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?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #72]

If you could show that alternative premises are more reasonable, then you could disprove the argument.

Does Craig explore in his actual work, the alternative premise that all including the creator - are material (rather than immaterial) and that doing so need not dispense with the idea of either there being a creator or that we exist within a created thing?

What arguments does Craig present which show that an immaterial creator is "more reasonable"?

Yes, the KCA addresses whether everything, including the creator is material and leads to the conclusion that this is not the case. To keep everything together, with some more initial conversations going on with Difflugia, and the benefit I see in taking things one step at a time, following the actual argument on this would require some patience. I would be honored if you allowed me that.

Indeed.

I also would be honoured if you contemplate the following alongside your "one step at a time" policy.
The paper challenges Craigs' conclusion.
Thank You.
________________________________________
Foundational Creation
The Material Nature of the Creator-Mind and Its Dynamic Realities

The framework proposed here envisions a creator-mind that is fundamentally material in essence and serves as the foundation of all existence. This foundational material is timeless, infinite, and eternal, providing the substrate from which all subsequent forms of materiality are shaped. The creator-mind not only gives rise to the material universe but also sustains its patterns over time, holding these forms and functions in existence through its ongoing thought. This model offers a unique integration of theology, metaphysics, and materiality, challenging traditional dichotomies of material versus immaterial and offering fresh insights into the nature of creation.

In this framework, the idea of materiality is expanded to include the foundational substance of the creator-mind, which exists outside time and space as we understand them. This timeless material is not contingent or bound by the laws of our universe but is instead the infinite substrate from which all subsequent realities emerge. Creation, therefore, is not a process of materializing something from nothing but an act of shaping and organizing this foundational material into distinct forms and functions. The biblical metaphor of “God spoke creation into existence” can be understood as the creator-mind thinking form and function into being, shaping realities with intentionality and purpose.

One of the key implications of this model is that realities traditionally thought to exist outside our universe, such as heaven, are as materially real as our own universe. Evidence for this can be drawn from near-death experience (NDE) reports, which describe vivid, structured, and interactive environments. These experiences are often described as being as real, or even more real, than our waking perception of this universe. If skeptics dismiss these experiences as brain-generated phenomena, they must also contend with the possibility that our perception of the universe itself could be similarly brain-generated. The coherence, logical interaction, and vividness of NDE reports challenge the notion that they are purely subjective experiences and suggest the existence of other materially real universes with distinct laws and structures.

These other universes, including heaven, may function as separate realities linked together by the foundational material of the creator-mind. They serve as transitional spaces, places where consciousness can step off, reflect, and recalibrate before stepping into other realities or continuing its journey. These spaces are not endpoints or origins but intermediary realms that allow for planning and reflection in relation to the larger tapestry of creation. Their materiality, though distinct from that of our universe, underscores the interconnectedness of all realities through the unified substrate of the creator-mind.

Humanity’s role within this framework emerges as a significant aspect of the creator’s intent. Humans appear to have the unique capacity to bring order to apparent chaos, creating meaningful forms and structures from the material world. This echoes the creator-mind’s own act of creation, positioning humanity as co-creators tasked with shaping and expanding the patterns of existence. Through creativity, invention, and exploration, humanity extends consciousness into the greater cosmos, contributing to the dynamic process of creation. This challenge—to sustain and spread consciousness—aligns with the purpose of bringing order, understanding, and intentionality to the broader framework of realities.

The relationship between these realities suggests a deeper interconnectedness. Transitional spaces like heaven provide access to greater knowledge and resources, enabling consciousness to navigate the complex web of creation. The foundational material of the creator-mind acts as the linking thread between these realities, facilitating movement and interaction. This movement may be intentional, as beings align themselves with the creator-mind’s intent, or circumstantial, as evidenced by phenomena like NDEs. These connections reinforce the idea that creation is not a static act but an ongoing, participatory process where beings contribute to the unfolding of the creator’s vision.

This framework also provides answers to challenges posed by skeptics and traditional theological models. By proposing a material creator-mind, it avoids the dichotomy of material versus immaterial and offers a coherent explanation for the nature of creation and the interrelationship of realities. It aligns with the scientific principle of conservation, suggesting that the material of the universe emerges from a preexisting substrate rather than from nothing. It also addresses the role of consciousness, emphasizing its centrality in navigating and shaping creation.

Ultimately, this vision unites materiality, theology, and metaphysics into a cohesive model that invites deeper exploration. It positions humanity as an integral part of the creator’s intent, tasked with bringing order and meaning to the cosmos. It proposes a dynamic, interconnected creation where realities interact and consciousness plays a central role in unfolding the purpose of existence. Through this lens, creation becomes an ongoing dialogue between the creator-mind and the beings within its realities, offering profound opportunities for reflection, discovery, and growth.
________________________________________

I think the above shows alternative premises which are more reasonable, going some way to disprove the KCA claim that the creator is immaterial.

Materiality of the Creator-Mind.
Creation as Shaping, Not Ex Nihilo.
Multiverse and Material Realities.
Human Role in Creation.
Critique of Immateriality Assumptions.


These alternative premises make the framework presented a robust critique of the KCA. By addressing the metaphysical and scientific gaps in the KCA, it provides a compelling alternative that integrates materiality, consciousness, and the interconnectedness of realities. This not only challenges the KCA’s conclusions but also broadens the philosophical discourse on the nature of creation and causality.

[Clownboat]

Yeah, and a belief in God doesn't prevent one from believing in evolution, for example.

No one made such a claim, but at least you now seem to acknowledge that trying to maintain a religious belief can be a mechanism to closing off one's mind, specifically to things that challenge said religious belief. This allows for perceived gaps to remain for our god concepts to be inserted.

You admitted that atheists can be closed minded, which is in agreement to my statement that "atheists can also be closed minded".

So, no correction needed.

To the readers, please note the actual words that were used which did make the claim that becoming an atheist promotes close mindedness:
SiNcE_1985 Copy/Paste: "Once they become atheists, they will gain a mentality that promotes a closed mindedness"
We can only guess if SiNcE_1985 is not understanding or is just being close minded to the actual points being made in place of addressing them.

One can learn about evolution without accepting it...just like one can learn about Christianity, without accepting it.

No one has argued otherwise. Who are you even debating?

I didn't say it doesn't count for you. I said it doesn't count as debating. Please note the website you are on and the rules you agreed to.

Opinions. Because I'm saying it counts as debating, to me.

We already know what debate is and you were not doing it when you simply offered Genesis Chapter 1 as a response in place of debating. You can remain closed minded about this, but the readers will take note.

Ignoring or being closed off to the fact of Christianity, allows a gap to be pretended to exist for naturalistic hypothesis to be inserted. You may not care, but it is on point here.

Please point to what you mean by the 'fact of Christianity' like I did when you challenged me to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. If you fail, then what you say is in fact not on point.

Well lets see, it attempts to explain origins, and it is defended vigorously by those that believe it.

This is where your closed mindedness is getting in the way.
Evolution in fact does not address origins. Now is your chance to correct your thinking on this matter, or remain close minded. I argue that if you were not religious, you would have the ability to understand that evolution has nothing to do with origins. I believe it is your desire to maintain your religious belief that doesn't allow you to understand this. What else would be preventing you?

Sounds religiousy, to me.

I accept that it sounds this way to you, because you don't understand that evolution does not in fact address origins. Any that are not close minded to learning what evolution actually addresses with understand this.

and as I have mentioned many times now, I do not care if it were to be proven wrong.

Sure, that's what your fingertips say.

This is simply you projecting your feelings on to me. You are tied to your religious belief and have things to lose if you begin to learn about evolution. You would like to believe that I am tied to evolution like you are to your beliefs, but you are mistaken.

I would just want to learn what the better explanation is.

Jesus of Nazareth. Learn.

Once again, you fail to debate. You might do better on a street corner shouting your beliefs from a soap box. Here, we are to debate.

Gotta give props to you here, because you've just nailed it. That is exactly where I'm coming from.

Thank you for admitting that you are just pretending that evolution is a religion. I'm glad to hear that as that would be a ridiculous thing to believe.

Jesus of Nazareth.

Please learn what it means to debate. This is not a platform for you to simply level religious claims at people.

Just like you have strong feelings about evolution. Right back to religion, aren't we?

Readers, please decide for yourselves if you believe that I'm tied to evolution or if I'm open to being shown a better mechanism. I have been very open about this and this person responding seems close minded about me being open to a better mechanism to explain the life we see now and in the fossil record. I don't believe this person is using reason to arrive at this conclusion about me, so no amount of reason will sway their thinking unfortunately. I just must be tied to evolution for this person, even though I'm not.

I know about evolution, but I reject it as fact.

I'm sorry, but you actually think that evolution addresses origins. You really don't know much about evolution. I think it is because there is a defense mechanism (closing off one's mind) at play in order to protect a religious belief.

You know about Christianity, but reject it as fact.

I actually know all about Christianity though, that is the difference. My understanding of Christianity is well above your understanding of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised if I knew more about Christianity then you do to be honest.

So, if I am closed minded, then so are you.

Come on now, that is a childish response and you know it.

<snipped some stuff about atheist morality>

My counterpoint to that is....on atheism, there is no moral accountability,

You are wrong and are close minded. An atheist could get their moral authority from society for just one example and we have laws in place for accountability.

You called it a mere "hope" for the believer, but for the unbeliever, is also a mere hope...a hope of a lack of accountability beyond man's system.

This is just illogical. A person that doesn't believe in some cosmic justice system would not hope for a lack of one. That would be like claiming that an adult that doesn't believe in Santa Claus has a hope that Santa isn't real.

That was my only point.

And only you can correct your thinking on this matter.

I have no desire to debate morality...just clarifying my point.

You never were debating morality, just claiming that atheists didn't have it. Now you are trying to slip in 'cosmic' morality in an attempt to save face in place of correcting your thinking.

[Difflugia]

Regardless of Since_1985’s intentions, I’m appealing to the philosophical arguments that Christians have traditionally offered and you’ve got the flow wrong. Take the KCA, it can be confusing because the connection that results in God existing is through being the first cause of spatio-temporal matter, but it is an argument for God’s existence. It is not taking an observation and lining up possible explanations and saying this one fails and this one fails and this one fails, but if God existed, it would work because God can do anything and since we have no other options, let’s go with it. That would be a god of the gaps, but the KCA is not doing that.

It's only an argument for the existence of God if one skips some steps. It's an argument for a cause, no more, no less. God only fits because God can do anything and can be a direct replacement for "I don't know." If you think the KCA gives you more information than that, then how would you filter God as an explanation from, say, a leprechaun?

I meant it to combat the view (not necessarily yours, but it would fit your language above) that philosophical arguments (even if built off of scientific or historical elements) get us nowhere in what we should believe as rational humans, while, say, scientific demonstration, does get us somewhere.

I'll cop to pretty much that view. I'm not sure how many scientific or historical elements rescue a philosophical argument without turning it into a scientific or historical question, but without some some sort of actual evidence, you have an argument that can be at most internally consistent. There are things that can tell us, but it's still just a framework that is ultimately unmoored and disconnected from reality. I don't think it's an accident that a lot of apologetics hinge on philosophical arguments.

No, I’m talking about premise 4 and 5 of his KCA that are a conceptual analysis of what the cause (from premise 3) must be like. They do come directly out of and build upon the first 3 premises. ‘Moral’ is not one of those, but ‘personal’ is. And he doesn’t just assert those premises, but argues for them.

Which book or source has a form of the KCA with five elements?

Could you define what you mean by “disproven” so that we aren’t talking past each other?

"Disproven" would mean in this case that we can either show that things can begin to exist without a cause or that the universe didn't begin to exist. I have no reason to doubt his second premise, especially as he defines "began" to coincide with the beginning of time and the Big Bang. The first premise, however, isn't disprovable in principle, especially considering how he characterizes the evidence we have from within our universe. I'll expand in a moment.

Not being able to predict something isn’t the same thing as it being causeless.

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.

You are also just talking about efficient causation here. There is still a prior material cause present, something within the nature of the atom, that results in random decay (if it is truly random).

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.

Could you explain what you mean in the bolded part differently? Quantum energy is definitely not nothing; it’s either clearly something that exists or it shouldn’t be part of the discussion because we would be saying it isn’t anything and ‘nothing’ has no bearing on ‘anything’ by definition. Why would that truth lead to us not being able to test the necessity of a cause? And why does it show his argument relies on “I don’t know”?

Craig's stuck between a rock and a hard place. His argument that everything that begins to exist must have a cause is mostly an appeal to incredulity masquerading as common sense ("But nobody sincerely believes that things, say, a horse or an Eskimo village, can just pop into being without a cause."). We have evidence that things do appear without apparent cause under certain circumstances within our universe, but he wants to discount that evidence. If he does, he's just saying that we cannot trust evidence from within our universe because we can't replicate the conditions in which our universe came into existence. If that's the case, though, we just move back closer to "I don't know." Craig either must acknowledge evidence that his premise may be false or acknowledge that we have no information at all.

Define what you mean by "conceivably." I think you're being a little disingenuous here.

You were arguing that unfalsifiable arguments are meaningless. I don’t think that is true, but even granting it were (to avoid a tangent that wouldn't matter too much), arguments like the KCA are falsifiable (as long as you aren’t holding to a 100% certainty standard).

Within a scientific framework, falsifable means a 100% certainty standard, at least in principle. His hypothesis that everything that begins to exist must have a cause is unfalsifiable, even in principle, because he has declared that one cannot discount a cause within our universe.

It is not illogical (or impossible in theory) to show such arguments are not sound. The critiques I've come across, I don't think show those arguments are unsound, but I remain open to them and any new ones (to me) that I haven't investigated.

I think his first premise is unsound. Within our universe, uncertainty seems to be fundamental property of reality. A number of cosmological models treat the origin of the universe as similar to a vacuum fluctuation and based on uncertainty within whatever matrix our universe resides. The KCA is internally consistent, but can only tell us something about reality if his first premise is true and I think that all of the actual evidence points to it being false.

[RBD]

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.

Those used for God are unbelief in His words.

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

1Co 1:20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world? For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.


Col 2:8Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit, after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world, and not after Christ.

Mat 16:4A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign; and there shall no sign be given unto it, but the sign of the prophet Jonas. And he left them, and departed.

2 Timothy{6:20} O Timothy, keep that which is committed to thy trust, avoiding profane [and] vain babblings, and oppositions of science falsely so called: Which some professing have erred concerning the faith.

No other manner than His own words, reveals the God of the Bible. Whether He is believed or not, is a matter of choice by the reader.

Mal 3:10 Bring ye all the tithes into the storehouse, that there may be meat in mine house, and prove me now herewith, saith the LORD of hosts, if I will not open you the windows of heaven, and pour you out a blessing, that there shall not be room enough to receive it.

He also calls upon them that do belkieve Him to further prove Him by taking Him at His word. The only proof of that God in the world, is to them that do His words, and recieve His promises. Which of course, once again, cannot be objectively proven nor need be believed by others.

If the words of the Bible do not prove the God of the Bible, then that God is false. The proof that the God of the Bible is true, is the unerring words of many writers over thousands of years writing by that one God's one inspiration. Therefore, many have attempted to show error or contradiction in those words, and all have failed. Some of them have become convinced and converted by their failed efforts.

My faith in my God is in His Book, as well as with His promises kept to me by His words. Therefore, I gladly invite all challenges to His words with objective responses from His own words. Of course, no one can prove nor disprove His promises kept to me by believing and doing His word.

Because the God of the Bible declares. He cannot be known by science, observation, or philosophy, then even the effort to prove He is God, is unbelief in His words saying He has made it impossible for any man to do so.

The same is said for most/all god concepts. This just seems to be justification for why religious followers of said gods cannot supply evidence that their god claims are true. Not only yours, but why are all the gods undetectable?

The God of the Bible chooses not to be proven by sight nor argument nor science, but only by His words and faith in Him. All other gods are simply false. Zeus never sat on Mt Olympus whether physically or spiritually. Nor did Ishtar come down to earth in an egg. I enjoy their untrue myths, and have no problem celebrating Easter, but I don't believe in nor worship them.

Therefore, if the God of teh Bible is the only true God,

Please show that this starting premise is true before we move on from it.

As I've said, my faith is entirely based on the the Bible itself, as the one unerring perfection of agreement between men over the ages. Men by study, interpretation, and replication alone cannot do this. By such evidence, the One that they testify inspired them all, is proven to be true God's own words to all man. Believing Him or not is the only way for Him to reveal Himself, and show He keeps His words, promises, and judgements to them that do His word.

This is what is meant by man not knowing God by wisdom nor sight nor knowledge alone, and any arguments about God by such things apart from His written words, is vain and decietful.

Why do you say such things? If I had knowledge of a God, how would I not know about this God? This doesn't make sense.

What doesn't make sense is the question, which is not what I argue. The argument is against seeking God by physical, theoretical, and philosophic efforts alone, which have never proven anything. The argument is for reading the God of the Bible's own words that reveal Himself, as the only way to know who He is. And, only by believing and doing His words is He revealed and known to any man or woman on earth.

Can you clarify how having knowledge about something can equal not knowing the said thing?

Really? By historical evidence and writings, I know the Colossus of Rhodes and Alexander the Great existed and lived, but I've never seen nor know them. Having knowledge of someone or something, and knowing about them, is not knowing them.

People read the words of the God of the Bible, and so know some things about Him, who He is and what He does, but He is only known by them that believe Him and do His words. Which BTW does not include doing any evil.

2Ti 2:19Nevertheless the foundation of God standeth sure, having this seal, The Lord knoweth them that are his. And, Let every one that nameth the name of Christ depart from iniquity.

[SiNcE_1985]

No one made such a claim, but at least you now seem to acknowledge that trying to maintain a religious belief can be a mechanism to closing off one's mind, specifically to things that challenge said religious belief. This allows for perceived gaps to remain for our god concepts to be inserted.

To the readers, please note the actual words that were used which did make the claim that becoming an atheist promotes close mindedness:
SiNcE_1985 Copy/Paste: "Once they become atheists, they will gain a mentality that promotes a closed mindedness"
We can only guess if SiNcE_1985 is not understanding or is just being close minded to the actual points being made in place of addressing them.

More butchering of my points.

For whatever reason, my points are going over your head and quite frankly I'm sick of explaining myself.

Moving along.

No one has argued otherwise. Who are you even debating?

You still ain't getting it. SMH.

We already know what debate is and you were not doing it when you simply offered Genesis Chapter 1 as a response in place of debating. You can remain closed minded about this, but the readers will take note.

It was offered for good reason.

Please point to what you mean by the 'fact of Christianity' like I did when you challenged me to demonstrate that evolution is a fact. If you fail, then what you say is in fact not on point.

I could demonstrate that Christianity is a fact by posting a link demonstrating such, which is the same thing you've done with evolution.

Will you accept the truth of my link? No.

Then why should I accept yours?

This is where your closed mindedness is getting in the way.
Evolution in fact does not address origins.

Evolution does not address origins?

Hmm. So, what was the whole on the "Origins" of Species thing, written by Charles Darwin (the Jesus of evolutionary theory) about?

Tell me.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_ ... of_Species

Now is your chance to correct your thinking on this matter, or remain close minded. I argue that if you were not religious, you would have the ability to understand that evolution has nothing to do with origins.

"Origins of Species" -Charles Darwin, 1859.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_ ... of_Species

I believe it is your desire to maintain your religious belief that doesn't allow you to understand this. What else would be preventing you?

"Origins of Species" -Charles Darwin, 1859


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_ ... of_Species

I accept that it sounds this way to you, because you don't understand that evolution does not in fact address origins.

"Origins of Species" -Charles Darwin, 1859


https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_ ... of_Species

Any that are not close minded to learning what evolution actually addresses with understand this.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_ ... of_Species

This is simply you projecting your feelings on to me. You are tied to your religious belief and have things to lose if you begin to learn about evolution. You would like to believe that I am tied to evolution like you are to your beliefs, but you are mistaken.

Am I?

Once again, you fail to debate. You might do better on a street corner shouting your beliefs from a soap box. Here, we are to debate.

Thank you for admitting that you are just pretending that evolution is a religion. I'm glad to hear that as that would be a ridiculous thing to believe.

Opinions

Please learn what it means to debate. This is not a platform for you to simply level religious claims at people.

And I've been debating just that.

Readers, please decide for yourselves if you believe that I'm tied to evolution or if I'm open to being shown a better mechanism.

Gen 1 is the better mechanism.

I have been very open about this and this person responding seems close minded about me being open to a better mechanism to explain the life we see now and in the fossil record. I don't believe this person is using reason to arrive at this conclusion about me, so no amount of reason will sway their thinking unfortunately. I just must be tied to evolution for this person, even though I'm not.

Ok, you say you're not. So, you're not.

I'm sorry, but you actually think that evolution addresses origins.

Origins of Species. - Charles Darwin, 1859.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/On_the_ ... of_Species

I actually know all about Christianity though, that is the difference. My understanding of Christianity is well above your understanding of evolution. I wouldn't be surprised if I knew more about Christianity then you do to be honest.

Slow down. Let's not get carried away here.

Come on now, that is a childish response and you know it.

Opinions.

<snipped some stuff about atheist morality>

You could have snipped it all, because morality is simply not my focal point at the moment.

You are wrong and are close minded. An atheist could get their moral authority from society for just one example and we have laws in place for accountability.

Cool.

This is just illogical. A person that doesn't believe in some cosmic justice system would not hope for a lack of one. That would be like claiming that an adult that doesn't believe in Santa Claus has a hope that Santa isn't real.

Yet, more butchering of my point.

You never were debating morality, just claiming that atheists didn't have it. Now you are trying to slip in 'cosmic' morality in an attempt to save face in place of correcting your thinking.

Um no. I said cosmic scale morality some 3-4 posts ago, and that was my very first attempt at clarifying what I meant by atheists having no moral accountability.

You apparently either ignored that initial point, or you simply failed to understand it.

Either way, sad.

[William]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #82]

Readers, please decide for yourselves if you believe that I'm tied to evolution or if I'm open to being shown a better mechanism. I have been very open about this and this person responding seems close minded about me being open to a better mechanism to explain the life we see now and in the fossil record. I don't believe this person is using reason to arrive at this conclusion about me, so no amount of reason will sway their thinking unfortunately. I just must be tied to evolution for this person, even though I'm not.

I think most folk who accept the science of evolution are indeed open to changing their minds IF actual contrary evidence presents.
I also think that once any person is identified as persisting in the way that shows close-mindedness, one wastes their time trying to debate with such and is better off spending their time in actual debating with open-minded folk.

[The Tanager]

One argument for the existence of an immaterial being is the Kalam Cosmological Argument. We can take it one step at a time, but here is Craig’s full (basic) argument (The Blackwell Companion to Natural Theology, page 194 gives the last two) that will obviously need to be fleshed out with arguments for the various premises shown here:

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.]

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

Unless I’ve made a silly mistake in writing it out, the argument is logically valid. But, we obviously have a lot of unpacking to do. Let’s take it one step at a time.

But before even getting to the first premise, we have to address two things about epistemology from your post.

First, I still don’t get why you think premise 1 is unfalsifiable in principle. Showing that something pops into existence without a cause is not illogical.

Second,

I meant it to combat the view (not necessarily yours, but it would fit your language above) that philosophical arguments (even if built off of scientific or historical elements) get us nowhere in what we should believe as rational humans, while, say, scientific demonstration, does get us somewhere.

I'll cop to pretty much that view. I'm not sure how many scientific or historical elements rescue a philosophical argument without turning it into a scientific or historical question, but without some some sort of actual evidence, you have an argument that can be at most internally consistent. There are things that can tell us, but it's still just a framework that is ultimately unmoored and disconnected from reality. I don't think it's an accident that a lot of apologetics hinge on philosophical arguments.

I’m proposing a middle ground. I don’t think philosophy by itself can give us truth; it must connect into something in reality to go beyond internal consistency, as you point out.. But it’s actually the case that science and history need rescuing from philosophical arguments to be rationally held. There is no scientific evidence that scientific claims give us truth about reality; they rest on philosophical cases (or even assumptions) to be considered true. In other words, science cannot give us evidence that science is true. To cop to the view you say you are, is self-defeating.

I’ll allow you to respond, critique, question, etc. before moving on.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #87]

[This is where a material cause such as William’s GOD or a leprechaun, would be knocked out of the running.]

By all means, show this (Post #81) to being the case. Perhaps after reading the paper, you will acknowledge the gaff of aligning my GOD with that of a leprechaun.

[marke]

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?

There is no gap between God and scientific facts. There are, however, gaps between scientific facts and humans still struggling to properly understand the facts.

[Difflugia]

First, I still don’t get why you think premise 1 is unfalsifiable in principle. Showing that something pops into existence without a cause is not illogical.

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.

I’m proposing a middle ground. I don’t think philosophy by itself can give us truth; it must connect into something in reality to go beyond internal consistency, as you point out.. But it’s actually the case that science and history need rescuing from philosophical arguments to be rationally held. There is no scientific evidence that scientific claims give us truth about reality; they rest on philosophical cases (or even assumptions) to be considered true. In other words, science cannot give us evidence that science is true.

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.

To cop to the view you say you are, is self-defeating.

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."