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?

[Difflugia]

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.

[benchwarmer]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1]

That only way 'god of the gaps' works is if a god can be shown to shove in the gaps. Since the only gods to be found are in religious promotional materials, empty faith claims, or occasionally carved/painted/sculpted there's not much point using that style of argument. All the power to those that do though, because it certainly is not helping their case and makes the rest of our jobs easier.

It's also the fall back for the crowd that can't seem to accept with humility that some questions are best answered with "I don't know".

[SiNcE_1985]

Is this really an appeal to the best explanation?

It is.

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.

This is like saying...

1. An explosion of paint inside the Sistine Chapel giving you the painting on the ceiling.

Or.

2. A talented, intelligent artist painted the ceiling.

What's the best explanation.

With all due respect, sir..it's obvious you've got nothing of substance to offer here, and you're fighting against common sense..and ultimately, the Holy Spirit.

[benchwarmer]

Is this really an appeal to the best explanation?

It is.

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.

This is like saying...

1. An explosion of paint inside the Sistine Chapel giving you the painting on the ceiling.

Or.

2. A talented, intelligent artist painted the ceiling.

What's the best explanation.

With all due respect, sir..it's obvious you've got nothing of substance to offer here, and you're fighting against common sense..and ultimately, the Holy Spirit.

Another analogy fail.

We know paint exists. I've used it.
We know chapels exist. I've been in one.
We know paintings exist. I've seen them (and even created a few bad ones).
We know ceilings exist. I can see one right above me.
We know painters can use paint to make a scene on a ceiling because we can watch them (and have watched them) do it.

If a god exists, I've never seen one (and I would wager no-one else has either, but of course I could be wrong).
If a god exists, it might be capable of doing stuff. Again, we can't see any gods, let alone any gods doing anything. We certainly are not witnessing any gods creating anything. If we were, we wouldn't be here debating religion.

So, we could just as easily insert 'magic', 'fairy', 'goblin', 'group of pixies', etc and be no further ahead at finding a useful explanation.

Hypothesizing a god might be involved is fine. Then the work is to show this god is a real thing and also capable of doing what has been proposed. Otherwise it's pure god of the gaps. i.e. We don't know, but don't like admitting that so let's shove a god concept in their and pretend the question has been answered.

Just because something sounds like 'common sense' doesn't mean that's the real answer. No one has shown that intelligence is required to arrive at the universe that we have. In fact, our universe is more like an 'explosion of paint' than an intelligently designed painting (unless you are Jackson Pollock I suppose).

[Difflugia]

This is like saying...

1. An explosion of paint inside the Sistine Chapel giving you the painting on the ceiling.

Or.

2. A talented, intelligent artist painted the ceiling.

What's the best explanation.

The difference between the two is that we have evidence for painters and already know painters exist. There are many details of being a painter that come along for the ride, like having a particular level of skill and whatnot. The definition of a painter is also narrow enough that we'd be able to tell if some something other than a painter were involved. In your example of the Sistine Chapel, for example, the painting is where a human being can't reach unaided, so our explanation requires a painter and scaffolding. Because of the way language works, it's often not apparent when those kinds of details are implicit in the definitions we use, which sometimes makes it more difficult to spot what is sometimes called the fallacy of the major unstated premise.

On the other hand, we don't know if gods exist and what their properties are. When it's convenient for apologists, they have limitations, but otherwise they don't.

With all due respect, sir..it's obvious you've got nothing of substance to offer here,

So you keep saying.

and you're fighting against common sense

The saying about common sense telling us the Earth is flat is so much funnier when it applies to a creationist.

..and ultimately, the Holy Spirit.

Or leprechauns. Whichever.

[SiNcE_1985]

Another analogy fail.

We know paint exists. I've used it.
We know chapels exist. I've been in one.
We know paintings exist. I've seen them (and even created a few bad ones).
We know ceilings exist. I can see one right above me.
We know painters can use paint to make a scene on a ceiling because we can watch them (and have watched them) do it.

First of all, the analogy didn't fail because I was only demonstrating the choice between two options and how you appeal to the best explanation of the two.

And you just conceded my point, as you appealed to the best explanation under those circumstances.

So, how is that a failed analogy when it worked out just as planned.

And to keep things moving, I'm gonna ask you the same kind of question that I asked POI and Diff.

Both failed miserably, so let's see about you.

The paintings in the ceiling, you agree that paintings are best explained by intelligent design (a painter), correct?

You just answered it, but I'd like a simple yes/no, without the fluff and feathers.

Please kindly answer the question with a yes or no.

If a god exists, I've never seen one (and I would wager no-one else has either, but of course I could be wrong).
If a god exists, it might be capable of doing stuff. Again, we can't see any gods, let alone any gods doing anything. We certainly are not witnessing any gods creating anything. If we were, we wouldn't be here debating religion.

We don't have to see the painter paint the painting, to know that the painting was painted by a painter.

You are pretty much arguing from ignorance here, which is fallacious.

So, we could just as easily insert 'magic', 'fairy', 'goblin', 'group of pixies', etc and be no further ahead at finding a useful explanation.

Bless you guys heart, because you all fail to realize that every time you say things like..

"It could be a fairy, a goblin, pixies, leprechaun, etc", what you guys are calling those things, are actually different words for what believers call "God".

Especially in these contexts that we are speaking (cosmic creators, intelligent design).

So, it doesn't matter what you call it, as long as you acknowledge an intelligent designer is necessary.

Hypothesizing a god might be involved is fine. Then the work is to show this god is a real thing and also capable of doing what has been proposed. Otherwise it's pure god of the gaps. i.e. We don't know, but don't like admitting that so let's shove a god concept in their and pretend the question has been answered.

My thoughts on this is for another thread.

Just because something sounds like 'common sense' doesn't mean that's the real answer. No one has shown that intelligence is required to arrive at the universe that we have. In fact, our universe is more like an 'explosion of paint' than an intelligently designed painting (unless you are Jackson Pollock I suppose).

This is simply not true for reasons already outlined.

[SiNcE_1985]

The difference between the two is that we have evidence for painters and already know painters exist. There are many details of being a painter that come along for the ride, like having a particular level of skill and whatnot. The definition of a painter is also narrow enough that we'd be able to tell if some something other than a painter were involved. In your example of the Sistine Chapel, for example, the painting is where a human being can't reach unaided, so our explanation requires a painter and scaffolding. Because of the way language works, it's often not apparent when those kinds of details are implicit in the definitions we use, which sometimes makes it more difficult to spot what is sometimes called the fallacy of the major unstated premise.

On the other hand, we don't know if gods exist and what their properties are. When it's convenient for apologists, they have limitations, but otherwise they don't.

There is a greater point I'm trying to make here, and we'll see if I can make it with BW.

[benchwarmer]

Another analogy fail.

We know paint exists. I've used it.
We know chapels exist. I've been in one.
We know paintings exist. I've seen them (and even created a few bad ones).
We know ceilings exist. I can see one right above me.
We know painters can use paint to make a scene on a ceiling because we can watch them (and have watched them) do it.

First of all, the analogy didn't fail because I was only demonstrating the choice between two options and how you appeal to the best explanation of the two.

Just because you only present two options doesn't mean much. Your analogy failed for exactly the reasons I outlined. I'm sure readers were able to follow along.

And you just conceded my point, as you appealed to the best explanation under those circumstances.

I didn't concede your point, I showed your point was a failed analogy.

We know painters are real. We don't know if gods are real. We know painters can paint paintings. We don't know anything about gods other than thousands of varieties have been proposed by humankind throughout history.

So, how is that a failed analogy when it worked out just as planned.

As you like to say "reading comprehension".

And to keep things moving, I'm gonna ask you the same kind of question that I asked POI and Diff.

Both failed miserably, so let's see about you.

The paintings in the ceiling, you agree that paintings are best explained by intelligent design (a painter), correct?

Yes, paintings are generally painted by a painter. All of which we can agree on because we all know about paint, paintings, and painters.

You just answered it, but I'd like a simple yes/no, without the fluff and feathers.

Please kindly answer the question with a yes or no.

I'll answer however I choose thank you. I answered above.

If a god exists, I've never seen one (and I would wager no-one else has either, but of course I could be wrong).
If a god exists, it might be capable of doing stuff. Again, we can't see any gods, let alone any gods doing anything. We certainly are not witnessing any gods creating anything. If we were, we wouldn't be here debating religion.

We don't have to see the painter paint the painting, to know that the painting was painted by a painter.

If we want to be 100% certain we do.

We now have paintings created by robots:

https://www.acrylicrobotics.ca/

You are pretty much arguing from ignorance here, which is fallacious.

You're funny.

So, we could just as easily insert 'magic', 'fairy', 'goblin', 'group of pixies', etc and be no further ahead at finding a useful explanation.

Bless you guys heart, because you all fail to realize that every time you say things like..

"It could be a fairy, a goblin, pixies, leprechaun, etc", what you guys are calling those things, are actually different words for what believers call "God".

Believers think a band of angry pixies had a vote and decided to play a trick and create a universe?

What you fail to grasp is that "God" is a meaningless gap filler for something we don't yet understand. Nobody is admitting the universe was intelligently designed by anything. We are simply pointing out that you saying "God" is just a gap filler that could be anything anyone wants it to be since there is no evidence for it or it doing anything.

Maybe the universe has always just been here in one form or another. No gods, magic, goblins, or anything else required.

Especially in these contexts that we are speaking (cosmic creators, intelligent design).

So, it doesn't matter what you call it, as long as you acknowledge an intelligent designer is necessary.

We haven't acknowledged that and that is your stumbling block. You think it's only your way or nothing. Sorry to burst your bubble.

Hypothesizing a god might be involved is fine. Then the work is to show this god is a real thing and also capable of doing what has been proposed. Otherwise it's pure god of the gaps. i.e. We don't know, but don't like admitting that so let's shove a god concept in their and pretend the question has been answered.

My thoughts on this is for another thread.

Because there is nothing of substance to just say plainly right here?

Just because something sounds like 'common sense' doesn't mean that's the real answer. No one has shown that intelligence is required to arrive at the universe that we have. In fact, our universe is more like an 'explosion of paint' than an intelligently designed painting (unless you are Jackson Pollock I suppose).

This is simply not true for reasons already outlined.

Your reasoning is lacking and that has been outlined. Now it's up to readers to decide one way or the other (or maybe jump in with yet another point of view).

You can either convince us this "God" exists such that we can shove it in the gaps you are trying to fill with it, or there's not much point continuing.

Notice that no one is debating the existence of painters. That should be the red flag why your line of argument is not going to get off the ground.

[SiNcE_1985]

Just because you only present two options doesn't mean much. Your analogy failed for exactly the reasons I outlined. I'm sure readers were able to follow along.

Doesn't matter how many options I presented, the point is; you choose the best explanation from the options presented.

Goes to show your misunderstanding.

I didn't concede your point, I showed your point was a failed analogy.

We know painters are real. We don't know if gods are real. We know painters can paint paintings. We don't know anything about gods other than thousands of varieties have been proposed by humankind throughout history.

That's my point, since we "know", we'll appeal to the explanation that we know has the best explanatory power to produce the effect.

You make it seem as if you are giving some groundbreaking "gotcha" answer, when in reality, you're not...you are explaining why you'd chose the "intelligent designer" painter, which is all I asked of you in the first place.

So, please.

Yes, paintings are generally painted by a painter. All of which we can agree on because we all know about paint, paintings, and painters.

The painter is the causal agent; aka, the intelligent designer, correct?

And it takes intelligence to paint, let's say, a painting of a woman, correct?

I'll answer however I choose thank you. I answered above.

Stop with the theatrics.

If we want to be 100% certain we do.

We now have paintings created by robots:

https://www.acrylicrobotics.ca/

Robots are the product of intelligent design.

Next..

Believers think a band of angry pixies had a vote and decided to play a trick and create a universe?

?

What you fail to grasp is that "God" is a meaningless gap filler for something we don't yet understand.

Nonsense. God is a gap filler for when nature is unable and incapable of being a viable explanation.

Nobody is admitting the universe was intelligently designed by anything.

Speak for yourself...because that is exactly what I am admitting.

We are simply pointing out that you saying "God" is just a gap filler that could be anything anyone wants it to be since there is no evidence for it or it doing anything.

If there is no evidence for it doing anything, then it shouldn't "be anything", not even the alleged fairy or leprechaun that you replaced it with.

Maybe the universe has always just been here in one form or another. No gods, magic, goblins, or anything else required.

That is the false hope that you cling on to, as irrational and illogic as it is.

"Any belief, no matter how absurd, is still better than the "G" belief".

I get it.

We haven't acknowledged that and that is your stumbling block. You think it's only your way or nothing. Sorry to burst your bubble.

I just accepted your posit that it could be any of those entities you mentioned.

Wow, I agreed with you, and I'm still getting chastised.

Because there is nothing of substance to just say plainly right here?

I said what I said.

Take it however you like.

Your reasoning is lacking and that has been outlined. Now it's up to readers to decide one way or the other (or maybe jump in with yet another point of view).

You can either convince us this "God" exists such that we can shove it in the gaps you are trying to fill with it, or there's not much point continuing.

Notice that no one is debating the existence of painters. That should be the red flag why your line of argument is not going to get off the ground.

No one is here to be convinced.