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]

Do I agree with P1?

The KCA, as traditionally presented, relies on a false order of premises that prioritizes assumptions about causality and beginnings over the observable reality of the universe itself. A logically sound version of the argument must begin with the premise "The universe exists" to ensure clarity and transparency. By doing so, it becomes clear that the KCA hinges on unstated assumptions about the nature of the universe, causality, and beginnings—assumptions that demand justification before reaching any conclusions.

Until these assumptions are clarified, I cannot agree with P1.

I define "The Universe" as the totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern this reality.

I really don’t see how that is necessary, but we can do that.

P0. The universe (totality of all space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern this reality) exists.

Do you agree that the universe exists? What is the KCA assuming that goes against this premise?

Then, to come:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

[where the rest of the conversation is right now]

P2. The universe began to exist

[William, I think you question this premise, believing the universe to be eternal]

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 material causes, such as William’s GOD may be knocked out, and other material causes that are highly different than GOD, such as leprechauns are knocked out, as well as many other possible causes].

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 #121]

Tanager, while our definitions of "The Universe" may appear identical at first glance, there is a subtle but important difference between them that requires clarification before we proceed. My definition includes the word "the" before each element—space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern this reality. In your definition, this word is omitted.

The inclusion of "the" in my definition emphasizes specificity and precision. It ensures that the description refers to the entirety of these elements—all space, all time, all matter, and all energy. This precision leaves no ambiguity about the totality of what is being described as "The Universe." By omitting "the" in your definition, the phrasing feels less specific and might imply a more general or abstract description of space, time, matter, and energy.

I would like to understand why you chose to omit the word "the" in your definition. Was this an intentional choice, or simply an oversight? Understanding this will help clarify whether we are approaching the term "The Universe" with the same level of specificity, which is essential for the discussion to proceed on a solid foundation.
-----------------------------------------------------
My definition of The Universe. The totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern this reality.

Your definition of The Universe. The totality of all space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern this reality

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #123]

I’m sorry for leaving the "the" out that caused you this confusion. I took it and meant it as including the entirety of those elements as well in a way that includes all specific instances rather than just a general or abstract description. I didn't see "the" as having that kind of importance.

P0. The universe (the totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern this reality) exists.

Do you agree that the universe exists? What is the KCA assuming that goes against this premise?

Then, to come:

P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

[where the rest of the conversation is right now]

P2. The universe began to exist

[William, I think you question this premise, believing the universe to be eternal]

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 material causes, such as William’s GOD may be knocked out, and other material causes that are highly different than GOD, such as leprechauns are knocked out, as well as many other possible causes].

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 #123]

Tanager, since we have agreed upon the definition of The Universe as follows:

The Universe: The totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern this reality.

It follows logically that the first premise should be:

P1. The Universe exists.

This premise ensures that the argument begins with an observable and agreed-upon reality, forming a sound foundation for any subsequent premises. Starting with P1: "Everything that begins to exist has a cause" skips this necessary foundational step and introduces assumptions about causality and beginnings without first addressing the existence of The Universe itself.

Establishing P1: The Universe exists ensures that the discussion proceeds in a clear and logical order. Once this is established, we can then evaluate whether subsequent premises—such as those involving causality and beginnings—are consistent with our agreed definition of The Universe.

I agree that P1. The Universe (as definitionally agreed upon) exists. Do you?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #125]

It is a hidden premise that everyone usually understands and agrees with, so it's not written. To avoid confusing people by switching the numbering, naming it 'P0' seems to me the best option. The number '0' doesn't mean the premise doesn't matter or anything like that, it's just a name. So, you agree with P0.

Now onto P1. Everything that begins to exist has a cause

I've responded to Difflugia's latest post. Do you have any additional critiques? Do you accept the truth of P1?


Still to come:

P2. The universe began to exist

[William, I think you question this premise, believing the universe to be eternal]

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 material causes, such as William’s GOD may be knocked out, and other material causes that are highly different than GOD, such as leprechauns are knocked out, as well as many other possible causes].

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 #125]

Tanager, to build upon the discussion, let’s proceed with the following premises:

P0: The Universe exists.
This is our agreed foundational statement and an observable reality.

P1: Everything that begins to exist has a cause.
This premise, as traditionally presented, establishes causality as a general principle.

P2: Everything that begins to exist is caused by The Universe.
This premise refines P1 by aligning it with what we observe: all beginnings occur within the universe and are caused by processes governed by the universe’s space, time, matter, energy, and physical laws.

This structure ensures that causality is framed accurately. P2 reflects that stars, planets, and life forms begin to exist due to interactions within the universe itself. It maintains consistency with the definition of The Universe as the totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, and physical laws. Furthermore, P2 places causality firmly within the universe, avoiding the assumption that causality extends to the universe as a whole, which lacks empirical support.

From here, we can explore the implications of these premises. If we proceed to consider “The Universe began to exist,” it must be treated as a separate, theoretical proposition (e.g., “The Universe is believed to have begun to exist”) rather than an automatic conclusion from P1 and P2. This avoids circular reasoning and ensures that each step is logically sound.

Do you agree that introducing P2: Everything that begins to exist is caused by The Universe provides greater precision and aligns with observable reality?

[The Tanager]

P2: Everything that begins to exist is caused by The Universe.
This premise refines P1 by aligning it with what we observe: all beginnings occur within the universe and are caused by processes governed by the universe’s space, time, matter, energy, and physical laws.

This structure ensures that causality is framed accurately. P2 reflects that stars, planets, and life forms begin to exist due to interactions within the universe itself. It maintains consistency with the definition of The Universe as the totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, and physical laws. Furthermore, P2 places causality firmly within the universe, avoiding the assumption that causality extends to the universe as a whole, which lacks empirical support.

Your phrasing seems to be arguing that everything that begins to exist (i.e., all the individual combinations of the space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern this reality) are cause by the totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern this reality. This would be saying the parts are created by the whole. Analogically, you are arguing that each individual brick in a wall was created by the whole wall of bricks.

No, this isn’t framing causality accurately. This is a form of self-causation, which is irrational. For the whole to be the cause, all of the parts would already have to exist to make up the whole, so that they would be caused before the whole could cause them.

Perhaps you meant something more like that the specific combinations of the totality of all the space, time, etc. are (ultimately) caused to exist by the initial, eternal totality of all the space, time, etc.? If so, I’ll address that. If not, please clarify.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #127]

Your phrasing seems to be arguing that everything that begins to exist (i.e., all the individual combinations of the space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern this reality) are cause by the totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern this reality. This would be saying the parts are created by the whole. Analogically, you are arguing that each individual brick in a wall was created by the whole wall of bricks.

No, this isn’t framing causality accurately. This is a form of self-causation, which is irrational. For the whole to be the cause, all of the parts would already have to exist to make up the whole, so that they would be caused before the whole could cause them.

Perhaps you meant something more like that the specific combinations of the totality of all the space, time, etc. are (ultimately) caused to exist by the initial, eternal totality of all the space, time, etc.? If so, I’ll address that. If not, please clarify.

Tanager, as we continue our discussion, I’d like to revisit the agreed definition of The Universe to propose a refinement that ensures it fully accounts for all observable aspects of reality. Before addressing your current critique, I think it is important to address a potential oversight in the definition.

Our current definition reads:
The Universe: The totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, and the physical laws and constants that govern this reality.

This definition is robust, but I think it omits an essential aspect of reality: consciousness (or mindfulness). Consciousness is undeniably part of reality, observable within the universe, and arises naturally through interactions of matter, energy, and physical laws. It is as much a part of the whole as space, time, and energy, even if its manifestation is less immediately apparent.

To ensure the definition fully reflects the totality of The Universe, I propose refining it as follows:
The Universe: The totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, the physical laws and constants that govern this reality, and the consciousness or mindfulness that is also an aspect of it.

Including consciousness in the definition avoids leaving out an undeniable aspect of reality and ensures that The Universe is understood as a comprehensive, self-contained totality. Once we agree on this refined definition, I am happy to address your critique regarding causality and the relationship between parts and wholes.

Would you agree to this refinement, or would you like to discuss it further? I think this step is essential to maintain clarity and consistency in our discussion.

[The Tanager]

To ensure the definition fully reflects the totality of The Universe, I propose refining it as follows:
The Universe: The totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, the physical laws and constants that govern this reality, and the consciousness or mindfulness that is also an aspect of it.

Including consciousness in the definition avoids leaving out an undeniable aspect of reality and ensures that The Universe is understood as a comprehensive, self-contained totality. Once we agree on this refined definition, I am happy to address your critique regarding causality and the relationship between parts and wholes.

Would you agree to this refinement, or would you like to discuss it further? I think this step is essential to maintain clarity and consistency in our discussion.

I think you are trying to do to much with definitions. Definitions define concepts; they aren't meant to answer questions of existence or non-existence. Unicorns are defined; they don't exist.

For instance, if you are trying to say that consciousness is another instance of all the space, time, matter, etc., that calls for an argument, not a definition. And if you are saying consciousness is a distinct substance/thing, then it needs its own definition and you can still argue for its existence alongside of the spatio-temporal universe as both being parts of all of reality.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #129]

I think you are trying to do to much with definitions. Definitions define concepts; they aren't meant to answer questions of existence or non-existence. Unicorns are defined; they don't exist.

For instance, if you are trying to say that consciousness is another instance of all the space, time, matter, etc., that calls for an argument, not a definition. And if you are saying consciousness is a distinct substance/thing, then it needs its own definition and you can still argue for its existence alongside of the spatio-temporal universe as both being parts of all of reality.

Tanager, I appreciate your point about definitions clarifying concepts rather than answering questions of existence. I agree that definitions should not assume existence, as in the case of unicorns, which are defined but do not exist. However, consciousness is fundamentally different from unicorns because consciousness is both defined and exists as an observable phenomenon within reality.

Consciousness is not being proposed as a distinct "substance" or entity separate from The Universe. Rather, it is an inherent part of The Universe’s totality, manifesting through interactions of matter, energy, and physical laws. Just as we include space, time, matter, and energy in the definition because they are aspects of the universe’s totality, consciousness too must be included, as it undeniably exists and arises within the universe.

To exclude consciousness from the definition of The Universe would imply either that it is external to the universe or that it does not exist—neither of which aligns with observable reality. Including consciousness ensures that the definition reflects all aspects of the whole while leaving room to explore its nature further.

I would propose that our revised definition reads:
The Universe: The totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, the physical laws and constants that govern this reality, and the consciousness or mindfulness that is also an inherent aspect of it.

This refinement does not preclude deeper arguments about the nature of consciousness but ensures that we are not leaving out a key observable phenomenon. Would you agree that consciousness, as something that clearly exists, fits within the definition of The Universe?