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?

[SiNcE_1985]

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.

I am persuaded by the arguments presented for Christian theism.

Therefore, Christian theism has been demonstrated to me, and is a viable option.

Simple as that.

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)?

You can reach God by a caravan
Or cross the desert like an Arab man

You can reach God by a sailboat
Climb a tree, and swing rope to rope

You can reach God on a speedy colt
Cross the border in a blaze of hope

I don't care how you get there, get there (to eternal life), if you can.

If you are willing, and able.

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.

Well again, God has been demonstrated to me.

You know me, you know the arguments that I've shared and the cases I've attempted to make.

You're not rocking with any of it, so the arguments that are viable to me, aren't for you.

But, we both know this ain't about coming here to be convinced.

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.

Um, no. I ain't forget.

If God didn't do it, then abiogenesis, whether it is known how it works or not, must be true.

And if it must be true (no other way around it), then it must be a natural phenomena and subjected to natural law, thus making it discoverable via scientific method.

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.

Right, you said the key word; trust.

Trust comes after you've been convinced that X is trustworthy.

So, people that come to Christ, do they have faith in Christ before they are convinced that he is their Lord and Savior?

Please, just admit I'm correct.

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.

Moving goalposts?

Origins is the basis of my entire qualm against scientific naturalism.

Science and scientists gets in trouble when attempting to explain origins (origins of species, origins of the universe, origins of life, etc).

You make it seem as if I'm using "origins" as a sort of a cheat code. No, that's where the battle lies and the fundamental point(s) of contention between both sides.

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

Is it really?

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.

Dogs produce dogs.

Any imaginary tales about reptiles evolving into birds, contradicts the observational/experimental/predictable (you know, actual science) plethora of the never failing cases after cases of dogs producing dogs.

To believe that the animals of yesterday, was able to do things that the animals of today have never been observed to do; I shake my head in disbelief of that.

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?

Yeah, we know that witches exist.

See, there is this thing called witchcraft.

Ever heard of it?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Witchcraft

And there are people alive today who practices in witchcraft, and they are called witches.

So, since there are people called witches, who engage in witchcraft practices, I believe in witches.

And by "believe", I mean believe that they exists.

Now, here is where I'm gonna be hounded and harassed with a thousand questions and coaxing to be more specific and go more in depth, which I really have no desire to do.

So, please spare me.

I trust I do not need to present Michael Jordan to you, right?

No.

[POI]

I am persuaded by the arguments presented for Christian theism. Therefore, Christian theism has been demonstrated to me, and is a viable option. Simple as that.

Well, God certainly has not been demonstrated to me, thus, it would be foolish for me to apply 'god' as a current viable option for the yet-to-be-known. So please stop with the strawman attacks.

I don't care how you get there, get there (to eternal life), if you can. If you are willing, and able.

My standards are actually fairly low. And yet, I have not got there. Maybe this is because 'god' is imaginary in reality? We can discuss cause and effect. Thus far, both cause and effect are only demonstrated by way of naturalism, as opposed to asserted "supernaturalism". Case/point, the wind causes the leaf to fall off of a tree. In this case, the wind is the cause, and the fallen leaf is the effect. Now you may wish to argue that the wind was caused by a supernatural origin, but then you would be incorrect here too. Wind in instead caused by 'nature', (i.e.) uneven sun heating, air pressure changes, the earth's rotation, etc... And you can keep trekking backwards to argue for an 'origin' or a 'prime mover' to it all.

So, I ask you again, as your answer was quite unspecific. What is/are the right tool(s) for the job? Surely you must have some idea(s)? Is it 'science' plus other? Is it only other? If so, what exactly? Remember, this thread is about the "god of the gaps". And this term is defined as "a theological argument that uses gaps in scientific understanding as evidence for the existence of God." If 'science' has no place here at all, then maybe the argument has no legs to begin with?.?.?.?

1) Well again, God has been demonstrated to me. 2) You know me, 3) you know the arguments that I've shared and the cases I've attempted to make. 4) You're not rocking with any of it, so the arguments that are viable to me, aren't for you. But, we both know this ain't about coming here to be convinced.

1) How exactly? Explain/summarize briefly, since you are a genius.
2) No, I do not know you. I do not even know your name.
3) You were not a believer until you were exposed to Christian apologetics arguments?
4) In your case, it becomes especially true when you refuse to understand what a theoretical science even proposes.

Um, no. I ain't forget. If God didn't do it, then abiogenesis, whether it is known how it works or not, must be true. And if it must be true (no other way around it), then it must be a natural phenomena and subjected to natural law, thus making it discoverable via scientific method.

Until abiogenesis becomes theoretical, I do not consider it. Pure and simple. As it stands now, we have all sorts of imperial evidence(s) for naturalism/materialism, alternatively, merely only assertions, assumptions, and anecdotal 'evidences' for supernaturalism.

Right, you said the key word; trust. Trust comes after you've been convinced that X is trustworthy.

Your reply here still has little/nothing to do with my last response. Please re-read it and explore on your own accordingly. But like I already stated, I want to remain focused here, and only wanted to clarify a side position, which was expressed through organic dialogue. If you wish to start a new topic about faith, go for it

Moving goalposts?

Yes! As I alluded to prior, 2,000 years ago, you might have asserted that Zeus was up in the clouds bang'n his magic hammer. But now, you are forced to push it back further. This is what the 'god of the gaps' represents. Theists are forced to move to smaller gaps, where 'god' can still remain. When 'science' exposes where 'gods' used to be asserted to reside, the theist simply moves the target. Your target is origins, because this is basically all you have left.

Origins is the basis of my entire qualm against scientific naturalism.

Right, because 'science' has now removed 'god' virtually everywhere else, for which 'god' was asserted to exist prior.

Science and scientists gets in trouble when attempting to explain origins (origins of species, origins of the universe, origins of life, etc). You make it seem as if I'm using "origins" as a sort of a cheat code. No, that's where the battle lies and the fundamental point(s) of contention between both sides.

Science makes no assertions about 'origins'. This is why abiogenesis is not theoretical. Assertions instead are what the theists do here.

Is it really?

Yes. And until you can coherently explain chromosome #2, and the relationship with the telomeres and centromeres of chromosome #2, and also explain the exact fusion point within the GNOME, you will continue to argue a strawman. But this issue could have very easily been resolved, by simply watching one 4-minute tutorial video. What a pity....

Dogs produce dogs. Any imaginary tales about reptiles evolving into birds, contradicts the observational/experimental/predictable (you know, actual science) plethora of the never failing cases after cases of dogs producing dogs. To believe that the animals of yesterday, was able to do things that the animals of today have never been observed to do; I shake my head in disbelief of that.

See above.

See, there is this thing called witchcraft. Ever heard of it? And there are people alive today who practices in witchcraft, and they are called witches. So, since there are people called witches, who engage in witchcraft practices, I believe in witches. And by "believe", I mean believe that they exists. Now, here is where I'm gonna be hounded and harassed with a thousand questions and coaxing to be more specific and go more in depth, which I really have no desire to do. So, please spare me.

I will spare you here. But this response connects a lot of dots as to your epistemology.

[Clownboat]

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.

Notice readers, the offered bastions/gaps for the gods to be inserted laid out for us!
The god of the gaps argument likely cannot be better expressed. Thanks 1985!

The point that seems to be lost on the poster here is that at one time we had to explain thunder and earthquakes etc. Man had gaps in knowledge, so man inserted their preferred gods as explanations. The gods are no longer needed to explain these gaps, so the above are now offered. The final offered bastions for the gods to be inserted, displayed for us all to see.
(Not that I agree they are all valid (like language), but that is beside the point).

Now all the readers have to do is to decide on what they think the best explanation is for:
The universe (to start with).

We don't yet know is one option.
- compared to -
My preferred god concept did it and your preferred god concept didn't! I know this because my preferred holy book is true and your is not! Also, don't forget that witches are real.

Why is not knowing how our universe came about so uncomfortable for some, to the degree that they will insert an available god as an explanation? "I don't know" may be 3 of the most powerful words man has ever uttered, yet some humans seem so uncomfortable with not knowing that they'll accept the gods as a valid explanation when in reality, humans just don't yet know.

[SiNcE_1985]

Well, God certainly has not been demonstrated to me

I guess that's what makes you an unbeliever.

, thus, it would be foolish for me to apply 'god' as a current viable option for the yet-to-be-known.

Agreed.

So please stop with the strawman attacks.

My standards are actually fairly low. And yet, I have not got there.

Well, remain where you are.

Don't know what else to say.

Maybe this is because 'god' is imaginary in reality

Let everyone draw their own conclusions.

We can discuss cause and effect. Thus far, both cause and effect are only demonstrated by way of naturalism, as opposed to asserted "supernaturalism". Case/point, the wind causes the leaf to fall off of a tree. In this case, the wind is the cause, and the fallen leaf is the effect. Now you may wish to argue that the wind was caused by a supernatural origin, but then you would be incorrect here too. Wind in instead caused by 'nature', (i.e.) uneven sun heating, air pressure changes, the earth's rotation, etc... And you can keep trekking backwards to argue for an 'origin' or a 'prime mover' to it all.

Sure, whatever you say, pal.

So, I ask you again, as your answer was quite unspecific. What is/are the right tool(s) for the job? Surely you must have some idea(s)? Is it 'science' plus other? Is it only other? If so, what exactly? Remember, this thread is about the "god of the gaps". And this term is defined as "a theological argument that uses gaps in scientific understanding as evidence for the existence of God." If 'science' has no place here at all, then maybe the argument has no legs to begin with?.?.?.?

I've already addressed where I stand on science and origins.

1) How exactly? Explain/summarize briefly, since you are a genius.

Traditional arguments for the existence of God has me convinced. You are aware of these arguments and you reject them as unviable.

So, no need to summarize.

2) No, I do not know you. I do not even know your name.

Those who know, they know.

3) You were not a believer until you were exposed to Christian apologetics arguments?

I was always a believer (blind faith).

It was the arguments as to why I remain a believer (reasonable faith).

4) In your case, it becomes especially true when you refuse to understand what a theoretical science even proposes.

Sure.

Until abiogenesis becomes theoretical, I do not consider it. Pure and simple. As it stands now, we have all sorts of imperial evidence(s) for naturalism/materialism, alternatively, merely only assertions, assumptions, and anecdotal 'evidences' for supernaturalism.

When you assert, imply, or insinuate that God didn't do it, you are saying abiogenesis did it, by default.

This fake perceived modesty is disgusting to me.

Your reply here still has little/nothing to do with my last response. Please re-read it and explore on your own accordingly. But like I already stated, I want to remain focused here, and only wanted to clarify a side position, which was expressed through organic dialogue. If you wish to start a new topic about faith, go for it

No, we can leave it at this doorstep.

Yes! As I alluded to prior, 2,000 years ago, you might have asserted that Zeus was up in the clouds bang'n his magic hammer. But now, you are forced to push it back further. This is what the 'god of the gaps' represents. Theists are forced to move to smaller gaps, where 'god' can still remain. When 'science' exposes where 'gods' used to be asserted to reside, the theist simply moves the target. Your target is origins, because this is basically all you have left.

Fallacy of composition, for the 5th time and counting.

Right, because 'science' has now removed 'god' virtually everywhere else, for which 'god' was asserted to exist prior.

If you cant use science to explain those 5 things previously mentioned and their origins, then we shall not include those things in the "virtually everywhere else" category.

Which is why this is the fallacy of composition, for the 6th time.

Science makes no assertions about 'origins'. This is why abiogenesis is not theoretical. Assertions instead are what the theists do here.

But scientists do, and they try to use the scientific methodology to accomplish it.

Thus, one commits the crime and the other is the getaway driver...and they shall be tried the same.

Yes. And until you can coherently explain chromosome #2, and the relationship with the telomeres and centromeres of chromosome #2, and also explain the exact fusion point within the GNOME, you will continue to argue a strawman. But this issue could have very easily been resolved, by simply watching one 4-minute tutorial video. What a pity....

I said, this is the cart before the horse.

[POI]

Traditional arguments for the existence of God has me convinced. You are aware of these arguments and you reject them as unviable. So, no need to summarize.

But one of them, in which you have demonstrated to me, includes rejecting a discipline of theoretical science based upon a strawman. Kind of ironic coming from someone who prides themself in rubberstamping others, via fallacies.

I was always a believer (blind faith).

Then, like I already stated, apologetics is not why you are a believer. 1) Apologetics is what you instead use as conformation bias. That, as well as 2) misrepresenting your opponent(s) position(s), are both key elements for you.

When you assert, imply, or insinuate that God didn't do it, you are saying abiogenesis did it, by default.

Please tell me where 'I don't know' does any of the above in bold? Oh, that's right. I must be lying

This fake perceived modesty is disgusting to me.

What is 'disgusting', is insinuating that I am lying. But, whatever helps your current 'position.'

I said, this is the cart before the horse.

But it's not here. You reject evolutionary biology, in part, because it would conflict with (your) specific interpretation to a part of Genesis.

[SiNcE_1985]

But one of them, in which you have demonstrated to me, includes rejecting a discipline of theoretical science based upon a strawman. Kind of ironic coming from someone who prides themself in rubberstamping others, via fallacies.

You perceive what you perceive.

Then, like I already stated, apologetics is not why you are a believer.

Then we agree.

What do you want me to say?

1) Apologetics is what you instead use as conformation bias.

I already explained my position. Take from it what you may.

That, as well as 2) misrepresenting your opponent(s) position(s), are both key elements for you.

Opinions.

Please tell me where 'I don't know' does any of the above in bold? Oh, that's right. I must be lying

I explained my position. Nothing else to add.

What is 'disgusting', is insinuating that I am lying. But, whatever helps your current 'position.'

Well, you just accused me of using apologetics as confirmation bias, which I'm saying ain't true, and far from it.

So, I guess I must be lying on my motivations for being a Christian, apparently.

But it's not here. You reject evolutionary biology, in part, because it would conflict with (your) specific interpretation to a part of Genesis.

I reject evolution because dogs produce dogs.

[benchwarmer]

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.

We all know you are adept at ignoring science when it suits your narrative (see any discussion of the scientific theory of evolution with you), so color me suspicious you would bother to pay attention to any science that explains any of the above.

Origins of:

1. The universe
-> At this point all we have are theories and a lot of data. It is an open science question. "I don't know" is a better answer than simply inserting your favorite god concept and thus stop looking.

2. Life
-> Same as #1.

3. Irreducible Complexity. This isn't even a real thing. It's an idea proposed by creationists in order to avoid understanding and/or accepting what evolutionary biology has discovered and is continuing to discover. Science can't be used to explain something that doesn't exist.

4. Objective moral values. This also isn't even a real thing. It's an idea proposed under various theisms as a way to point to their favorite god concept. Same as #3. Science doesn't apply to things that can't be shown to exist.

5. Language. Get ready to pay attention to science (assuming you would actually do so). This is an ongoing area of research.

Language: Its Origin and Ongoing Evolution
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10142271/

I'm not an expert in this area, but I think the research is more about why humans have (developed) the capacity for languages rather than the actual process of language developing.

Even just intuitively we can understand how language might begin:

Caveman Steve picks up a stick and waves it at Caveman Bob: "Ooooh ooooh oooooh blag!"

Caveman Bob: "uhhhh huhhhhh ooohhhh?"

Caveman Steve: "Blag!"

Caveman Bob: "ohhh uhhh?"

Caveman Steve whacks Caveman Bob with the stick: "blag blag blag!!!"

Caveman Bob: "oweeeee! blag blag!"

Caveman Steve looking satisfied: "Blag!"

Three days later Caveman Steve points toward the ground and screams "BLAG!" to Caveman Bob. Caveman Bob picks up a stick and both of them hoot "Blag blag!!!"

Since they seem to have developed the ability to both make sounds and remember previous sounds, the cavemen have begun their journey towards communication with language. Granted at this point the only common word is "Blag" and they are unaware that thousands of years later some idiot with an English accent will refer to their prized possession as a 'stick'.

[SiNcE_1985]

We all know you are adept at ignoring science when it suits your narrative (see any discussion of the scientific theory of evolution with you), so color me suspicious you would bother to pay attention to any science that explains any of the above.

Try me.

Origins of:

1. The universe
-> At this point all we have are theories and a lot of data. It is an open science question. "I don't know" is a better answer than simply inserting your favorite god concept and thus stop looking.

"I don't know" just doesn't cut it.

You are basically saying "We are looking from within nature, to explain the origins of nature".

That is like saying "We are looking from within the computer, to explain the origins of the computer".

Laughable, circular reasoning.

Again, back to the atheistic mindset of..

"Any explanation, no matter how absurd it is, is still better than the "G" word.

2. Life
-> Same as #1.

Looks like you have at least two problems on your hand with this one...

1. It is virtually impossible for sentient life to arise from nonliving material.

2. But let's have some fun with it..let's say that you are able to go in a lab, and create a living cell (life).

And you are, of course, ecstatic at your achievement and you even win the Nobel Prize with this feat.

Sounds good, doesn't it?

And even I would congratulate you.

Me: Congratulations, benchwarmer. You've proved my point. You've proved my theory that it takes intelligence to create life, which is what I've been saying all along, right (intelligent design(er)?

Now, here is the trick...can you get life to arise from a nonliving, non-sentient entity or process?

If you do that, not only will I be impressed; but I'll then call you "God".
.....

I said all that to say, neither #1 or #2 ain't happening.

3. Irreducible Complexity. This isn't even a real thing. It's an idea proposed by creationists in order to avoid understanding and/or accepting what evolutionary biology has discovered and is continuing to discover. Science can't be used to explain something that doesn't exist.

Opinions.

I've already laid out my position on this, and as far as I'm concerned, it stands.

4. Objective moral values. This also isn't even a real thing. It's an idea proposed under various theisms as a way to point to their favorite god concept. Same as #3. Science doesn't apply to things that can't be shown to exist.

Oh, so objective morals and values don't exist? I'd prefer not to debate this subject here..I'm just asking the question.

5. Language. Get ready to pay attention to science (assuming you would actually do so). This is an ongoing area of research.

Language: Its Origin and Ongoing Evolution
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10142271/

I'm not an expert in this area, but I think the research is more about why humans have (developed) the capacity for languages rather than the actual process of language developing.

Even just intuitively we can understand how language might begin:

Caveman Steve picks up a stick and waves it at Caveman Bob: "Ooooh ooooh oooooh blag!"

Caveman Bob: "uhhhh huhhhhh ooohhhh?"

Caveman Steve: "Blag!"

Caveman Bob: "ohhh uhhh?"

Caveman Steve whacks Caveman Bob with the stick: "blag blag blag!!!"

Caveman Bob: "oweeeee! blag blag!"

Caveman Steve looking satisfied: "Blag!"

Three days later Caveman Steve points toward the ground and screams "BLAG!" to Caveman Bob. Caveman Bob picks up a stick and both of them hoot "Blag blag!!!"

Since they seem to have developed the ability to both make sounds and remember previous sounds, the cavemen have begun their journey towards communication with language. Granted at this point the only common word is "Blag" and they are unaware that thousands of years later some idiot with an English accent will refer to their prized possession as a 'stick'.

This is an interesting subject. Create a thread on it if you like.

And I'm saying that to say; I'm not buying your explanation as to explain the origins of language.

It ain't happening. Not like that. Not at all.

[POI]

I guess I must be lying on my motivations for being a Christian, apparently.

You expressed, in another thread, (paraphrased) - that if evolutionary biology is true, you would likely have to denounce Christianity. Please correct me if this is a misplaced statement? But I'm fairly certain this is your position here...

If the above statement is true, then you have demonstrated, on countless occasions, of refusing to be presented with what evolutionary biology actually proposes. And not only have you refused to watch a 4-minute tutorial video which explains a specific piece of hard evidence - regarding evolutionary biology, but you have also refused to learn about key elements from the video, which explains common ancestry, for which you admitted you were not even aware about. Thus, until you know what evolutionary biology actually proposes, you will continue saying what you are saying. Truth carries no concern of one's personal feelings. However, it is clear you demonstrate protective measures to retain an existing viewpoint. Hence, your position here represents being disingenuous. If you were after what IS true, you would be eager to explore the actual evidence. But, you are not. You instead wish to remain in the position you currently hold, which has been demonstrated to be objectively incorrect. in reality.

Your entire argument here is based upon a giant strawman. And you refuse to be given evidence. Likely because once you know it, you cannot un-know it, and you would be forced to at least pivot your current position, which is uncomfortable. To know what I know, forces one's hand into, at bear minimum, performing a major pivot in your current position, in regard to what parts of Genesis asserts. Which is why believers in the know about this evidence, like Kennith Miller, about what evolutionary biology actually demonstrates, have to basically perform mental backflips to jive with the Adam and Eve story. Anywho, like I've been saying, you do you boo.

[bjs1]

Is the god of the gaps argument logically sound?

Of course "god of the gaps" is bad reasoning. The phrase was coined in the 1800's by twisting an existing Christian phrase into an attack on Christianity.

However, an intelligent designer, as it is most often formulated today, is not a "god of the gaps" argument.

A "god of the gaps" argument starts with the conclusion and then tries to find a way to justify that conclusion. This is always bad reasoning no matter who does it.

An "intelligent designer" argument starts with the evidence and then seeks to find the most reasonable explanation for that evidence.


*I don't know the context of this original quote. I will say that "irreducible complexity" was an argument connected to intelligent design that was used against the theory of evolution for a short while. That was an argument against evolution, not in favor of God. People sometimes misapplied it as an argument in favor of God, and that would be an example of a "god of the gaps" argument.