Is the god of the gaps a sound argument?

[Difflugia]

But a intelligent engineer can preset the dials to get the results that he wants.

An "intelligent designer" in the way Christian apologists define one can do anything at all. It's taking "I don't know" and assigning it to a god. Like I said, if you don't understand why that's insufficient, I'll start a new topic.

Do what you gotta do.

A number of posters, particularly in the Science and Religion forum, repeatedly offer what they think are arguments against scientific principles and present them as evidence for their particular conception of a god. This is informally known as "the god of the gaps."

Is the god of the gaps argument logically sound? If not, what changes must be made to such an argument to rescue it?

[POI]

God is a gap filler for when nature is unable and incapable of being a viable explanation.

God was also the gap filler for things in which we used to not know, but now do. Phenomena that were historically often attributed to God, but now logically are not, include natural disasters - like earthquakes, lightning, floods, and plagues. It also included illness, fertility, harvests, weather patterns, and the movement of celestial bodies - (like the sun and stars). It also included dreams, witches, etc etc etc.

Food for thought.... Just think if we all lived 500 years ago...? Your wife might have been accused of being a witch, and burned alive -- while using the Bible as evidence It's a good thing we no longer allow such silly concepts, right?

[POI]

Is the god of the gaps argument logically sound? If not, what changes must be made to such an argument to rescue it?

Being I have exchanged with God believers, allow me to try and 'steelman' their position, to see if it can be rescued...

God believer --> "Science will never be able to account for X, therefore God did it"... There, how did I do? All kidding aside...

I guess a takeaway could be... Finding the right tool(s) for the job? Is "science" even the right tool for the job, in the exploration for god(s), in the first place? If not, what tool(s) is/are the right tools for the job in locating god(s)?

[SiNcE_1985]

God was also the gap filler for things in which we used to not know, but now do. Phenomena that were historically often attributed to God, but now logically are not, include natural disasters - like earthquakes, lightning, floods, and plagues. It also included illness, fertility, harvests, weather patterns, and the movement of celestial bodies - (like the sun and stars). It also included dreams, witches, etc etc etc.

This is the fallacy of composition.

Just because God may not be responsible for any particular lightning strike or earthquake, doesn't mean that lightning or earthquakes ultimate origins doesn't come from God.

1. Nuclear weapons are of human origins.

2. Therefore, the chemicals that make up nuclear weapons are also of human origins.

That is pretty much your reasoning.

Fallacious.

The ancient ones may have been mistaken about whether or not any particular lightning phenomena or earthquake was caused by God, but they were correct in knowing that God was/is the ultimate source of earthquakes.

So, what fallacious argument will you commit next?

Food for thought.... Just think if we all lived 500 years ago...? Your wife might have been accused of being a witch, and burned alive -- while using the Bible as evidence It's a good thing we no longer allow such silly concepts, right?

If she was a witch and that's what God ordered, then sorry, honey.

The one with the gold (God) makes the rules.

[POI]

Just because God may not be responsible for any particular lightning strike or earthquake, doesn't mean that lightning or earthquakes ultimate origins doesn't come from God.

Then you are arguing for deism, and not theism. A deistic agency sets natural law(s) into motion. Your pushback here is that any observed lightening, when going back far enough, originates from some intentional agency. Well, such an agency is applying natural law to accomplish the task. And this natural law can be verified using "science". If this is where you wish to plant your flag, sobeit... Otherwise, you instead need to demonstrate a god directly throwing lightning bolts, or striking his hammer, or other, which is what the ancients thought. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. Does this agency allow for natural law to run the universe and earth, or not? If so, then you should have no problem accepting the theoretical science you currently reject, while applying false premises, because they do not mesh well with your preferred Holy Book.

And with earthquakes, you would instead need to again argue for a deistic agency which applies natural law(s), in Plate Techtonics, to accomplish his task(s).

If she was a witch and that's what God ordered, then sorry, honey. The one with the gold (God) makes the rules.

Witches do exist? Please, do tell?

[SiNcE_1985]

Then you are arguing for deism, and not theism. A deistic agency sets natural law(s) into motion.

Um, no, I'm arguing for Christian theism, which has a God (according to our holy, sacred texts), of whom both..

1. Intervenes in the natural world in miraculous ways.

2. Let's the world naturally flow according to the laws that he implemented.

And look, I can see that you are gradually trying to turn this into a deism vs theism discussion...and according to how I perceive things, you are doing a combination of both..

A. Splitting hairs (making small, unnecessary distinctions).

B. Committing the Red Herring fallacy (diverting attention from the main topic).

As I mentioned to you before, my belief is simple..

If you believe in an intelligent, cosmic creator of the universe and everything within it, then you are a theist.

Sure, you can make distinctions between what you believe about this agent in particular, but it would still all fall under the umbrella of theism.

That being said, I do not care of getting botched down to whether or not you believe or suggest that this agent intervenes or cares what you do in your personal life.

Irrelevant to mere "God" belief.

So, you can have this deism vs theism discussion with someone else, respectfully.
.....

Your pushback here is that any observed lightening, when going back far enough, originates from some intentional agency. Well, such an agency is applying natural law to accomplish the task. And this natural law can be verified using "science". If this is where you wish to plant your flag, sobeit... Otherwise, you instead need to demonstrate a god directly throwing lightning bolts, or striking his hammer, or other, which is what the ancients thought. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.

First of all, you are clearly wrong here.

Or, you can tell me what natural law or science can be conducted that lightning could come into existence by verbal command alone..such as..

"Let there be light", and it was so. (Gen 1:3).

Tell me what kind of E=MC^2 equations will have nature responding to verbal commands.

I'll wait.

So I said all that to say, there is no God using science.

It was God who created the operational universe that you live in to even know, learn, and discover things about the world that he created.

Does this agency allow for natural law to run the universe and earth, or not?

Both. Two things can be true at the same time.

If so, then you should have no problem accepting the theoretical science you currently reject, while applying false premises, because they do not mesh well with your preferred Holy Book.

I reject scientific explanations when it lacks the explanatory power to produce a given effect.

And with earthquakes, you would instead need to again argue for a deistic agency which applies natural law(s), in Plate Techtonics, to accomplish his task(s).

?

Witches do exist? Please, do tell?

I said "if", didn't I.

And I do believe witches exist.

[POI]

Um, no, I'm arguing for Christian theism, which has a God (according to our holy, sacred texts), of whom both.. 1. Intervenes in the natural world in miraculous ways. 2. Let's the world naturally flow according to the laws that he implemented. And look, I can see that you are gradually trying to turn this into a deism vs theism discussion...and according to how I perceive things, you are doing a combination of both.. A. Splitting hairs (making small, unnecessary distinctions). B. Committing the Red Herring fallacy (diverting attention from the main topic). As I mentioned to you before, my belief is simple.. If you believe in an intelligent, cosmic creator of the universe and everything within it, then you are a theist. Sure, you can make distinctions between what you believe about this agent in particular, but it would still all fall under the umbrella of theism. That being said, I do not care of getting botched down to whether or not you believe or suggest that this agent intervenes or cares what you do in your personal life. Irrelevant to mere "God" belief. So, you can have this deism vs theism discussion with someone else, respectfully.

I disagree completely... However, moving forward, a "god of the gaps" argument is a theological concept where individuals use gaps in scientific understanding as evidence for the existence of God. Before "science", the premise was instead concepts like wielding powerful weapons that could harness the power of the storm, as Thor used his hammer, Mjolnir, to create lightning strikes, while Zeus wielded a thunderbolt, often forged by the Cyclopes, which allowed him to command lightning from the sky. Now, we know lightening is instead produced when opposite charges in a cloud build up and break down the insulating properties of the air, causing a rapid discharge of electricity. Which means the theist is forced to move the goalposts accordingly. Hence, the gap gets smaller. It is now small enough to instead assert that "God" is the absolute source. In essence, all you have is to now place God in a very small space, as 'science' has dismantled all other areas for him to have been asserted prior.

First of all, you are clearly wrong here. Or, you can tell me what natural law or science can be conducted that lightning could come into existence by verbal command alone..such as.. "Let there be light", and it was so. (Gen 1:3). Tell me what kind of E=MC^2 equations will have nature responding to verbal commands. I'll wait. So I said all that to say, there is no God using science. It was God who created the operational universe that you live in to even know, learn, and discover things about the world that he created.

How am I supposed to respond here without pointing out the LARGE distinction between asserted deistic and theistic agency? I mean, do you want me to respond here, or not?

Both. Two things can be true at the same time.

Then you should have no problem with any/all theoretical sciences. It's funny how you seem to only have issue(s) with one(s) which conflict with your understanding of the Bible. But since you clearly demonstrate you do not know what some of them teach, then I guess they are easier for you to flat out reject.

I reject scientific explanations when it lacks the explanatory power to produce a given effect.

This is because you do not understand what they even propose to begin with.

?

Where God was asserted prior, has now been scientifically replaced with Plate Techtonics. Hence, the gap gets smaller. The goalposts move accordingly.

And I do believe witches exist.

Why?

[SiNcE_1985]

I disagree completely...

No prob.

However, moving forward, a "god of the gaps" argument is a theological concept where individuals use gaps in scientific understanding as evidence for the existence of God.

Then, what do we call individuals who use gaps in scientific understanding as evidence for "more nature"?

Nature of the Gaps?

You get to plug in your gaps of knowledge with "nature/science", but I can't plug in mines with God?

That, followed by the fact that again, we're not plugging in God based on what we don't understand; we plug in God based on what we do understand.

We've considered your appeal to science and we deem it as an insufficient answer, so we look elsewhere for that answer and we won't be forced-fed answers that don't adequately address or answer the questions that we ask or explain the phenomena in question.

Before "science", the premise was instead concepts like wielding powerful weapons that could harness the power of the storm, as Thor used his hammer, Mjolnir, to create lightning strikes, while Zeus wielded a thunderbolt, often forged by the Cyclopes, which allowed him to command lightning from the sky. Now, we know lightening is instead produced when opposite charges in a cloud build up and break down the insulating properties of the air, causing a rapid discharge of electricity. Which means the theist is forced to move the goalposts accordingly. Hence, the gap gets smaller. It is now small enough to instead assert that "God" is the absolute source. In essence, all you have is to now place God in a very small space, as 'science' has dismantled all other areas for him to have been asserted prior.

Um, I've already addressed this and instead of dealing with what I said, you are elaborating on the same point you made before.

I said, and I repeat, we can attribute a lightning appearance or strike as natural phenomena...but we can't (and won't) attribute the origins of the "stuff" that makes up lightning, to natural law.

Once again, your logic is a fallacy of composition and the more you commit it, I will continue to point it out.

How am I supposed to respond here without pointing out the LARGE distinction between asserted deistic and theistic agency? I mean, do you want me to respond here, or not?

I know and understand the distinction, but what I don't understand is the relevancy to the subject matter of the thread.

The only thing I can gather is what it appears to be your selective consideration (and preference) of deism over theism... particularly because you find one (deism) more appealing to the other (theism) because deism doesn't have commandments and moral accountability following behind it.

Those are conversations for another day and have nothing to do with the OP.

Then you should have no problem with any/all theoretical sciences. It's funny how you seem to only have issue(s) with one(s) which conflict with your understanding of the Bible. But since you clearly demonstrate you do not know what some of them teach, then I guess they are easier for you to flat out reject.

?

This is because you do not understand what they even propose to begin with.

Gotcha.

Where God was asserted prior, has now been scientifically replaced with Plate Techtonics. Hence, the gap gets smaller. The goalposts move accordingly.

Fallacy of composition.

Why?

Because of the background information I have in Christianity being true.

[POI]

Then, what do we call individuals who use gaps in scientific understanding as evidence for "more nature"? Nature of the Gaps?

The unexplained or the undemonstrated remains in the 'I don't know' category. Not instead filled in with a proposition which has not first been demonstrated. We have been through these discussions before... The time to believe in something is after it has first been demonstrated to exist. Nature/materialism has been demonstrated. God(s), not-so-much. Only instead inferred or asserted... This is, in part, why faith is paramount in the Bible.

You get to plug in your gaps of knowledge with "nature/science", but I can't plug in mines with God? That, followed by the fact that again, we're not plugging in God based on what we don't understand; we plug in God based on what we do understand. We've considered your appeal to science and we deem it as an insufficient answer, so we look elsewhere for that answer and we won't be forced-fed answers that don't adequately address or answer the questions that we ask or explain the phenomena in question.

See above....

Um, I've already addressed this and instead of dealing with what I said, you are elaborating on the same point you made before. I said, and I repeat, we can attribute a lightning appearance or strike as natural phenomena...but we can't (and won't) attribute the origins of the "stuff" that makes up lightning, to natural law. Once again, your logic is a fallacy of composition and the more you commit it, I will continue to point it out.

No, you still do not get it. You kerplunk God wherever "science" is not. Virtually, the only place left is to assert an origin. Alternatively, if you and I were exchanging 2,000 years ago, you would be placing God where I mentioned, as the hammer striker in the sky, or other, for the assertion of where lightening comes from. "Science' has forced your hand to now place 'god' only where 'science' isn't. If you should later find out that 'science' demonstrates more, you will again move the goalposts accordingly. Cough cough, evolutionary biology, as this theoretical science places a direct inconvenience to your understanding of what the Bible asserts. Maybe someday you will adopt the Catholic framework and learn to merge evolution with the Bible. But this is only if/when you learn what evolutionary biology actually proposes.

I know and understand the distinction, but what I don't understand is the relevancy to the subject matter of the thread. The only thing I can gather is what it appears to be your selective consideration (and preference) of deism over theism... particularly because you find one (deism) more appealing to the other (theism) because deism doesn't have commandments and moral accountability following behind it. Those are conversations for another day and have nothing to do with the OP.

Again, NO. It has nothing to do with "morals", but instead logic. Since a deistic god drives all natural theoretical scientific law, evolutionary processes drive species, which in turn means you must reject a literal account to parts of Genesis.

?

Telling me you are not familiar with Chromosome #2, or the distinction between telomeres and centromeres within chromosome #2 of humans, and also not knowing the precise location of this occurrence within the GNOME, tells me you are not familiar enough with what evolutionary biology even presents. Hence, you are instead rejecting a strawman. This is not my problem, but yours.

Because of the background information I have in Christianity being true.

This tells me nothing. Why do you believe in witches? Is it merely because the Bible mentions them?

[SiNcE_1985]

Then, what do we call individuals who use gaps in scientific understanding as evidence for "more nature"? Nature of the Gaps?

The unexplained or the undemonstrated remains in the 'I don't know' category.

Not so fast.

While the "I don't know" approach may seem modest and sincere, what atheists are actually saying is "Nature did it, we just don't know how".

Not "God may be a viable option, we just don't know".

Like I said before, I wasn't born last night.

And speaking of the unexplained and undemonstrated, that is exactly what can be said about certain naturalistic claims, which is why I'm within every right to look beyond science, and nature.

Not instead filled in with a proposition which has not first been demonstrated. We have been through these discussions before...

Well, you can't speak for us.

The proposition "God exists" has not only been demonstrated to us, it is impossible for God to not exist.

That's how bold we are in our claims, and our stance.

The time to believe in something is after it has first been demonstrated to exist.

It has been first demonstrated to me.

Nature/materialism has been demonstrated.

Abiogenesis ain't been demonstrated.

See why fallacy of composition is illogical?

See how what is true for the whole, may not be true for certain parts?

No charge for the lessons on philosophy.

God(s), not-so-much. Only instead inferred or asserted...

Abiogenesis, not so much.

This is, in part, why faith is paramount in the Bible.

False.

In the Bible, faith comes after you've been convinced that it is true.

No, you still do not get it. You kerplunk God wherever "science" is not. Virtually, the only place left is to assert an origin. Alternatively, if you and I were exchanging 2,000 years ago, you would be placing God where I mentioned, as the hammer striker in the sky, or other, for the assertion of where lightening comes from. "Science' has forced your hand to now place 'god' only where 'science' isn't. If you should later find out that 'science' demonstrates more, you will again move the goalposts accordingly. Cough cough, evolutionary biology, as this theoretical science places a direct inconvenience to your understanding of what the Bible asserts. Maybe someday you will adopt the Catholic framework and learn to merge evolution with the Bible. But this is only if/when you learn what evolutionary biology actually proposes.

When science can explain the origins of..

1. The universe
2. Life
3. Irreducible Complexity
4. Objective moral values
5. Language

Then, science will have my attention.

Until then, Christian theism, it is.

Again, NO. It has nothing to do with "morals", but instead logic. Since a deistic god drives all natural theoretical scientific law, evolutionary processes drive species, which in turn means you must reject a literal account to parts of Genesis.

No, but what I will do is reject evolution.

Telling me you are not familiar with Chromosome #2, or the distinction between telomeres and centromeres within chromosome #2 of humans, and also not knowing the precise location of this occurrence within the GNOME, tells me you are not familiar enough with what evolutionary biology even presents. Hence, you are instead rejecting a strawman. This is not my problem, but yours.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc.

No exceptions to the rule.

This tells me nothing. Why do you believe in witches? Is it merely because the Bible mentions them?

It tells you a lot. Or it should.

I believe Michael Jordan should be in the basketball Hall of Fame, based on the background information I have that he is the GOAT.

Now, take that logic, and apply it to what I said about my belief in witches based on the background information I have that Christian theism is true.

If you understand one, you should be able to understand the other.

[POI]

Not so fast. While the "I don't know" approach may seem modest and sincere, what atheists are actually saying is "Nature did it, we just don't know how". Not "God may be a viable option, we just don't know". Like I said before, I wasn't born last night.

God may be a viable option as soon as God has first been demonstrated to exist. Just like 'universe-creating-fairies' will be a viable option as soon as 'universe-creating-fairies' have first been demonstrated to exist. Naturalism/materialism has already been demonstrated to exist. Hence, this/these options can be applied to the available viable options list accordingly.

And speaking of the unexplained and undemonstrated, that is exactly what can be said about certain naturalistic claims, which is why I'm within every right to look beyond science, and nature.

Are we applying the correct tool(s) for the job? Is "science" even the right tool(s) for this job, in the exploration for god(s), in the first place? If not, what tool(s) is/are the right tools for the job in locating god(s)? Or maybe we require 'science' <plus> other tool(s)?

Well, you can't speak for us. The proposition "God exists" has not only been demonstrated to us, it is impossible for God to not exist.That's how bold we are in our claims, and our stance.

How has God been demonstrated? If you can provide the evidence of his existence, I will be happy to add it to the (viable options list) for the yet unknown/unverified.

Abiogenesis ain't been demonstrated. See why fallacy of composition is illogical? See how what is true for the whole, may not be true for certain parts? No charge for the lessons on philosophy.

You forget our prior exchange(s) really fast. Abiogenesis is not a theoretical science. Hence, it is not in my current wheelhouse as a viable option for origins.

False. In the Bible, faith comes after you've been convinced that it is true.

I'm not going to quibble too much on this, as I do not want our focus derailed here. However, your statement is false. According to most Christian theological interpretations, faith comes before fully believing in the Bible; essentially, faith is the act of trusting and believing in the message of the Bible, which then leads to a deeper understanding and acceptance of its contents.

When science can explain the origins of..

1. The universe
2. Life
3. Irreducible Complexity
4. Objective moral values
5. Language

Then, science will have my attention.

Until then, Christian theism, it is.

Since you did not address what I stated this time, I guess this means you now finally understand my responses here. Theists move the goalposts. Your last bastion is 'origins'. Thanks. In regard to your given response above, I trust my responses above also covered what you stated directly above.

No, but what I will do is reject evolution.

Yes, because you are rejecting a strawman position in the first place.

Dogs produce dogs, cats produce cats, etc. No exceptions to the rule.

To keep doubling down with this dribble only reveals your unwillingness to learn what evolutionary biology actually proposes. I've done everything I can do to direct you accordingly, by providing a simple-to-follow 4-minute visual aid video. I guess, for your sake, ignorance is bliss. Until you understand the sheer basics, you will continue to present in a way in which any interlocutor, who understands what evolutionary biology actually proposes, will just shake their head in disbelief at your responses here.

It tells you a lot. Or it should. I believe Michael Jordan should be in the basketball Hall of Fame, based on the background information I have that he is the GOAT. Now, take that logic, and apply it to what I said about my belief in witches based on the background information I have that Christian theism is true. If you understand one, you should be able to understand the other.

LOL! But we know humans exists. We also know basketball players exist. We also know Michael Jordan exists. Do we know witches exist? If so, please present one? I trust I do not need to present Michael Jordan to you, right?

****************************

As an aside, I created your requested 'bigger fish to fry" thread. I'm surprised you have not address it yet? viewtopic.php?t=42143