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?

[The Tanager]

Vacuum fluctuations have been shown to occasionally result in the creation of new, real particles. Craig's objection is that the vacuum in our universe isn't enough of a vacuum to justify a conclusion of uncaused beginning of existence. If Craig's objection is valid, premise 1 is unfalsifiable from within our universe, which last I knew, is where we all live. If his objection is invalid, premise 1 is falsified. Pick your poison.

Why do you think Craig’s objection is that it isn’t enough of a vacuum to justify that view? What does it mean to be “not enough of a vacuum”?

My understanding is that the objection is that the reason for new, real particles randomly coming about (if it is truly random) is because of the nature of the material (the quantum vacuum), so that even if there is no efficient cause, there is still a prior cause for these particles coming into existence. Take away the quantum energy, and have a true nothing, and you won’t get these particles.

Epistemology doesn't interest me. Science empirically works and I disagree that empiricism is irrational. If you want to peer at it from a philosophical perspective, knock yourself out.

Well, you are doing it whether you are aware or not. Rational people want to make sure they are thinking well.

Only if we agree that there's a reasonable probability that my perceptions may not allow me to usefully map scientific conclusions onto our shared understanding of reality.

Philosophically, it's turtles all the way down and we have to pick one as a foundation. If you think you can convince me that the turtle I've picked as my foundation is wrong, go ahead and try, but the fact that I've picked one isn't somehow "self-defeating."

We can only agree that it is reasonable if we do philosophy (whether aware of it or not, calling it by that name or not). We can only be agreeing to something worth agreeing to if we do philosophy well. Your turtle (the reliability of our perceptions to give us truth about physical reality) is a good one to hold, but it’s because of philosophical reasons.

To reject that and say it’s only because of science is not only incorrect, but (if true) would absolutely be self-defeating because there is no scientific evidence that scientific evidence is true (including the reliability of our perceptions).

But logical coherence, as you have said, isn’t enough either. We need it to be anchored in reality. Correct perceptions are anchored in reality and have a good philosophical foundation, so we are rational to hold those as rational beliefs to hold as true. We can then draw further philosophical conclusions on top of that, if warranted. And that is what the Kalam (and other arguments for God’s existence) is doing.

And to still to get to…

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

[Here we would need to address your point, Difflugia, connecting predictability and cause, and changing states without an apparent cause].

P2. The universe began to exist.

[This might be where your article, William, would come into play, if it is trying to broaden the definition of “matter”, if not, it would come into P4.]

P3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

P4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

[This is where a material cause such as William’s GOD or a leprechaun, would be knocked out of the running. This only compares GOD and a leprechaun by them both being called “material”, not in any other way.]

P5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #91]

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

[Here we would need to address your point, Difflugia, connecting predictability and cause, and changing states without an apparent cause].

P2. The universe began to exist.

[This might be where your article, William, would come into play, if it is trying to broaden the definition of “matter”, if not, it would come into P4.]

P3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

P4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

[This is where a material cause such as William’s GOD or a leprechaun, would be knocked out of the running. This only compares GOD and a leprechaun by them both being called “material”, not in any other way.]

P5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

The concept of "beginning to exist" requires careful definition. Does it refer to something arising out of nothing or rearranging preexisting entities?

Connecting predictability and cause, might require addressing the difference between determinism and apparent randomness in causality.

The Subjective GOD Model (SGM), emphasizes the idea that a material GOD itself is eternal while what "begins" is the formation or reformation of that material into particular structures, entities, or phenomena.

Material is constant and uncreated, undergoing transformations but never ceasing to exist or arising from nothing.

The "cause" of beginnings refers to the processes or interactions that lead to a particular arrangement of material. These causes are themselves expressions of material interactions, reinforcing SGM's material framework.

GOD’s material mind does not "create" material but continually reorganizes and reshapes it through co-creative processes.

A person’s physical body decomposes into its material components, while their consciousness transitions within the material framework of GOD’s mind.

From a universal standpoint, there are no true beginnings, only changes in form.
From a localized standpoint, beginnings represent the emergence of new configurations or structures.

The question of "where" the material comes from is unnecessary because material itself is eternal and fundamental. Strictly speaking, infinite regress does not apply meaningfully even to contingent forms, because the concept of infinite regress itself is a theoretical abstraction that highlights a logical or explanatory problem rather than an actual feature of reality

Material is not bound by time; time is an emergent property of material interactions.
Material does not require a cause because it is the foundational reality.

The eternity of material eliminates the need for a regress of causes, as material is fundamental and uncaused.
_________________________________

The comparison of the GOD in the Subjective GOD Model (SGM) to leprechauns is disingenuous and misrepresents the framework. GOD in SGM is the eternal material mind, the foundational reality from which all existence, consciousness, and transformations arise. Unlike contingent, mythological entities like leprechauns, which lack explanatory power, GOD in SGM is a necessary and coherent explanation for the eternal nature of material reality and its ongoing formations. Leprechauns contribute nothing to metaphysical questions about the origin of materiality or the continuity of existence, making the analogy a fallacy of false equivalence. SGM explicitly rejects immaterialism and instead provides a robust framework where material is uncreated, eternal, and continually transforming, with GOD as the substrate of all material existence.

SGM also clarifies that GOD cannot be reduced to any singular form, human or otherwise, but can be reflected through individual forms, such as humans or planets, which serve as ambassadors of GOD’s mind in action. These forms embody aspects of GOD’s material presence but are not GOD in totality. To compare this nuanced and necessary framework to leprechauns is a rhetorical misstep that trivializes the depth and coherence of SGM. Such comparisons fail to address the substantive metaphysical distinctions between a necessary foundation of reality and contingent, mythological constructs, undermining meaningful engagement with the model.

[Difflugia]

Why do you think Craig’s objection is that it isn’t enough of a vacuum to justify that view? What does it mean to be “not enough of a vacuum”?

From On Guard, p. 76:

Sometimes skeptics will respond to this point by saying that in physics subatomic particles (so-called “virtual particles”) come into being from nothing. Or certain theories of the origin of the universe are sometimes described in popular magazines as getting something from nothing, so that the universe is the exception to the proverb “There ain’t no free lunch.”

This skeptical response represents a deliberate abuse of science. The theories in question have to do with particles originating as a fluctuation of the energy contained in the vacuum. The vacuum in modern physics is not what the layman understands by “vacuum,” namely, nothing. Rather in physics the vacuum is a sea of fluctuating energy governed by physical laws and having a physical structure. To tell laymen that on such theories something comes from nothing is a distortion of those theories.

Properly understood, “nothing” does not mean just empty space. Nothing is the absence of anything whatsoever, even space itself. As such, nothingness has literally no properties at all, since there isn’t anything to have any properties! How silly, then, when popularizers say things like “Nothingness is unstable” or “The universe tunneled into being out of nothing”!

Paraphrased, I read this to mean that the "fluctuating energy governed by physical laws and having a physical structure" isn't an absolute nothing and therefore, there's always something, even in what we call a vacuum, to potentially provide a cause.

Again, it doesn't matter if he's right or not. If he's right, then we have no way within this universe to disprove his premise 1, even when the evidence looks absolutely damning. If he's wrong, then the evidence is that things appear to happen within our universe without a cause, when the converse is exactly the basis for his argument from incredulity.

My understanding is that the objection is that the reason for new, real particles randomly coming about (if it is truly random) is because of the nature of the material (the quantum vacuum), so that even if there is no efficient cause, there is still a prior cause for these particles coming into existence.

That's his claim, yes.

Take away the quantum energy, and have a true nothing, and you won’t get these particles.

And that's the corollary to his claim. If the first part of his claim is true, then we've no way in this universe to test the second, because there's nowhere in the universe where we can find nothing to test it.

Epistemology doesn't interest me. Science empirically works and I disagree that empiricism is irrational. If you want to peer at it from a philosophical perspective, knock yourself out.

Well, you are doing it whether you are aware or not. Rational people want to make sure they are thinking well.

And atheism is actually a religion. Touché!

And to still to get to…

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

At your convenience.

[The Tanager]

Paraphrased, I read this to mean that the "fluctuating energy governed by physical laws and having a physical structure" isn't an absolute nothing and therefore, there's always something, even in what we call a vacuum, to potentially provide a cause.

Again, it doesn't matter if he's right or not. If he's right, then we have no way within this universe to disprove his premise 1, even when the evidence looks absolutely damning. If he's wrong, then the evidence is that things appear to happen within our universe without a cause, when the converse is exactly the basis for his argument from incredulity.

Okay, the phrasing just wasn’t clicking for me, but it has now. Yes, the quantum vacuum isn’t enough of a nothing. I don’t see how this would mean that we have no way to disprove P1. Yes, it would mean that this quantum vacuum doesn’t disprove it, but the premise itself could still be countered by providing some other evidences of things popping into existence out of nothing.

then we've no way in this universe to test the second, because there's nowhere in the universe where we can find nothing to test it.

The alternative premise (some things can pop into existence out of nothing) could conceivably be reasoned to from other observations (just like the KCA's P1 does). Or we could see things popping into existence with the best explanation being that the material there didn't give rise to it.

Well, you are doing it whether you are aware or not. Rational people want to make sure they are thinking well.

And atheism is actually a religion. Touché!

Why should we think atheism is a religion? And what does that have to do with what I was saying?

We should think everyone is a philosopher, including those who only trust science, because they are doing philosophy in doing so. To trust science alone to give us rational beliefs is bad philosophy. To trust logical coherence alone is also bad philosophy. I’m advocating for good philosophy, where philosophy builds off of scientific truths. And whether one accepts the KCA or rejects it, they are doing so through philosophy.

Since you didn’t counter what I said in favor of this, we can move on. Should you want to try to show the view you espoused earlier was rational, feel free to respond to what I said about it being self-defeating.

And to still to get to…
P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause.

At your convenience.

I’m in another thread on the KCA as well, so I’m just reposting here what I posted there. I see three lines of reasoning to support premise 1 as the inference to the best explanation:

1. The idea that premise 1 is false is itself incredulous. Metaphorically, it’s worse than postulating a magic trick. It’s saying a magic trick exists, but without a magician performing it. No one believes things (universes or otherwise) just pop into existence for no reason whatsoever.

Off the top of my head, I think there are usually two reasons people disbelieve this premise. One, through a misunderstanding of some quantum interpretations (for this point I’m even assuming their coming to be is random and not simply unknown). Particles randomly pop out of the energy in a quantum vacuum is viewed as satisfying an uncaused thing beginning to exist, for example. However, this seems to me to misunderstand things. Virtual particles come to exist (even if indeterminately) because of the nature of the energy in the quantum vacuum. They don’t pop into existence for no reason whatsoever.

Two, is more ad hoc, as a way to avoid the conclusion of the KCA, usually by retreating to the need for 100%, which Historia has already done a wonderful job of arguing against, so I won’t rehash that. This is a very irrational reason to disbelieve premise 1.

2. Even assuming something could pop into existence and we just don’t know it yet, this would lead to an absurdity. It would then become inexplicable why anything else or everything else doesn’t also come into being out of nothing. What could it be about “nothing” that a universe pops out of it, rather than anything else? Nothing has no nature, so it can’t be discriminatory in that way. Neither would something else be able to constrain this “nothing” towards such an end because there isn’t anything there to constrain.

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1. Much of modern science is built upon this idea of causal conditions. To reject this premise would be to reject much of modern science, it seems.

Difflugia, your counter here was the following (I believe):

That's right, but it's a prerequisite. If we can predict it, there's an underlying cause. It's part of the filter: predictable things have a cause.

Okay, but this doesn’t mean that quantum events not being predictable (which is what we were talking about) show it to be causeless.

Sure, but it's evidence that things can change state without an apparent cause. There might be a cause, but the quantum explanations invoke the Uncertainty Principle and the fundamental randomness of the universe. If one state can change without apparent cause, then it's more likely that other states can do so.

Okay, but “nothing” isn’t a material state that could change without apparent cause; because it isn't a state something is in. So, P1 of the KCA remains the inference to the best explanation.

Do you have any further thoughts on these supports (or counter supports for an alternative premise such as “some things that begin to exist do not have a cause” or any other one)?


Still to get to in the future…

P2. The universe began to exist.

[William has brought up the need to define “beginning to exist” as This also might be where your article, William, would come into play, if it is trying to broaden the definition of “matter”, if not, it would come into P4.]

P3. Therefore, the universe has a cause.

P4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

[This is where a material cause such as William’s GOD or a leprechaun, would be knocked out of the running. This only compares GOD and a leprechaun by them both being called “material”, not in any other way.]

P5. Therefore, an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #94]

P4. If the universe has a cause, then an uncaused, personal Creator of the universe exists, who sans the universe is beginningless, changeless, immaterial, timeless, spaceless, and enormously powerful.

[This is where a material cause such as William’s GOD or a leprechaun, would be knocked out of the running. This only compares GOD and a leprechaun by them both being called “material”, not in any other way.]

This is an incorrect understanding of my argument Tanager. Post #92 gives a clear enough rebuttal of your critique about this.
I suggest you carefully read what I wrote. I am happy to answer any questions you may have for clarity.

[Difflugia]

Yes, the quantum vacuum isn’t enough of a nothing. I don’t see how this would mean that we have no way to disprove P1. Yes, it would mean that this quantum vacuum doesn’t disprove it, but the premise itself could still be countered by providing some other evidences of things popping into existence out of nothing.

If there is no nothing in this universe from which things can pop, what "other evidences" did you have in mind?

The alternative premise (some things can pop into existence out of nothing) could conceivably be reasoned to from other observations (just like the KCA's P1 does). Or we could see things popping into existence with the best explanation being that the material there didn't give rise to it.

That's what virtual particles are. Craig asserts that there's an underlying something to the universe that accounts for this, but that's not a consensus view among physicists. There are cosmological models for which something like this is true, like brane cosmology, but these are all speculative. All we actually know is that at quantum scales, the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle appears to be true. Since the energy density of any point in the universe is uncertain, then we cannot know in principle what that is, even if it's zero at other scales. That means that it can be, and so sometimes is, nonzero. When that's true, we get a particle-antiparticle pair appearing out of nothing. We can measure effects caused by these particles.

Craig objects to the idea that these particles appear from nothing. I suspect it's because he misunderstands quantum physics and thinks that the "fluctuating field" created by the virtual particles themselves is instead something out of which the virtual particles are created. I don't know, but it doesn't matter. If he's right, then the fields are a fundamental property of the universe and we can't create a test without them. His assertion is speculative for the same reasons that brane cosmology and string theory are speculative: they're undetectable from inside our universe. If he's wrong, then virtual particles are exactly what they seem to be from our measurements: spontaneous, random, uncaused particles out of nothing. In the absolute best case for his syllogism, we simply have no valid information about premise 1.

Why should we think atheism is a religion?

We don't, but the argument that atheism is a religion seems to be the same kind of argument that you're making about philosophy. Arguments about epistemology seem to me to be navel-gazing. I'm fine starting with accepting as axiomatic that our empirical perceptions and observations match reality closely enough that above that particular turtle, pure philosophy can offer no better insight about the physical universe than the scientific process.

We should think everyone is a philosopher, including those who only trust science, because they are doing philosophy in doing so.

"Atheism is religion."

"Science is philosophy."

And whether one accepts the KCA or rejects it, they are doing so through philosophy.

I reject the KCA because my understanding of physics is such that his premise 1 is very likely false.

Since you didn’t counter what I said in favor of this, we can move on. Should you want to try to show the view you espoused earlier was rational, feel free to respond to what I said about it being self-defeating.

I'm fine with being a bad philosopher.

However, this seems to me to misunderstand things. Virtual particles come to exist (even if indeterminately) because of the nature of the energy in the quantum vacuum. They don’t pop into existence for no reason whatsoever.

My understanding of physics is that the energy in the quantum vacuum is the virtual particles popping into existence for no reason whatsoever. If you can find a reference that contradicts this, then I'm willing to reconsider this position.

Two, is more ad hoc, as a way to avoid the conclusion of the KCA, usually by retreating to the need for 100%, which Historia has already done a wonderful job of arguing against, so I won’t rehash that.

That's definitely not my position, but I think you're on the wrong side of the 100%. I think it's possible that there is an underlying something out of which virtual particles arise, but I think the evidence leans toward virtual particles both beginning to exist and being uncaused. Whatever that does or doesn't say about the origin of the universe, it renders premise 1 as being likely false.

2. Even assuming something could pop into existence and we just don’t know it yet, this would lead to an absurdity. It would then become inexplicable why anything else or everything else doesn’t also come into being out of nothing. What could it be about “nothing” that a universe pops out of it, rather than anything else? Nothing has no nature, so it can’t be discriminatory in that way. Neither would something else be able to constrain this “nothing” towards such an end because there isn’t anything there to constrain.

That's an interesting question. Right now, we don't know the answer. A god of the gaps helps some people feel like they've got one, though.

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1. Much of modern science is built upon this idea of causal conditions. To reject this premise would be to reject much of modern science, it seems.

At macro scales, the vast number of individually random quantum events average out to near certainties. The universe of most of our experience is vastly different than the universe at the scale of the planck length.

Okay, but this doesn’t mean that quantum events not being predictable (which is what we were talking about) show it to be causeless.

It doesn't, but neither are they inconsistent with being causeless and that's what Craig's appeal to personal incredulity is based on.

Okay, but “nothing” isn’t a material state that could change without apparent cause; because it isn't a state something is in. So, P1 of the KCA remains the inference to the best explanation.

Within our universe, nothing is a state that actually does appear to change without apparent cause. Craig's rejection of this seems to be based on the idea that there is no nothingness in this universe for us to test. Premise 1 is either false or unknowable.

[The Tanager]

This is an incorrect understanding of my argument Tanager. Post #92 gives a clear enough rebuttal of your critique about this.
I suggest you carefully read what I wrote. I am happy to answer any questions you may have for clarity.

Okay, so which premise does your post counter?

[The Tanager]

My understanding of physics is that the energy in the quantum vacuum is the virtual particles popping into existence for no reason whatsoever. If you can find a reference that contradicts this, then I'm willing to reconsider this position.

Doing a quick search, I found some stuff like the following, but I’m open to being shown differently, as this isn't a textbook or anything like that. I’m not a scientist and don’t know the best sources to look up on this. Science Shot claims to be a team comprised of accomplished scientists from a variety of disciplines and has an article <url>https://www.scienceshot.com/post/the-my ... verse</url> that claims:

“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?

Okay, but “nothing” isn’t a material state that could change without apparent cause; because it isn't a state something is in. So, P1 of the KCA remains the inference to the best explanation.

Within our universe, nothing is a state that actually does appear to change without apparent cause. Craig's rejection of this seems to be based on the idea that there is no nothingness in this universe for us to test. Premise 1 is either false or unknowable.

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

If he's right, then the fields are a fundamental property of the universe and we can't create a test without them.

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

We don't, but the argument that atheism is a religion seems to be the same kind of argument that you're making about philosophy. Arguments about epistemology seem to me to be navel-gazing. I'm fine starting with accepting as axiomatic that our empirical perceptions and observations match reality closely enough that above that particular turtle, pure philosophy can offer no better insight about the physical universe than the scientific process.

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

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).

This isn’t saying that pure philosophy offers us better insight into the physical universe than the scientific process, but that philosophy offers us better insight into why the scientific process offers us better insight into the physical universe than pure philosophy.

2. Even assuming something could pop into existence and we just don’t know it yet, this would lead to an absurdity. It would then become inexplicable why anything else or everything else doesn’t also come into being out of nothing. What could it be about “nothing” that a universe pops out of it, rather than anything else? Nothing has no nature, so it can’t be discriminatory in that way. Neither would something else be able to constrain this “nothing” towards such an end because there isn’t anything there to constrain.

That's an interesting question. Right now, we don't know the answer. A god of the gaps helps some people feel like they've got one, though.

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. This is a point for the KCA’s P1 against alternatives.

3. Common experience and scientific evidence confirm the truth of premise 1. Much of modern science is built upon this idea of causal conditions. To reject this premise would be to reject much of modern science, it seems.

At macro scales, the vast number of individually random quantum events average out to near certainties. The universe of most of our experience is vastly different than the universe at the scale of the planck length.

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.

Okay, but this doesn’t mean that quantum events not being predictable (which is what we were talking about) show it to be causeless.

It doesn't, but neither are they inconsistent with being causeless and that's what Craig's appeal to personal incredulity is based on.

The appeal isn’t that it’s impossible, but that it is more reasonable to believe they aren’t truly causeless. Showing that it’s possible isn’t a good reason to believe something is true.

[William]

This is an incorrect understanding of my argument Tanager. Post #92 gives a clear enough rebuttal of your critique about this.
I suggest you carefully read what I wrote. I am happy to answer any questions you may have for clarity.

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.

[Clownboat]

Any argument for or against God by science or logic is false.

Please show that you speak the truth.

In this case, since no one has ever proved or disproved God by empirical evidence, philosophy, signs, or wonders, then the argument of absentia would hold true.

This applies to all claimed gods and religion and because of this is meaningless. Heck, the invisible and undetectable dragon in my garage is now justified! You failed to show any truth to your words.

Those used for God are unbelief in His words.

Please supply the words of this God for all of us to view.

<snipped a bunch of Bible verses (I would have tried to address them, but you have the quotes all messed up here)>

Readers:
Ask yourselves if these words were addressed in the reply: "Any argument for or against God by science or logic is false."
Were you convinced, or do you just feel that you read the reply of someone trying to justify a belief they hold? I didn't read anything that justifies such a statement. Did I miss it?