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]

What a great demonstration of how religions can close off the mind.

Yeah, because religious skeptics are some of the most open minded people out there.

This doesn't even come close to addressing how religions can in fact be a mechanism that closes of the mind.

Person A: Here is my position... and I will live and die by it.
Person B: Would you like to learn.....
Person A: LIVE AND DIE I SAID!

That's how strong I am in my convictions, as I'm sure you are in yours.

Nope. I am open to having my knowledge challenged and enjoy sharping my thinking. For example, prove the Theory of Evolution to be wrong and I will only care to learn about what better explains what we see.

You would live and die maintaining your position (from your words).
I try to be live and learn.
How you and I deal with our convictions are not even remotely similar.

No God, no moral accountability...yay atheism!!

More war against atheists! Why do you do this? I know that cults will often times find a common 'thing/enemy' to unite against, but why do you have such nasty made up things to say about atheists (no moral accountability)? Are you just projecting on to others that you wouldn't be moral if not for your religion?

[SiNcE_1985]

This doesn't even come close to addressing how religions can in fact be a mechanism that closes of the mind.

Um, I was being sarcastic.

I'm basically saying atheists can be (and have been) very closed minded.

Or are you so focused on religion, that you can't see this?

Nope. I am open to having my knowledge challenged and enjoy sharping my thinking. For example, prove the Theory of Evolution to be wrong and I will only care to learn about what better explains what we see.

You are challenging me to prove the theory wrong.

And I challenge you to prove it right.

You would live and die maintaining your position (from your words).
I try to be live and learn.
How you and I deal with our convictions are not even remotely similar.

If you ain't willing to die by your convictions, then you don't feel strongly enough about them.

More war against atheists! Why do you do this? I know that cults will often times find a common 'thing/enemy' to unite against, but why do you have such nasty made up things to say about atheists (no moral accountability)? Are you just projecting on to others that you wouldn't be moral if not for your religion?

I'm talking about what Shelly Kagan calls "Cosmic Accountability"...meaning accountability from God.

If a rapist atheist commits a crime, and gets away with it...he may have gotten away with it under man's jurisdiction...but not under God's.

In other words, justice is still coming.

If God is out of the equation (which is what atheists believe), then as I said; no moral accountability.

[Clownboat]

Um, I was being sarcastic.

I'm basically saying atheists can be (and have been) very closed minded.

Or are you so focused on religion, that you can't see this?

Sarcasm is hard to read and no one has claimed that atheists can't be closed minded. Atheists are just people that don't find any of the available god concepts as reasonable to hold a belief in at the moment (like you towards all gods less one). I don't see how being an atheist would be a mechanism to closing off ones mind, but do agree that people can be closed minded and 'people' would naturally include atheistic people along with all others. Therefore the purpose of you bringing up atheists is lost on me when compared to my observation about religions.

What I pointed out and you now seem to agree with, is that religions can be a mechanism to close off ones mind.
As far as me being focused on religion, please note the website you are on and what this topic is about. This is not sarcasm.

Nope. I am open to having my knowledge challenged and enjoy sharping my thinking. For example, prove the Theory of Evolution to be wrong and I will only care to learn about what better explains what we see.

You are challenging me to prove the theory wrong.

What a silly claim you level at me! Especially since your understanding of evolution has been demonstrated to be lacking. You would hardly be one to prove it wrong. Feel free (yup 'free') to show it wrong and I will want to learn the better explanation.

And I challenge you to prove it right.

https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory
It is a fact that populations change over time. Therefore, evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is our best explanation of the fact of evolution. It explains not only the animals we see now, but also in the fossil record. This theory is open to being challenged if there exists a better explanation.

If you ain't willing to die by your convictions, then you don't feel strongly enough about them.

This is where we part ways. You for some odd reason feel that 'feeling strongly' about something helps to establish the truth of said thing. It does not and you should amend your thinking.

More war against atheists! Why do you do this? I know that cults will often times find a common 'thing/enemy' to unite against, but why do you have such nasty made up things to say about atheists (no moral accountability)? Are you just projecting on to others that you wouldn't be moral if not for your religion?

I'm talking about what Shelly Kagan calls "Cosmic Accountability"...meaning accountability from God.

So therefore atheists have no moral accountability? That doesn't follow, but you know what does: "Shame on you!"

If a rapist atheist commits a crime, and gets away with it...he may have gotten away with it under man's jurisdiction...but not under God's.

Now you just point to one of the many 'feel goods' that religions supply.
I got one! Want to see your dead loved ones again? Or perhaps an eternity of bliss is more your thing? Obviously, the idea of no one escaping punishment is one you already ascribe to, as you just pointed out, but what any of these things have to do with whether a claim is valid is lost on me.

In other words, justice is still coming.

I'm sure this is something that makes you happy. Now what does that have to do with the reliability of Islam for example?

If God is out of the equation (which is what atheists believe), then as I said; no moral accountability.

Atheism literally means (A) without and religious belief (-theism). 'A-theism'
An atheist is a person that currently lacks belief in all available god concepts. You should amend your thinking especially since you are an atheist (lacking in belief) towards all gods, except for one.

Circling back to the above. You can live and die with the idea that atheists in general believe there are no Gods, and you will still be incorrect.

[SiNcE_1985]

Um, I was being sarcastic.

I'm basically saying atheists can be (and have been) very closed minded.

Or are you so focused on religion, that you can't see this?

Sarcasm is hard to read and no one has claimed that atheists can't be closed minded. Atheists are just people that don't find any of the available god concepts as reasonable to hold a belief in at the moment (like you towards all gods less one). I don't see how being an atheist would be a mechanism to closing off ones mind, but do agree that people can be closed minded and 'people' would naturally include atheistic people along with all others. Therefore the purpose of you bringing up atheists is lost on me when compared to my observation about religions. What I pointed out and you now seem to agree with, is that religions can be a mechanism to close off ones mind.

Um, the point is; no matter which way you flip the sandwich, there is bread on both sides.

Both sides can be closed minded, regardless of the mechanism.

Your emphasis on the mechanism by which closed minded occurs is irrelevant.

Because guess what, atheists don't have that mechanism, and they can STILL closed minded.

As far as me being focused on religion, please note the website you are on and what this topic is about. This is not sarcasm.

Wow, you just straight up butchered the point..in epic fashion.

What a silly claim you level at me! Especially since your understanding of evolution has been demonstrated to be lacking. You would hardly be one to prove it wrong. Feel free (yup 'free') to show it wrong and I will want to learn the better explanation.

Genesis Chapter 1.

https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory
It is a fact that populations change over time. Therefore, evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is our best explanation of the fact of evolution. It explains not only the animals we see now, but also in the fossil record. This theory is open to being challenged if there exists a better explanation.

Cool.

This is where we part ways. You for some odd reason feel that 'feeling strongly' about something helps to establish the truth of said thing. It does not and you should amend your thinking.

Strong evidence = feelings of strongness.

So therefore atheists have no moral accountability? That doesn't follow, but you know what does: "Shame on you!"

Now you just point to one of the many 'feel goods' that religions supply.
I got one! Want to see your dead loved ones again? Or perhaps an eternity of bliss is more your thing? Obviously, the idea of no one escaping punishment is one you already ascribe to, as you just pointed out, but what any of these things have to do with whether a claim is valid is lost on me.

I'm sure this is something that makes you happy. Now what does that have to do with the reliability of Islam for example?

Atheism literally means (A) without and religious belief (-theism). 'A-theism'
An atheist is a person that currently lacks belief in all available god concepts. You should amend your thinking especially since you are an atheist (lacking in belief) towards all gods, except for one.

Circling back to the above. You can live and die with the idea that atheists in general believe there are no Gods, and you will still be incorrect.

Evolution, discussions on morality, what it means to be an atheist..you can have those discussions with someone who cares.

[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?

The "God of the Gaps" argument is logically unsound because it relies on gaps in understanding as evidence for so—claimed “divinity”. This approach assumes that phenomena we cannot currently explain must be attributed to a “divine” cause, committing the logical fallacy of appealing to ignorance. It further assumes the existence of immateriality without evidence, which conflicts with the principle that claims must be supported by observation and reasoning. Within the framework of what is divined, such assumptions are unnecessary unless they can be reasonably demonstrated. The reliance on gaps and the lack of affirmative evidence make the traditional "God of the Gaps" argument unstable, especially as scientific understanding continues to fill those gaps.

To salvage the argument, it must move beyond gaps and focus instead on The Divined as a coherent and foundational concept. The Divined, as understood in this framework, does not fill voids of ignorance but emerges as the necessary basis for understanding existence as a unified whole. By reframing the divined not as an immaterial placeholder but as a foundational aspect of reality—grounded in observation and reasoning—the argument shifts from speculative assumptions to a concept rooted in coherence and interconnectedness. This approach eliminates reliance on perceived gaps and instead highlights the completeness of reality, where distinctions serve understanding rather than creating separations. The Divined thus provides a much stronger and more intellectually rigorous framework than the "God of the Gaps" ever could.

[The Tanager]

If not, what changes must be made to such an argument to rescue it?

God of the gap arguments are not logically sound. When we don’t know the answer to a question, we can’t just put God (or science or anything else) in there to explain it. Even if we absolutely knew God existed, believed God answered other questions perfectly and that it could be the answer to that specific question as well, that doesn’t mean God is actually the answer to the question being discussed.

If not, what changes must be made to such an argument to rescue it?

It needs to be supported by sound reasoning.

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.

Um, again, we are appealing to the best explanation, and if that leads us to God, then it is what it is.

We understand that the answer of "Goddidit" doesn't suit your fancy, but that is a personal problem for you.

God provides the explanatory power needed to produce the effect.

1. The mind (engineering mind).
2. The power (to create from nothing).
3. The will (to make the choice to create).

All of which Mother Nature lacks. So again, appealing to the best explanation.

Is this really an appeal to the best explanation?

I'd argue that appealing to an omnipotent god isn't actually an explanation, but is no explanation instead. It's the same as just claiming magic with no other definition or constraints.

Could you lay out your actual argument here? Why isn’t the argument(s) you have in mind more like saying a rabbit can't be pulled out of the hat if there isn't a magician doing the pulling?

[Difflugia]

I'd argue that appealing to an omnipotent god isn't actually an explanation, but is no explanation instead. It's the same as just claiming magic with no other definition or constraints.

Could you lay out your actual argument here? Why isn’t the argument(s) you have in mind more like saying a rabbit can't be pulled out of the hat if there isn't a magician doing the pulling?

The super short answer is because we know that magicians are real and they sometimes pull rabbits out of hats.

The longer answer is that we can define a magician. We know what magicians can do and what their limitations are. We can design experiments that would disprove a magician's involvement. On the other hand, we have no definitions of either magic or gods. We either don't know what their limitations are or we disclaim any limitations at all. If there's no conceivable way to demonstrate that a particular explanation isn't correct, then the explanation is meaningless.

Most experiments are defined by failures. When we posit a mechanism, the most common experiments by far are attempts to disprove a particular hypothesis. If there's no way to disprove a hypothesis, then the hypothesis is meaningless. In the case of gods and magic, there's no way in principle to disprove them. There's still, of course, the possibility that omnipotent gods or sources of magic exist, but we have yet to find evidence for them that excludes far more limited explanations. So far, there's no real-world example of something for which an omnipotent god is the best explanation, because as an explanation, an omnipotent god can only mean that we can't find an explanation with more limitations. If God is omnipotent, "God did it" and "I don't know" convey exactly the same amount and quality of information. As candidate for best explanation, "God did it" can only ever tie with "I don't know."

[Clownboat]

Um, the point is; no matter which way you flip the sandwich, there is bread on both sides.
Both sides can be closed minded, regardless of the mechanism.

Once again I must thank you for showing my words to be correct.
All people can be close minded, like I already pointed out to you, but religious people have a built in mechanism that can close off what otherwise wouldn't be closed off.

Because guess what, atheists don't have that mechanism, and they can STILL closed minded.

Derp! If they became religious, they will gain a mechanism that promotes close mindedness. No one is contesting that people in general can be closed minded, but that is probably a much easer position to address than the one you are avoiding.

What a silly claim you level at me! Especially since your understanding of evolution has been demonstrated to be lacking. You would hardly be one to prove it wrong. Feel free (yup 'free') to show it wrong and I will want to learn the better explanation.

Genesis Chapter 1.

I wish you knew how to debate. The above does not count.

https://ncse.ngo/evolution-fact-and-theory
It is a fact that populations change over time. Therefore, evolution is a fact. The theory of evolution is our best explanation of the fact of evolution. It explains not only the animals we see now, but also in the fossil record. This theory is open to being challenged if there exists a better explanation.

Cool.

What an odd acknowledgment for me meeting your challenge.
"And I challenge you to prove it right."
When I do so, you respond with 'cool'. Can I assume that there might be a mechanism in place that is closing off your mind to the point that you offer challenges and then pretend like you didn't when they are met?

This is where we part ways. You for some odd reason feel that 'feeling strongly' about something helps to establish the truth of said thing. It does not and you should amend your thinking.

Strong evidence = feelings of strongness.

Derp!
Strong evidence does not = establishing the truth of something. Which is what I actually argued, not what you think I had argued.
Please be openminded about my actual arguments, it will help to foster better debate.

Evolution, discussions on morality, what it means to be an atheist..you can have those discussions with someone who cares.

I wish you were more openminded to learn about such things as it might prevent you from evil (IMO) statements like, "atheists have no moral accountability", but you do you. Do you think you would hold such positions about atheists if you were not religious or is it solely your religious belief that makes you say such a thing?

[SiNcE_1985]

Once again I must thank you for showing my words to be correct.
All people can be close minded, like I already pointed out to you, but religious people have a built in mechanism that can close off what otherwise wouldn't be closed off.

Then unbelievers have a built-in mechanism which closes them off to explanations that are beyond science and nature.

So now what?

Derp! If they became religious, they will gain a mechanism that promotes close mindedness.

Once they become atheists, they will gain a mentality that promotes a closed mindedness to any given explanation beyond science and nature.

Again, so now what?

No one is contesting that people in general can be closed minded, but that is probably a much easer position to address than the one you are avoiding.

And no one is contesting that religious folks and nonreligious folks can be equally closed minded.

So, it's best that you simply drop the subject, because it ain't getting you anywhere.

I wish you knew how to debate. The above does not count.

It counts for/to me.

What an odd acknowledgment for me meeting your challenge.
"And I challenge you to prove it right."
When I do so, you respond with 'cool'. Can I assume that there might be a mechanism in place that is closing off your mind to the point that you offer challenges and then pretend like you didn't when they are met?

If we were debating evolution, then sure..go for it.

But since we aren't, then you can have that conversation with someone who cares.

At the moment, I'm not interested in proving your religion (evolution), wrong.

I am, however, interested in proving my religion (Christianity) right.

Derp!
Strong evidence does not = establishing the truth of something.

I don't know your methodology, but when I want to establish the truth of something, strong evidence is welcomed.

Maybe your methodology is different than mines, but hey.

Which is what I actually argued, not what you think I had argued.
Please be openminded about my actual arguments, it will help to foster better debate.

What are you arguing?

I wish you were more openminded to learn about such things as it might prevent you from evil (IMO) statements like, "atheists have no moral accountability", but you do you. Do you think you would hold such positions about atheists if you were not religious or is it solely your religious belief that makes you say such a thing?

To say you missed the point, would be an understatement.

[The Tanager]

The super short answer is because we know that magicians are real and they sometimes pull rabbits out of hats.

This sounds like you are faulting an argument for the existence of X because we don’t know already that X exists. The argument is the evidence.

The longer answer is that we can define a magician. We know what magicians can do and what their limitations are. We can design experiments that would disprove a magician's involvement. On the other hand, we have no definitions of either magic or gods. We either don't know what their limitations are or we disclaim any limitations at all. If there's no conceivable way to demonstrate that a particular explanation isn't correct, then the explanation is meaningless.

Most experiments are defined by failures. When we posit a mechanism, the most common experiments by far are attempts to disprove a particular hypothesis. If there's no way to disprove a hypothesis, then the hypothesis is meaningless. In the case of gods and magic, there's no way in principle to disprove them.

I think this misunderstands the flow of many arguments for God’s existence. Take Craig’s KCA, for example. The argument (if sound) leads to something existing that is immaterial, personal, etc., which is building out the definition that we give the term of ‘God’. And there is a way to disprove this argument, so it’s not meaningless.