing with the word "crackpot". You found a crackpot index, and you said Lessans fit every category.
added: There is no gap in Lessans' understanding, as you claim. If there was, his discovery would not be a necessary truth. It would be a contingent truth. |
It has nothing to do with gaps in Lessans knowledge. Are you unable to read a single paragraph and understand it? Are you unable to Google a short phrase?
The "X of the Gaps" argument takes whatever gap exists
within scientific knowledge and sticks in whatever favored belief might be able to fit there.
You said science doesn't know everything about the brain so you can stick efferent vision into that gap in knowledge.
Quote:
|
God-of-the-gaps arguments use gaps in scientific explanation as indicators, or even proof, of God’s action and therefore of God’s existence. Such arguments propose divine acts in place of natural, scientific causes for phenomena that science cannot yet explain. The assumption is that if science cannot explain how something happened, then God must be the explanation. But the danger of using a God-of-the-gaps argument for the action or existence of God is that it lacks the foresight of future scientific discoveries. With the continuing advancement of science, God-of-the-gaps explanations often get replaced by natural mechanisms. Therefore, when such arguments are used as apologetic tools, scientific research can unnecessarily be placed at odds with belief in God.1 The recent Intelligent Design (ID) movement highlights this problem. Certain ID arguments, like the irreducible complexity of the human eye or the bacterial flagellum, are rapidly being undercut by new scientific discoveries. http://biologos.org/questions/god-of-the-gaps
|