Skip to main content

“God of the gaps” vs “God in the system”

1. God of the gaps:

- The concept of "God of the gaps" refers to a theological perspective that seeks to explain phenomena or gaps in scientific knowledge by invoking the intervention of a higher power, namely God.


- It suggests that when there are gaps in scientific understanding or explanations for natural phenomena, some people attribute these gaps to the direct intervention of God.


- This perspective is often criticized for being a form of argument from ignorance, where God is used to explain things that are not currently understood by science.


- As scientific knowledge expands and fills these gaps, the need for invoking God as an explanation diminishes in this perspective.


2. God in the system:


- "God in the system" refers to a perspective that sees God as being inherently the mind behind the natural world and its systems, rather than being invoked to explain gaps in knowledge.


- This perspective often aligns with the idea of a God who set up the natural laws and systems of the universe and continues to work within them rather than frequently intervening in a supernatural or miraculous way (although it does not obviate it for special circumstances).


- Proponents of this view often see the laws of nature as reflecting the will or design of a Divine Developer, and they view scientific exploration and discovery as a way to understand God's creation framework more deeply.


- It reconciles scientific explanations of the natural world with Biblical faith, as it posits that God's presence and influence are present throughout the natural order.


In summary, while "God of the gaps" involves invoking God to explain gaps in scientific knowledge, "God in the system" views God as inherently engaged as the Developer of the natural world and its systems, allowing for a more harmonious relationship between scientific understanding of creation and Biblical faith.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Eckhart Tolle - Christian Response

Unbelievable! ...The extent man not founded upon Christ will go and follow in their quest and pursuit of self and attempts to explain away reality and sin. Here's Oprah's spiritual sage... Response: 1. He resurrects errors of the past which deny reality by seeking to replace it with forms. 2. By reducing the past to forms (or photo albums) he not only denies the reality of the past but the extent of it's connectedness and relationship to the present. This error he also translates in regard to the future. 3. He establishes a false premise that one can separate the reality of the present ("now") from reality itself, which he vests in onesself (though he inconsistently goes on to suggest that life is found in abandoning oneself) 4. He has no grounds or basis for assuming reality is found in self (and apart from everything else, or only what one want's to allow) 5. By denying the truth of God, he falsely asserts that the future is no longer problematic...
73 comments
Read more

Why “Sky Daddy” Fails: Debunking a Lazy Insult Against God

Why “Sky Daddy” Fails: Debunking a Lazy Insult Against God Tags: #christianity #apologetics #faith #logic #theology There’s a term some atheists like to throw around—“sky daddy.” You’ve probably seen it in comment sections or memes, tossed like a grenade meant to shut down the conversation. It's not meant to spark discussion; it’s meant to ridicule. But here’s the thing: It’s not an argument. It’s a caricature. And like most caricatures, it reveals more about the one mocking than the one being mocked. 1. It’s Based on a Straw Man No serious Christian believes God is some bearded man living in the clouds. That’s a cartoon version. The actual Christian claim is far richer, deeper, and more philosophically grounded. Scripture describes God as: Eternal (Psalm 90:2) Spirit, not material (John 4:24) The sustainer of all things (Colossians...
Post a Comment
Read more

Global Blasphemy Laws

One of the interesting things about discussions surrounding blasphemy laws (whether by the UN or others)is they cannot be conducted without coming back to the central question: What is Truth? Seems this was the question in Jesus' day, it's the question which comes us today, and it's a question which cannot be avoided. ... suppose God intended it to be this way?
18 comments
Read more

Search This Blog