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?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #150]

Tanager,

I appreciate your clarification, but the issues we are discussing are more intertwined than you suggest. You ask me to specify which premise I disagree with—P1 ("Everything that begins to exist has a cause") or P2 ("The Universe began to exist")—but in doing so, we have to assume these premises operate independently.

1. P1 is only meaningful if P2 is true
P1 assumes that things can "begin" to exist. But this assumption depends entirely on whether P2 is true. If The Universe never "began" to exist, then there is no reason to apply P1 to The Universe at all.
If P2 is false and The Universe has always existed in some form/many forms, then P1 is irrelevant when applied to The Universe as a whole.
I am not rejecting causality in general—I am rejecting the misapplication of causality to The Universe itself.
(We have briefly discussed the definition of “The Universe” and for my part I am defining the word based on its overall meaning, rather than its more popular definition relegated to what we humans observe in our experience of an aspect of its totality)

2. The definition of the universe determines whether P2 is true
You insist on separating "spatio-temporal reality" from "all of reality", but this distinction assumes that something exists outside The Universe (which is exactly what P4 later asserts).
If The Universe includes all that exists, then it cannot have "begun" to exist—because there was never a state in which "nothing" existed. It has always existed in some/many forms, undergoing transformations rather than "coming into being."

3. Your distinction between "spatio-temporal reality" and "all of reality" is unnecessary.
You argue that distinguishing "spatio-temporal reality" from "all of reality" does not imply immateriality, yet the KCA (and similar theological perspectives) rely on an external, immaterial cause.
If The Universe is the totality of all that exists, then there is no need for an external cause. The entire point of the KCA collapses.

Answering your two questions
Do I think The Universe is proof of something that began to exist uncaused?

No, because I reject the premise that The Universe "began" at all. The transformations within our experience of The Universe (stars, galaxies, life) occur due to its inherent potential, but The Universe itself did not "begin."

Do I think The Universe didn’t begin to exist but is eternal?

Yes, in the sense that The Universe (as defined as all that exists) has always existed in some/many forms re all possibilities. The Big Bang (theory) is therefore, a transformation, not a beginning.

Thus, my critique applies to both P1 and P2:

P1 is not "false," but it is inapplicable if P2 is false.
I argue that P2 is false because it assumes The Universe "began"—when it is plausible, The Universe has always existed in some state - and even in many states simultaneously.

Would you agree that P1 is irrelevant to The Universe if P2 is false? If not, could you explain why you think causality must apply to The Universe as a whole rather than only within it?

The Universe as the Necessary Being
Rather than assuming an external necessary being, I propose the following:

The Universe, understood as the totality of all that exists (including all possible worlds), necessarily includes every possible manifestation of reality.
If The Universe includes all possible worlds, it cannot fail to exist—it exists by necessity of its own nature.
Therefore, The Universe itself is the necessary being, eliminating the need to posit an external one.
This eliminates P4 ("If The Universe has a cause, it must be an uncaused, personal Creator") entirely. The Universe itself already satisfies the necessary being condition without requiring an external entity.

eta. If nothingness were the true default, how did we arrive at something, given that "something cannot come from nothing"?

If nothingness was the default, then something should have never been possible.
If something exists, then nothingness was never truly the default.
If one claims a transcendent source, then one has already conceded that something is necessary—why not just recognize that existence itself is necessary?

The SGM presents a non-dualistic model in which The Actual Universe is eternal, necessary, and conscious. It rejects classical theism and materialist reductionism, positing that:

The Actual Universe is eternal and necessary—it has never not existed.
The Big Bang is a transformation, not a creation—our cosmos is an offshoot of a more expansive material reality.
Our observable universe is contingent, but The Actual Universe is necessary.
GOD is the consciousness of The Actual Universe, not an external being.
Consciousness is material and the most fundamental vibration, structuring all reality and forming all contingent existences.
Everything exists within GOD-consciousness—there is no true separation between what divines and what is divined. If separation is divined, then that which divines separation is falsely assuming.
SGM integrates all existence into GOD-consciousness, making spirituality and material reality inseparable.
This fully resolves the existence vs. nothing debate by demonstrating that existence is necessary, eternal, and self-sustaining. It eliminates the need for a supernatural creator, redefines consciousness as material and foundational, and integrates all reality into a unified field of GOD-consciousness.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #152]

William,

P1 is not only meaningful if P2 is true. P1 doesn’t assume things can begin to exist. It is consistent with the belief that nothing actually begins to exist. Just like a premise about all unicorns having horns can be agreed to without a belief that unicorns actually exist.

But you are correct that there is no reason to apply P1 to the universe if the universe never began to exist at all. That is different from disagreeing with P1, however. It seems that your disagreement is really with P2. And, yes, I agree that the definition of the universe determines whether P2 is true.

But your definition is just not that helpful. I agree that it is more rational to believe that there was never true nothingness, but that doesn’t tell us all that much. So, then we ask further questions and make further investigations. To do that, we must talk about different aspects of reality.

The KCA talks about the spatio-temporal aspect because that investigation tells us a good bit. Doing so, in no way whatsoever, implies that something non-spatial and non-temporal exists within reality, just that these two distinct concepts exist. Talking about cats doesn't tell us whether dogs exist or not. You are simply and clearly wrong here.

Since no more has been said on P1, then we can turn our attention to P2 (unless you have more critiques of what I've said above) and see what is the most rational thing to believe. Did the spatio-temporal aspect of reality begin to exist or not? Whether spatio-temporal matter is part of reality or the whole of reality cannot be begged either way and is irrelevant to the truth of P2. That is a question that should (and will) be answered later depending on our investigations, not begged at the beginning.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #152]

Tanager,
Your response concedes that P1 is inapplicable if The Universe never began to exist. That is the key issue. You argue that P1 remains logically true even if nothing actually begins to exist, but if P1 has no real-world application to The Universe, then why is it relevant to this discussion at all?

If P1 does not apply to The Universe, then the KCA cannot use P1 to justify anything about The Universe. This means that the argument for causation must rest entirely on P2—which is exactly what I’ve been saying. Would you agree, then, that P1 is unnecessary if P2 turns out to be false?

You then claim that discussing spatio-temporal reality separately from all of reality does not imply the existence of something "non-spatial and non-temporal." However, this separation is precisely what allows the KCA to argue for an external, non-physical cause in later premises (P4).

The real question is: What justifies separating spatio-temporal aspects from the totality of reality in the first place? If The Actual Absolute Universe is all that exists, then spatio-temporal reality is simply a feature of The Actual Absolute Universe’s transformations. Why should it be treated as a distinct "thing" that requires a separate cause?

If the totality of reality is eternal and has always existed in some form, then what we call "spatio-temporal reality" is simply an evolving expression of that reality, rather than something that "began to exist" in an absolute sense. If the totality of reality has always existed, wouldn’t its features (including spatio-temporal aspects) be better understood as transformations rather than absolute beginnings?

I agree that our observable, spatio-temporal universe appears to have had a beginning. However, that does not mean that all of reality began to exist.

Instead, I propose this distinction:
• The Observable Universe had a beginning, but it is a transformation from pre-existing reality.
• The Actual Absolute Universe—the totality of all that exists, including all consciousness/mindfulness, energy, and physical laws governing material functionality—has always existed.
This changes how we approach causality:
• P1 ("Everything that begins to exist has a cause") applies within The Observable Universe, but it does not necessarily apply to the Actual Absolute Universe itself.
• P2 ("The Universe began to exist") is only true if we limit "The Universe" to the observable, spatio-temporal system.

Thus, we do not need an external cause for The Actual Absolute Universe as a whole—only for localized transformations within it – and the cause will always be sourced in The Actual Absolute Universe.
So, let’s clarify this before proceeding further. If we can establish that reality as a whole is eternal, then the question of whether spatio-temporal aspects "began" to exist must be reframed accordingly.

Would you agree that if reality as a whole is eternal, then the spatio-temporal aspects of it (our observable universe) should be understood as transformations rather than absolute beginnings?

[The Tanager]

Tanager,
Your response concedes that P1 is inapplicable if The Universe never began to exist. That is the key issue. You argue that P1 remains logically true even if nothing actually begins to exist, but if P1 has no real-world application to The Universe, then why is it relevant to this discussion at all?

If P1 does not apply to The Universe, then the KCA cannot use P1 to justify anything about The Universe. This means that the argument for causation must rest entirely on P2—which is exactly what I’ve been saying. Would you agree, then, that P1 is unnecessary if P2 turns out to be false?

Yes, I agree that P1 is unnecessary if P2 is false.

Would you agree that if reality as a whole is eternal, then the spatio-temporal aspects of it (our observable universe) should be understood as transformations rather than absolute beginnings?

That depends on exactly what you mean. Do you mean that (a) something has always existed or (b) that everything that exists now has always existed (in some form or another)? If (a), then I don’t think it necessarily follows that all should be understood as transformations. If (b), then then I agree that all things should be understood as transformations.

[William]

Tanager,
I appreciate you taking the time to respond, but I’ve noticed a recurring pattern in our discussion. You often take several days between responses (which is fine, of course), but when you do reply, you engage with only certain aspects of my argument while leaving critical points unaddressed.

For example, in my last post, I challenged the justification for separating spatio-temporal reality from the totality of reality and questioned why an eternal reality would allow for absolute beginnings rather than just transformations. These points are fundamental to my argument, yet they weren’t addressed.

If this discussion is going to be productive, I’d appreciate a more complete engagement with the key points being raised. Otherwise, it feels like we’re only having half a conversation each time.

Would you be willing to revisit the points I raised and engage with them more fully?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #156]

I responded the way I did, so that I can better respond to everything you shared. That's how I believe it can truly be productive, which is what I want. I've noticed that when I just respond to everything that misunderstandings (both by me and by you) cause confusion on many other fronts and things snowball from there.

I can only assure you that I continue to keep all I understand you as saying in mind, but first I need clarity on what you mean when you say that the totality of all reality is eternal. Otherwise, it'll be a confused, unproductive exchange.

[William]

I appreciate your intention to keep the conversation productive, and I understand that too much at once can lead to misunderstandings. However, my concern is that key arguments remain unaddressed indefinitely, especially when responses take days. If we isolate one issue at a time without eventually looping back to the full argument, we risk missing the bigger picture.

That said, I’m happy to clarify what I mean by the totality of all reality being eternal. By this, I mean:

Reality as a whole has always existed in some form—it was never created from nothing.
This includes everything: all matter, energy, consciousness, laws of nature, and anything else that exists.
While particular configurations of reality (like our observable universe) may have a "beginning" in a local sense, they are transformations of prior states, not absolute beginnings from nothing. (Something I have already stated).
There is no external cause of reality as a whole—only internal transformations.
Now that I’ve clarified that, I ask you again:

If reality as a whole is eternal, why should any of its aspects (such as our spatio-temporal universe) be considered an absolute beginning rather than a transformation?
And if all that exists is ultimately a transformation of eternal reality, doesn’t that undercut the KCA’s claim that things "begin to exist" in an absolute sense?
Since you said you keep all of my points in mind, I trust that you’ll engage with these and the broader implications of my argument as we move forward.

[The Tanager]

I appreciate your intention to keep the conversation productive, and I understand that too much at once can lead to misunderstandings. However, my concern is that key arguments remain unaddressed indefinitely, especially when responses take days. If we isolate one issue at a time without eventually looping back to the full argument, we risk missing the bigger picture.

It’s a valid concern. I will honestly try my best to address all key elements. I also hope that you would bring back anything I miss and show me mercy in the missing, for it truly would be an honest mistake due to misunderstanding.

That said, I’m happy to clarify what I mean by the totality of all reality being eternal.

Reality as a whole has always existed in some form—it was never created from nothing.
This includes everything: all matter, energy, consciousness, laws of nature, and anything else that exists.
While particular configurations of reality (like our observable universe) may have a "beginning" in a local sense, they are transformations of prior states, not absolute beginnings from nothing. (Something I have already stated).
There is no external cause of reality as a whole—only internal transformations.

Thank you for clarifying that. In the terminology I shared it sounds like you are choosing (b) that everything that exists now has always existed in some form or another. If this is true, then I agree that all things should be understood as transformations and P2 would be false.

Now that I’ve clarified that, I ask you again:

If reality as a whole is eternal, why should any of its aspects (such as our spatio-temporal universe) be considered an absolute beginning rather than a transformation?
And if all that exists is ultimately a transformation of eternal reality, doesn’t that undercut the KCA’s claim that things "begin to exist" in an absolute sense?
Since you said you keep all of my points in mind, I trust that you’ll engage with these and the broader implications of my argument as we move forward.

Yes, this first question is key. There are two philosophical arguments we should look at that, if sound, point to the spatio-temporal universe having an absolute beginning. Are you good with us looking at those arguments or is there something you still see as unresolved before we do that? Or, perhaps you have arguments supporting that everything is eternal that you want us to explore first?

After looking at those arguments, we need to make sure we engage with all of your points. I want you to make sure you hold me to properly understanding and responding to everything you’ve brought up in regards to the KCA.

[William]

Tanager, before we look at the two arguments you want to present, I want to make one crucial clarification:

When I talk about spatio-temporal reality as a transformation, I mean that what we observe as “change” in the universe is really just reconfiguration—not the absolute beginning of existence.

Matter and energy don’t pop into existence or vanish; they transform according to the laws of physics.
Even if the observable universe had a “beginning” in a specific configuration (like the Big Bang), that does not mean it came from nothing—only that it was a transition from a prior state.
So when we discuss whether the universe had an “absolute beginning,” we need to clarify:

Do we mean a transformation from a prior state (which aligns with everything we observe in reality)?
Or do we mean something literally coming into existence from nonexistence (which would need strong justification)?
If we agree that transformation is the fundamental nature of reality, then doesn’t that shift the burden to you to demonstrate why this particular transformation (the Big Bang, for example) should be treated as an absolute beginning rather than just another shift in the eternal reality?

Let’s make sure we’re on the same page here before moving forward with your two arguments.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #160]

Yes, we are on the same page here. I'm saying it's an absolute beginning. So, good for me to lay out the arguments?