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?

[Clownboat]

More butchering of my points.

I included your actual words!
(Again) SiNcE_1985 Copy/Paste: "Once they become atheists, they will gain a mentality that promotes a closed mindedness"
The readers will have noticed.

I could demonstrate that Christianity is a fact by posting a link demonstrating such, which is the same thing you've done with evolution.

And yet you didn't even try!
I think we both know your link would actually demonstrate nothing.

Then why should I accept yours?

Um, because it is a fact that populations change over time.
Evolution is a gradual process of change in the genetic material of a population over time. This is a fact, sorry.
We have a theory that is our best explanation of this fact. This theory is open to be shown that there is a better explanation of the fact if there is a better explanation.

Evolution does not address origins?

Hmm. So, what was the whole on the "Origins" of Species thing, written by Charles Darwin (the Jesus of evolutionary theory) about?

Readers, you read it here! Evolution addresses how life originated, because of the title of Darwin's book! That fact that evolution doesn't address origins should be ignored, again, because of the title of a book.

What we have here is a person that is confusing abiogenesis with the Theory of Evolution because they read the title of a book. In place of correcting their thinking on the matter, they provide invalid arguments (title of a book) in order to justify remaining close minded about origins.

Now is your chance to correct your thinking on this matter, or remain close minded. I argue that if you were not religious, you would have the ability to understand that evolution has nothing to do with origins.

"Origins of Species" -Charles Darwin, 1859.

Noted that you choose to remain close minded, because of the title of a book.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_ ... of_Species

And... what do we find here?
"Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection"

Readers, please decide for yourselves if you believe that I'm tied to evolution or if I'm open to being shown a better mechanism.

Gen 1 is the better mechanism.

This is nothing but an empty claim. Please explain to us as to why this is the case. Perhaps your argument will be convincing and I'll need to amend my thinking?

I snipped some parts to try to reduce the length. If I failed to address anything you would like for me to address, please let me know and I'll address it.

[The Tanager]

Okay, so which premise does your post counter?

I noticed you said 'okay,' which I take as a signal that you might agree or understand my point about SGM and the leprechaun analogy. However, your follow-up question suggests there might still be some points that aren’t clear, particularly regarding your assertion: 'This only compares GOD and a leprechaun by them both being called material, not in any other way.' I’d like to ensure we’re on the same page about this.

In post #92, I addressed why the comparison between GOD in SGM and leprechauns is a false equivalence. While both are described as 'material,' their roles are fundamentally different: GOD in SGM is the eternal material mind that underpins all existence, transformations, and consciousness, while leprechauns are contingent, finite, and lack any explanatory or metaphysical necessity. This distinction makes the comparison invalid.

Do you agree with this distinction? Or do you see something in the comparison that still needs addressing? If your follow-up question builds on this point, I’m happy to address it once we’ve clarified how materiality functions in SGM versus in contingent, mythical constructs.

The only equivalence I said was that they are both material unless (as I also said) you have broadened the definition of ‘material’. For my very narrow claim there to be false, the only thing that matters is if you are not equivocating on ‘material’ when talking about GOD and leprechauns. Their roles have absolutely nothing to do with my point. I agree that their roles and nature otherwise would be very different, if we take the common meaning of 'leprechaun’.

[SiNcE_1985]

I included your actual words!
(Again) SiNcE_1985 Copy/Paste: "Once they become atheists, they will gain a mentality that promotes a closed mindedness"
The readers will have noticed.

Grade A: Knowing what was said.

Grade F: Knowing what was meant, based on what was said.

I'd like to give you a passing grade on both, but unfortunately, I can't

And yet you didn't even try!
I think we both know your link would actually demonstrate nothing.

Sometimes, it's just not worth it.

Um, because it is a fact that populations change over time.
Evolution is a gradual process of change in the genetic material of a population over time. This is a fact, sorry.
We have a theory that is our best explanation of this fact. This theory is open to be shown that there is a better explanation of the fact if there is a better explanation.

1. Populations change over time.

2. Therefore, a reptile evolved into a bird.



Hey, you are free to believe whatever you like.

Readers, you read it here! Evolution addresses how life originated, because of the title of Darwin's book! That fact that evolution doesn't address origins should be ignored, again, because of the title of a book.

Well, you do believe that species originated, don't you?

Well then, evolution is about origins.

What we have here is a person that is confusing abiogenesis with the Theory of Evolution because they read the title of a book. In place of correcting their thinking on the matter, they provide invalid arguments (title of a book) in order to justify remaining close minded about origins.

Neither one occured (abiogenesis, macroevolution).

And... what do we find here?
"Darwin's book introduced the scientific theory that populations evolve over the course of generations through a process of natural selection"

Natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.

This is nothing but an empty claim. Please explain to us as to why this is the case. Perhaps your argument will be convincing and I'll need to amend my thinking?

It will never be convincing to one who wants to remain unconvinced.

I snipped some parts to try to reduce the length. If I failed to address anything you would like for me to address, please let me know and I'll address it.

No prob. You're good.

Just wish you would open your mind/heart, and let God in.

[benchwarmer]

Evolution does not address origins?

Hmm. So, what was the whole on the "Origins" of Species thing, written by Charles Darwin (the Jesus of evolutionary theory) about?

Readers, you read it here! Evolution addresses how life originated, because of the title of Darwin's book! That fact that evolution doesn't address origins should be ignored, again, because of the title of a book.

What we have here is a person that is confusing abiogenesis with the Theory of Evolution because they read the title of a book. In place of correcting their thinking on the matter, they provide invalid arguments (title of a book) in order to justify remaining close minded about origins.

There seems to be no point continually correcting this user about the actual theory of evolution. They have been told over and over that they are not discussing the actual theory but making something up so they can attack that instead.

I think this user might be better off trying to attack abiogenesis, at least they will be on correct topic. Oh well. Apparently their faith hinges on attributing the wrong scientific theory to origins. They probably read some apologetics on the topic and can't let it go.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #102]

The only equivalence I said was that they are both material unless (as I also said) you have broadened the definition of ‘material’. For my very narrow claim there to be false, the only thing that matters is if you are not equivocating on ‘material’ when talking about GOD and leprechauns. Their roles have absolutely nothing to do with my point. I agree that their roles and nature otherwise would be very different, if we take the common meaning of 'leprechaun’.

This supposed narrow definition appears to use materialism narrowly, implying only observable physical objects or phenomena like particles and forms (e.g., leprechauns).
SGM divines materialism to describe the substrate of all existence, including phenomena like consciousness or energy fields that are emergent or fundamental aspects of material reality. This definition expands upon scientific insights without departing from empirical consistency.

The key distinction is that SGM does not redefine material arbitrarily but integrates concepts that account for both known and yet-to-be-understood aspects of material reality. This is not “broadening” in the sense of straying from the term’s core meaning but rather extending its applicability in a scientifically grounded way.
Your narrow thinking about the term material is directly tied to the belief in immateriality, which is itself an unsupported and unscientific construct. As such, your critique is not a valid challenge to the Subjective GOD Model (SGM) but rather a reflection of your metaphysical commitments.

Your critique appears primarily rooted in your belief in immateriality.

You will have to define “immaterial” and how you justify its coherence or relevance to this discussion, given its absence from any scientific framework. Without addressing these points, your critique lacks grounding and does not engage with SGM on its own terms.

While you contemplate how you are going to address this, I also offer this in response to your narrow critique about my GOD and P4.

Summary of Alignment Between P4 and SGM

Beginningless: Fully aligned. Material and GOD as mind are uncreated and constant in SGM.

Personal Creator: Partially aligned. GOD in SGM is personal in the sense of being relational and participatory but is grounded in materiality rather than transcendent personhood.

Timeless: Fully aligned, with clarification. GOD in SGM is timeless in the sense of being eternal and foundational, existing beyond the constraints of time. Simultaneously, GOD is Mind, generating and encompassing time as an emergent property of material interactions, meaning GOD operates both inside and outside of time depending on the context. This nature highlights the dynamic and foundational role of GOD as the eternal substrate of temporal processes.

Spaceless: Partially aligned. GOD as material Mind also encompasses all spatial dimensions but is not confined to specific spatial forms. GOD as material Mind is spaceless. Space is an emergent property of material interactions.

Immaterial: Not aligned. SGM explicitly rejects immateriality as incoherent, asserting that GOD is material and foundational.

Changeless: Not aligned. While GOD’s material nature is constant, GOD’s expressions as material interactions are dynamic and evolving.

Enormously Powerful: Fully aligned. GOD as material Mind has the capacity to sustain and transform reality through co-creative processes.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #106]

I know you want to jump ahead, but I told you I'm taking one step at a time and you said you would afford me that. Difflugia hasn't responded to my latest post on P1. If Difflugia (or no one else) contests what I wrote there before I get back, I'm fine with moving on. Do you agree with P1? If so, then you wrote something about P2 that we should address before getting to your comments here on P4.

[Clownboat]

Grade A: Knowing what was said.

Grade F: Knowing what was meant, based on what was said.

I'd like to give you a passing grade on both, but unfortunately, I can't

You're the victim?!? My bad for reading your words and taking them at face value when I should have assumed you meant words that you didn't type.

And yet you didn't even try!
I think we both know your link would actually demonstrate nothing.

Sometimes, it's just not worth it.

You are probably correct. I doubt you have anything to offer that we haven't seen already. Something new would be thought provoking and appreciated though.

1. Populations change over time.

2. Therefore, a reptile evolved into a bird.

No silly, birds are reptiles.

"Birds are reptiles. Birds, lizards, crocodiles, and other reptiles have all evolved from a single common ancestor. In other words, all reptiles are more closely related to each other on the evolutionary tree than they are to any other animal. We have fossil evidence of birds having evolved from dinosaurs."

"We know that dinosaurs and crocodiles are the ancient ancestors of lizards and that modern birds came after them. So, the question arises, “Did bird-like animals exist while dinosaurs were still alive? Yes, they did! The origin of bird genes, which include wide forelimbs and feathers, seems to have been present from the time of the early dinosaurs, specifically Archosaurs. The group of Archosaurs includes dinosaurs, lizards, turtles, and the ancestors of birds."
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/anima ... e_vignette

This is pretty neat too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Hey, you are free to believe whatever you like.

The difference is I can supply evidence for my beliefs and I'm willing to change them.
You offer claims and a seeming unwillingness to alter your beliefs.

Well, you do believe that species originated, don't you?

Well then, evolution is about origins.

Perhaps English isn't your primary language?
or·i·gin
/ˈôrəj(ə)n/
noun
1.
the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.

Logically, something must first begin to exist before it can evolve. Evolution ONLY has to do with change. It does NOT have anything to do with how life arose. The truth is, we don't know how life arose.

Neither one occured (abiogenesis, macroevolution).

Please show that you speak the truth.

Natural selection has nothing to do with evolution.

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanism of evolution.
Natural Selection
Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolutio ... selection/

This is nothing but an empty claim. Please explain to us as to why this is the case. Perhaps your argument will be convincing and I'll need to amend my thinking?

It will never be convincing to one who wants to remain unconvinced.

Copy/paste to save time: "This is nothing but an empty claim. Please explain to us as to why this is the case. Perhaps your argument will be convincing and I'll need to amend my thinking?"

Just wish you would open your mind/heart, and let God in.

If there is a God that gave me a brain, I think it would be disappointed if I didn't use it. My mind IS open to a God, just not enough to let my brain fall out.

[SiNcE_1985]

You're the victim?!? My bad for reading your words and taking them at face value when I should have assumed you meant words that you didn't type.

I never said half the stuff I said..

-Yogi Berra

You are probably correct. I doubt you have anything to offer that we haven't seen already. Something new would be thought provoking and appreciated though.

Christ is what I have to offer.

Will you accept?

No silly, birds are reptiles.

Sure, according to the theory.

Just like followers and believers of Christ, are Christians.

"Birds are reptiles. Birds, lizards, crocodiles, and other reptiles have all evolved from a single common ancestor. In other words, all reptiles are more closely related to each other on the evolutionary tree than they are to any other animal. We have fossil evidence of birds having evolved from dinosaurs."

Followers of Christ are Christians. Baptists, Presbyterians, Lutherans, and other Christian denominations all evolved from the belief in a single common person, Jesus Christ. In other words, all Christian denominations are more closely related to each other on the tree of Christianity than to any other monotheistic religion. We have historical evidence of Jesus' Resurrection.

"We know that dinosaurs and crocodiles are the ancient ancestors of lizards and that modern birds came after them. So, the question arises, “Did bird-like animals exist while dinosaurs were still alive? Yes, they did! The origin of bird genes, which include wide forelimbs and feathers, seems to have been present from the time of the early dinosaurs, specifically Archosaurs. The group of Archosaurs includes dinosaurs, lizards, turtles, and the ancestors of birds."
https://www.scienceabc.com/nature/anima ... e_vignette

This is pretty neat too:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archaeopteryx

Evolution-Gospel.

The difference is I can supply evidence for my beliefs and I'm willing to change them.
You offer claims and a seeming unwillingness to alter your beliefs.

I have evidence for my beliefs too.

Perhaps English isn't your primary language?
or·i·gin
/ˈôrəj(ə)n/
noun
1.
the point or place where something begins, arises, or is derived.

Logically, something must first begin to exist before it can evolve. Evolution ONLY has to do with change. It does NOT have anything to do with how life arose. The truth is, we don't know how life arose.

In the grand scheme of things, this is precisely my point.

Please show that you speak the truth.

Since I can detect the genuine sincerity in the way you talk, I'll engage you in this discussion...if you create an Abiogenesis/Evolution thread, where both can be discussed.

Deal?

Natural selection is one of the basic mechanism of evolution.
Natural Selection
Natural selection is one of the basic mechanisms of evolution, along with mutation, migration, and genetic drift.
https://evolution.berkeley.edu/evolutio ... selection/

No. Natural selection doesn't create, it selects.

Big difference.

Copy/paste to save time: "This is nothing but an empty claim. Please explain to us as to why this is the case. Perhaps your argument will be convincing and I'll need to amend my thinking?"

It ain't about convincing, as I said before.

If there is a God that gave me a brain, I think it would be disappointed if I didn't use it. My mind IS open to a God, just not enough to let my brain fall out.

On a percentage scale...how convinced are you in the likelihood that a God exists?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #106]

I know you want to jump ahead,

You know no such thing.

but I told you I'm taking one step at a time and you said you would afford me that.

If you are going to mention me, don't complain when I respond.

Difflugia hasn't responded to my latest post on P1. If Difflugia (or no one else) contests what I wrote there before I get back, I'm fine with moving on. Do you agree with P1? If so, then you wrote something about P2 that we should address before getting to your comments here on P4.

My comments on P4 were addressing something you claimed about my GOD.

[Difflugia]

“Modern physics has radically redefined the void. In quantum mechanics, the void is not truly empty but is instead filled with quantum fluctuations. These fluctuations involve the constant creation and annihilation of particle-antiparticle pairs, occurring on timescales so short that they evade direct observation.

Within the quantum vacuum, virtual particles materialize spontaneously, borrowing energy from the vacuum itself before swiftly disappearing. These ephemeral entities, are known as virtual particles.

The quantum void possesses a baseline level of energy, known as zero-point energy. This concept reveals that even the “emptiest” space is teeming with activity. The implications are profound: this energy might explain the mysterious dark energy driving the accelerated expansion of the universe. However, theoretical predictions of vacuum energy vastly exceed observational data, leading to one of physics’ greatest unresolved puzzles—a discrepancy of 120 orders of magnitude.”

In the bolded part, it says the virtual particles are borrowing energy from the vacuum. If it doesn't, wouldn’t this go against the law of the conservation of energy? Wouldn’t we be saying that energy is constantly being created and destroyed?

Sort of, yes, but the point you're talking about is where the uncertainty principle butts up directly against the conservation of energy. From this page, we get this:

There is another consequence of the uncertainty principle for energy and time. If energy is uncertain by ΔE, then conservation of energy can be violated by ΔE for a time Δt. Neither the physicist nor nature can tell that conservation of energy has been violated, if the violation is temporary and smaller than the uncertainty in energy. While this sounds innocuous enough, we shall see in later chapters that it allows the temporary creation of matter from nothing and has implications for how nature transmits forces over very small distances.

Again, and I'll keep saying this, there are circumstances under which matter seems to appear in our universe without cause. There are some physicists that argue that it's not really without a cause, but any such theories are necessarily speculative because all of our experiments must necessarily take place inside of our universe; we don't have anywhere outside of the universe to use as a control.

No, the thing some scientists call “nothing” is a state of somethingness that causes change with apparent randomness (on some interpretations of quantum theory).

You can assert that, but there are two problems with your assertion. First, the somethingness hasn't been demonstrated to be a requirement. Second, Craig's premise 1 isn't about nothingness or somethingness, but about a cause. As far as we can tell, the quantum events are causeless.

Why couldn’t we conceivably test, say, if a tiger popped into existence, if it was due to a quantum fluctuation?

I'm not sure what your objection actually is. We already have evidence of things that appear in our universe uncaused, so what does a tiger do to Craig's premise 1 that a photon doesn't?

But even if we couldn’t directly scientifically test for this, we have other ways to test truth, like I already offered: reasoning from other observations. Thus, the truth of the premise is falsifiable in principle.

I don't know what you're talking about. This just looks like handwaving to me.

I’m not saying science is philosophy. I’m saying that you are making a philosophical statement about science. Starting with the reliability of science as an axiom is not a scientific move; it’s a philosophical one. And a bad one because it is pure assumption.

Is it, though? It seems empirically true. Do you have a reason why that's unreliable in some meaningful way?

You (rightly) get on theists here who base claims off of pure assumptions, I would gather.

Probably, but since I disagree that empiricism is pure assumption, we might not have the same standards for what constitutes pure assumption.

But you don’t have to settle for that for the reliability of science, because a philosophical case can be made that this is the inference to the best explanation. Only then can science be meaningful in rational discussion (as it should be).

If you say so. It looks to me, though, like you're trying to make a philosophical argument based on a premise that's probably false.

I haven’t said anything about a god here. I’ve said that there is nothing about true nothingness that could logically discriminate or be discriminated upon. Logic alone cannot give us truth, but it can rule explanations out of contention. Just like how there can’t be a square circle. That’s what is happening here. Logic rules out an explanation for why true nothingness discriminates (or is discriminated upon) for universes to pop out into existence.

Logic doesn't rule that out, but a fallacious argument from personal incredulity would seem to.

But you’ve got to show it’s vastly different in this particular way. Why would the differences logically cause us to lean towards the belief that the universe at the scale of the planck length goes against every scale of the universe we have experienced? Saying there’s a chance is true, but not a good reason to believe something.

That is literally a simplified statement of quantum physics that has been experimentally confirmed over and over again. At best, there's a chance it's not true.

The appeal isn’t that it’s impossible, but that it is more reasonable to believe they aren’t truly causeless.

He can assert that, but his appeal is based on his own incredulity. Experimentally, premise 1 looks very likely to be false. It's possible it's true, but it's probably false.

Showing that it’s possible isn’t a good reason to believe something is true.

Exactly.