I think the "God of the Gaps" argument is fallacious since there really are no
gaps. God is self-existing yet the creation is contingent on His existence.
There are not gaps for God to "hind in." Our laws may "explain" nature but
they certainly neither create nor sustain that which exists. Moorad
>===== Original Message From Bill Payne <bpayne15@juno.com> =====
>On Wed, 30 May 2001 10:44:57 -0400 (EDT) Joel Cannon
><jcannon@jcannon.washjeff.edu> writes:
>
>> It appears from this that you would agree with Richard Dawkins, Carl
>> Sagan, etc. that God is a hypothesis competing with science to
>> explain the natural world.
>>
>> How can a God who sent his Son to give us new life to die for us on
>> the cross be irrelevant?
>
>By setting religion up as contingent on a "God of the Gaps", showing how
>the gaps have been explained, and saying therefore God is not necessary
>to explain the cosmos.
>
>Ask me how I know. :-)
>
>Bill
>________________________________________________________________
>GET INTERNET ACCESS FROM JUNO!
>Juno offers FREE or PREMIUM Internet access for less!
>Join Juno today! For your FREE software, visit:
>http://dl.www.juno.com/get/tagj.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Wed May 30 2001 - 23:34:52 EDT