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]

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

It ain't true, which means that since you based whatever you said afterwards on a false premise, that statement is also false.

My position is...

I don't believe for one nanosecond that evolution is true, with or without God's divine hand in it.

However, even if it is true, it ain't happening without God's divine hand orchestrating the affairs.

No purely naturalistic explanation for the origins of life and/or species is viable.

That my position that I will live & die by.

[POI]

I don't believe for one nanosecond that evolution is true, with or without God's divine hand in it.

This is understandable, being you are basing your position of evolutionary biology upon a false premise.

However, even if it is true, it ain't happening without God's divine hand orchestrating the affairs.

This was not my point. My point is that IF you accept evolutionary biology, you would have no choice but to spin parts of Genesis. Which may cause you to reject Christianity.

No purely naturalistic explanation for the origins of life and/or species is viable.

This has nothing to do with my response. Whatever 'origin' may or may not exist, put into motion all natural law. This natural law also includes evolutionary processes. This renders the Genesis account about Adam and Eve false, unless you begin to spin things. This is what Kennith Miller has to do, in light of the fact he is aware of how evolutionary processes have been proven.

[SiNcE_1985]

This is understandable, being you are basing your position of evolutionary biology upon a false premise.

Dogs produce dogs.

That is a true premise.

However, even if it is true, it ain't happening without God's divine hand orchestrating the affairs.

This was not my point.

Your point is irrelevant at this moment, considering I was simply stating my position after you had just previously botched it.

My point is that IF you accept evolutionary biology, you would have no choice but to spin parts of Genesis.

If "IF" was a fifth, we'll all be drunk.

Which may cause you to reject Christianity.

May/May not.

I can just as easily say that "if" you accept Christianity as true, this may cause you to reject evolutionary biology.

No need to deal with hypotheticals.

We are where we are.

This has nothing to do with my response. Whatever 'origin' may or may not exist, put into motion all natural law.

This natural law also includes evolutionary processes.

Believe that if you like.

This renders the Genesis account about Adam and Eve false, unless you begin to spin things.

Sure, it would.

A lot of things would be true under different set of circumstances.

This is what Kennith Miller has to do, in light of the fact he is aware of how evolutionary processes have been proven.

You, Ken Miller, and Charles Darwin

vs

Me, Kent Hovind, and Jesus of Nazareth.

Let's have a standoff.

[benchwarmer]

This is understandable, being you are basing your position of evolutionary biology upon a false premise.

Dogs produce dogs.

That is a true premise.

I'm curious why you keep bringing this up as if it's some sort of gotcha against evolution. The actual theory of evolution doesn't say any different. It seems the branch of science you really have a bone to pick with (excuse the pun) is taxonomy.

[SiNcE_1985]

I'm curious why you keep bringing this up as if it's some sort of gotcha against evolution. The actual theory of evolution doesn't say any different.

Nonsense.

A reptile evolving into a bird is definitely saying something different.

And it is indeed contrary to dogs produce dogs.

It seems the branch of science you really have a bone to pick with (excuse the pun) is taxonomy.

Well, if that's where the cookie crumbles, then hey.

[POI]

Dogs produce dogs. That is a true premise.

Since you refuse to allow in any actual factual information about what evolutionary biology proposes, I'll ask you some simple questions instead....

1) Do you think biology claims that at one point, a dog gave birth to a cat or something?

2) Do you also think that evolutionary biologists are not already completely aware of your repeated statement, that 'dogs produce dogs'?

Inquiring minds want to know....

Your point is irrelevant at this moment, considering I was simply stating my position after you had just previously botched it.

LOL! My position never spoke about initial "origins". That is instead where you want to go. My point is that you would have no choice but to pivot your current understanding of the Genesis account. But, since you absolutely refuse to investigate what evolutionary biology has actually discovered, you will continue to double down on a strawman.

I can just as easily say that "if" you accept Christianity as true, this may cause you to reject evolutionary biology. No need to deal with hypotheticals. We are where we are.

IF I thought Jesus actually returned from his grave, and I also know what I know about evolutionary biology, I would honestly have a tough time reading Genesis without having major confusion. Yes!

Maybe this is why the term "minimal facts Christianity' was later coined by Christian apologists?

Sure, it would. A lot of things would be true under different set of circumstances.

Aces! You have a choice then...

A) Continue doubling down and strawmaning a misunderstood and misrepresented position in evolutionary biology - to protect your current mis-guided position.

B) See what evolutionary biology actually proposes, and then let the chips fall wherever they may.

C) See what evolutionary biology actually proposes and then deny your own logic to preserve your existing position anyways.

Maybe you will simply be a more enlightened Christian. But you would then have to reconcile that at least parts of Genesis are no longer literal assertions, at minimum.

BTW, you begged me to create a KCA thread. I created one. You have three choices.

1) Ignore that thread
2) Create your own KCA thread to personal taste
3) Stop bringing up 'origins' when it is not what your interlocutor is discussing

[benchwarmer]

I'm curious why you keep bringing this up as if it's some sort of gotcha against evolution. The actual theory of evolution doesn't say any different.

Nonsense.

A reptile evolving into a bird is definitely saying something different.

And it is indeed contrary to dogs produce dogs.

No, birds are descendants (and still technically) reptiles. They are NOT descendants of modern day reptiles (obviously). So reptiles have produced reptiles. At some point we have decided to call some reptiles 'birds' because they share common characteristics of a branch of reptiles. It's all in the DNA evidence which I'm sure you've either ignored or refuse to engage.

So, you are just showing that you are not understanding the science and what it actually says.

In a nutshell, the TOE says that all life has evolved from previous life. You are hung up on 'kinds' or whatever pseudo science you got from AiG, etc. rather than the actual science.

It seems the branch of science you really have a bone to pick with (excuse the pun) is taxonomy.

Well, if that's where the cookie crumbles, then hey.

Well, it seems that's where your misunderstanding (or simple refusal to learn about it) is at. Dogs produce dogs. No science disagrees with you. Reptiles produce reptiles. Some modern reptiles are called 'birds'. The TOE remains intact.

Now, if you could get a crocodile to birth a duck, then you would have a smoking gun and proof the TOE is missing something and should be overturned for something that encompasses ALL the data (including your crocoduck).

[William]

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?

Your definition of GOTG leaves room for other conceptions of “God”, so those could be used to fill those gaps.

Subjective GOD Model presents a sophisticated alternative to traditional theological frameworks, addressing the limitations of the GOTG argument while promoting a holistic and integrative view of morality, free will, and divined interaction. By emphasizing personal responsibility, interconnectedness, and the compatibility of science and spirituality, SGM offers a compelling vision for reconciling GOD with modern understanding.

Is GOTG Logically Sound?
No, GOTG (as defined) is not logically sound. As a placeholder, it is inherently temporary and lacks explanatory power. It depends on ignorance rather than knowledge, making it unsustainable and vulnerable to scientific progress.

How Does SGM Replace GOTG?
SGM entirely supplants GOTG by offering a comprehensive, proactive understanding of GOD. Instead of relying on gaps, SGM:

Positions GOD as an integrated, subjective presence.
Emphasizes co-creation, moral growth, and spiritual alignment.
Views science and spirituality as complementary paths to truth, eliminating the need for GOD to "compete" with science.

[SiNcE_1985]

No, birds are descendants (and still technically) reptiles. They are NOT descendants of modern day reptiles (obviously). So reptiles have produced reptiles. At some point we have decided to call some reptiles 'birds' because they share common characteristics of a branch of reptiles. It's all in the DNA evidence which I'm sure you've either ignored or refuse to engage.

As tempting as it is, I won't engage in a full-blown discussion on evolution, as that is where this is going.

You believe we share a common ancestor with apes, and I believe God created us in his image.

You have your religion, and I have mines.

So, you are just showing that you are not understanding the science and what it actually says.

Gotcha. I don't understand evolution.

In a nutshell, the TOE says that all life has evolved from previous life. You are hung up on 'kinds' or whatever pseudo science you got from AiG, etc. rather than the actual science.

Aight. Maybe one day we'll meet on an evolution thread and I'll duke it out with ya.

Well, it seems that's where your misunderstanding (or simple refusal to learn about it) is at. Dogs produce dogs. No science disagrees with you. Reptiles produce reptiles. Some modern reptiles are called 'birds'. The TOE remains intact.

Now, if you could get a crocodile to birth a duck, then you would have a smoking gun and proof the TOE is missing something and should be overturned for something that encompasses ALL the data (including your crocoduck).

Loud and clear, BW.

[SiNcE_1985]

1) Do you think biology claims that at one point, a dog gave birth to a cat or something?

If you are trying to sell me on the idea that reptiles evolved into birds, which is a process that can only occur via sexual reproduction...

Then that is no different that a dog giving birth to a cat.

2) Do you also think that evolutionary biologists are not already completely aware of your repeated statement, that 'dogs produce dogs'?

Bro, to be honest, the ToE is that from Satan.

I truly believe it is.

I could go deeper, but I'll leave it there for now.

PM me if you want to discuss..and we'll keep the conversation private.

LOL! My position never spoke about initial "origins". That is instead where you want to go.

That's where you find yourself once you tackle the deeper questions in life...to the root, to the source, to the origins.

My point is that you would have no choice but to pivot your current understanding of the Genesis account.

Opinions, and an irrelevant one, at that.

But, since you absolutely refuse to investigate what evolutionary biology has actually discovered, you will continue to double down on a strawman.

I'll believe what I have evidence for.

IF I thought Jesus actually returned from his grave, and I also know what I know about evolutionary biology, I would honestly have a tough time reading Genesis without having major confusion. Yes!

We'll cross that bridge when it comes.

Accept Christ first.

Maybe this is why the term "minimal facts Christianity' was later coined by Christian apologists?

I heard Dr. WLC use it.

Aces! You have a choice then...

A) Continue doubling down and strawmaning a misunderstood and misrepresented position in evolutionary biology - to protect your current mis-guided position.

B) See what evolutionary biology actually proposes, and then let the chips fall wherever they may.

C) See what evolutionary biology actually proposes and then deny your own logic to preserve your existing position anyways.

Maybe you will simply be a more enlightened Christian. But you would then have to reconcile that at least parts of Genesis are no longer literal assertions, at minimum.

So many options to choose from.

BTW, you begged me to create a KCA thread. I created one.

Did you really?

Well..

The time has come..

To relieve this pain...

Which will be better for me..

But not so enjoyable...for you.

You have three choices.

1) Ignore that thread
2) Create your own KCA thread to personal taste
3) Stop bringing up 'origins' when it is not what your interlocutor is discussing

Options are a beautiful thing.

Kindly provide the link to the Evilution thread and the post you'd like me to respond to.

A deal is a deal.

A compromise of historic proportions.