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]

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.

Yes, consciousness undeniably exists and is present within material beings that make up parts of the universe. But that doesn’t mean it is the same kind of “stuff” as the matter of those beings is. That is a separate question that your definition begs and, therefore, must not be part of the definition.

Excluding consciousness from the definition of the ‘universe’ does not imply consciousness is external or that it doesn’t exist; it leaves that question open. Consciousness could still be argued to be a form of the space, time, matter, etc.

Analogically, excluding cats from the definition of mammal doesn’t imply cats aren’t mammals or that they don’t exist; it leaves that question open so that we can discover/reason to the answer based off of individual definitions of concepts.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #131]

Yes, consciousness undeniably exists and is present within material beings that make up parts of the universe. But that doesn’t mean it is the same kind of “stuff” as the matter of those beings is. That is a separate question that your definition begs and, therefore, must not be part of the definition.

Excluding consciousness from the definition of the ‘universe’ does not imply consciousness is external or that it doesn’t exist; it leaves that question open. Consciousness could still be argued to be a form of the space, time, matter, etc.

Analogically, excluding cats from the definition of mammal doesn’t imply cats aren’t mammals or that they don’t exist; it leaves that question open so that we can discover/reason to the answer based off of individual definitions of concepts.

To use your analogy, excluding cats from a list of mammals would indeed imply that cats are not mammals. Similarly, excluding consciousness from the definition of The Universe risks implying that consciousness is somehow external to the universe or fundamentally separate from it. I understand your concern that including consciousness in the definition might seem to resolve questions about its nature prematurely. However, I am not suggesting that we settle the nature of consciousness at this stage—only that we acknowledge its presence as part of the totality of reality that The Universe encompasses.

Consciousness, whatever its exact nature, is an aspect of The Universe’s totality. By ensuring it is part of the definition, we fully reflect the reality that The Universe encompasses all phenomena, including the experiential ones we observe.

My proposal to refine the definition is not intended to resolve deeper questions about consciousness’s nature but to acknowledge that it exists within The Universe. It ensures we are not leaving out any key part of the whole. The revised definition reads:

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

This refinement does not preclude further exploration of the relationships between consciousness and the other aspects of the universe; it simply avoids creating a gap in how we define the totality of reality. Would you agree that this approach provides a more complete foundation for our discussion?

[The Tanager]

To use your analogy, excluding cats from a list of mammals would indeed imply that cats are not mammals. Similarly, excluding consciousness from the definition of The Universe risks implying that consciousness is somehow external to the universe or fundamentally separate from it.

No, my analogy was about excluding cats from the definition of “mammal”, not from a list of all the examples that fit that defined category of "mammal".

Consciousness, whatever its exact nature, is an aspect of The Universe’s totality. By ensuring it is part of the definition, we fully reflect the reality that The Universe encompasses all phenomena, including the experiential ones we observe.

My proposal to refine the definition is not intended to resolve deeper questions about consciousness’s nature but to acknowledge that it exists within The Universe. It ensures we are not leaving out any key part of the whole. The revised definition reads:

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

This refinement does not preclude further exploration of the relationships between consciousness and the other aspects of the universe; it simply avoids creating a gap in how we define the totality of reality. Would you agree that this approach provides a more complete foundation for our discussion?

KCA P2 is making a claim only about the material aspect of reality via the term ‘universe’. Whether consciousness is included in that aspect is a separate question; it should not be placed as part of the definition anymore than brains or hearts or rocks should or cats placed in the definition of mammals. The definition should remain focused on the space, time, matter, energy, laws, and constants that make up material reality.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #133]

Your argument hinges on the assumption that consciousness is not fundamental or that its inclusion in the definition of The Universe somehow violates the neutrality of the definition. However, acknowledging its existence as part of The Universe does not resolve its nature prematurely—it simply avoids excluding it.

I understand that you are working within the framework of the KCA, which ultimately claims that immaterial exists (as stated in P4).
However, at this point in our discussion, we have not yet reached agreement on P1 (Everything that begins to exist has a cause), let alone P4. We are still working to properly define The Universe as the totality of all that exists. (I remind you here of your "one step at a time" policy.)

The definition of The Universe must be neutral and inclusive at this stage, reflecting the totality of observable reality. Consciousness undeniably exists and interacts with the material components of The Universe and we would not even be having this discussion if that was not the case/not true.

Whether it is material, emergent, or fundamental is a separate question that can be explored later. For now, excluding consciousness from the definition risks pre-emptively aligning with the claim of immateriality before it has been argued.

To ensure a comprehensive and unbiased foundation for subsequent premises, I propose it is a necessary step refining the definition as follows:

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

This definition does not settle the nature of consciousness but ensures that the definition fully reflects the totality of reality. Would you agree that this is a necessary step before progressing to P1?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #135]

You seemed to agree with P1. Do you not? That's part of why I entertained your proposal of a change to P2.

As far as P2 goes, I'll say this for now, but won't move back to it until all is said about P1. P2 does not hinge on an assumption that consciousness is not fundamental. I think it is (but that isn't assumed in the KCA). Its inclusion in the definition of the universe would completely change what is being talked about in P2. And this is completely separate from acknowledging its existence. The KCA does not exclude it in any way from reality; it just isn’t talking about it in P2 and that's okay.

P2 is not concerned about the totality of reality, but about the material part of reality and makes a claim about that. It uses ‘universe’ (in accordance with how it is widely used, see any dictionary) to designate that. If you think ‘universe’ should have a different definition, then give a word to use for the concept of just the material part of reality (which is the focus of P2) and we’ll use that because the concept is more important than the term.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #135]

One thing at a time.

Re your reference to the common usage of "universe" in dictionaries is worth noting that definitions of The Universe vary significantly depending on the source. For example, the NASA site, in a paper titled "What Is The Universe?", states:

"The universe is everything. It includes all of space, and all the matter and energy that space contains. It even includes time itself and, of course, it includes you. [...] It is, simply, everything."
{SOURCE}
This demonstrates that even reputable sources emphasize the universe as encompassing all of existence, rather than limiting it to only its material components.

While it may suit some philosophical frameworks to omit consciousness/mindfulness from the definition, this omission reflects a preference rather than an objective or universally accepted position. Popular opinion or common usage does not determine logical validity, and relying on these can lead to the fallacy of Bandwagon and Argumentum ad Populum reasoning.

For a philosophical discussion such as this, a definition of The Universe must reflect inclusivity and precision. Consciousness is undeniably part of reality and interacts with the the other components of the universe. Its omission from the definition risks leaving observable aspects of reality unaccounted for.

I propose again the following refined definition:
The Universe: The totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, consciousness/mindfulness, and the physical laws and constants that govern this reality.

This definition ensures inclusivity while leaving room to explore the nature of consciousness further. Would you agree that such a comprehensive definition is necessary to proceed logically?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #137]

That article isn't a dictionary, but I wasn't even saying some dictionaries wouldn't offer a different definition. Again, I don't ultimately care about terms; the importance is to make sure we are talking about the same concept.

You want "universe" to have a broader definition than used in the common discussion on this argument. Okay, so what term do you want us to use to talk about the material aspect of reality, which is what P2 is about (rather than all of reality, which is what you think the "universe" should be used to refer to).

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #137]

Tanager,
I’d like to offer a critique of your concern about self-causation being irrational. I think your wall analogy oversimplifies what self-causation means in the context of The Universe and natural processes, particularly as understood through the Big Bang Theory.

Consider the analogy of a seed and a tree. A seed holds the potential for the tree within itself. The tree is a realization of the seed’s inherent capacities. This is a form of self-causation that is entirely rational, as observable in nature. While the seed requires external factors like soil and sunlight to grow, the realization of its potential is nonetheless rooted in its own inherent properties.

The singularity, however, differs in a crucial way. It required no external medium to realize its potential. The singularity is The Universe in a timeless, spaceless state, and its transformation into the observable universe was entirely self-contained. Unlike a seed that produces something distinct from itself (the tree), the singularity did not "create" the universe—it is the universe, continuously expanding and transforming into and through its current form (as witnessed by us in our here and now).

Nature offers many other examples of self-causation as the realization of inherent potential:

Stars form from collapsing clouds of gas, where the potential for the star already exists within the gas cloud.
Cells divide and replicate, driven by internal mechanisms rather than external causes.
These examples show that self-causation, when understood as the realization of potential within a system, is not irrational but entirely consistent with natural processes.

This leads me to P2: "The universe began to exist." If we define The Universe as the totality of all that exists—encompassing the singularity and its expansion—then The Universe did not "begin" in the traditional sense. The singularity was already The Universe, and its transformation represents a state change, not the emergence of something from nothing.

Time itself is part of The Universe (as measured by the observers within it) and did not exist "before" the singularity. Without a "before," the notion of a beginning is incoherent. Instead, The Universe must be understood as eternal, with transformations and expansions occurring within it.

This concept still aligns with the definition of The Universe I am using:
The totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, consciousness/mindfulness, and the physical laws and constants that govern what we call reality, because all of that is the singularity releasing its potential. Thus, the singularity is The Universe.

For these reasons, I cannot truthfully agree that The Universe ever had a beginning or began to exist as suggested by P2. Would you agree that this understanding resolves the issues of self-causation and aligns more closely with what we know from science?

Additionally, I find no necessity to separate out "the material aspect of reality" for special discussion. Doing so implies the existence of an "immaterial aspect of reality," something that has never been demonstrated to actually exist, outside of misaligned observations of philosophical imaginings.

[Difflugia]

If energy is uncertain by ΔE, then conservation of energy can be violated by ΔE for a time Δt.

The uncertainty principle leaves room for the possibility of violating the conservation of energy, but it doesn’t give us reason to think it actually does. Possibility is not enough for us to rationally conclude that matter seems to appear in our universe without cause.

You have this exactly backwards and I find it more and more frustrating that you don't see it.

The uncertainty principle isn't that even though the uncertainty is possible, it probably doesn't exist; it's that we can't know that the energy state of a point in the universe is zero and sometimes it's not!. The uncertainty principle isn't theoretical or a limitation of our ability to measure things. As far as we can tell, a given point in the universe cannot have an exact energy for an exact amount of time.

If we go back to velocity and position, the uncertainty principle is why semiconductors can work. Semiconductors contain regions that are normally impervious to electrons, but they're narrow enough to be shorter than the wavelength of an electron. The uncertainty principle puts the electron's position potentially anywhere within its wavelength. If that region overlaps the other side of a barrier, then we can't know for sure that the electron isn't on the other side of it. In our reality, that means that sometimes it is. The uncertainty principle isn't a possibility, but a probability that can be measured. Even if it's a low probability for any given electron whose wavelength overlaps both sides of an otherwise impervious barrier, it sometimes happens.

We're in the same situation with ΔE and Δt. Even if ΔE should be zero for some Δt, sometimes it's not.

When comparing “everything that begins to exist has a cause” and “some things that begin to exist don't have a cause”, this possibility is not enough to reject the KCA’s first premise.

No matter how many times you try to claim this, you're on the wrong side of the possibility. In our universe, matter appears with no apparent cause. It's possible that there is one, in which case the KCA's first premise might be true. The opposite of "everything that begins to exist has a cause," is "some things that begin to exist don't have a cause." If some things don't have a cause, the first premise is absolutely false. All of the evidence from within our universe is that some matter begins to exist without a cause. Maybe there's a cause that we can't see yet. It's possible. As you say, however, possible isn't enough to rescue the KCA.

No, it’s based on that, plus, the logic of ‘nothing’, plus all known scientific evidence.

Experimentally, virtual particles "begin to appear." What is the cause?

Why do you think premise 1 looks false, experimentally?

Because some things begin to exist without an identifiable cause.

What I just responded to? If so, all that shows is that it is possibly false, but not probably.

You've got it backwards.

I’m questioning the basis for that. One, why, in principle, if something popped into existence uncaused, and was bigger than what the uncertainty principle covers

Emphasis mine. You're resorting to special pleading.

Do you have scientific evidence that scientific evidence is true?

I'm content with empiricism. If I start to miss navel-gazing and magic, I'll go back to church.

“It seems” is too vague to be helpful.

Only if you've been away from science too long. "It seems" is the expression of the possibility that we're wrong. It's also the gap where the gods hide.

Logic doesn't rule that out, but a fallacious argument from personal incredulity would seem to.

I don’t see why this isn’t logic. Nothingness is the complete lack of anything positive whatsoever. It’s an absence. How can the absence of everything include something within itself (when there is no “self/thing”) to determine what will pop out of “it” (when it isn’t an it at all)? And if there is something outside of nothing making something happen “out of nothing,” then the nothing isn’t the cause because it is just a concept about how there was an absence of anything before the something made something happen.

Nothingness would guarantee that the virtual particles have no cause. A lack of nothing, however, doesn't even make probable, let alone guarantee, that the apparently uncaused particles aren't actually uncaused.

[The Tanager]

You have this exactly backwards and I find it more and more frustrating that you don't see it.

I’m always open to learning, so please keep trying.

The uncertainty principle puts the electron's position potentially anywhere within its wavelength. If that region overlaps the other side of a barrier, then we can't know for sure that the electron isn't on the other side of it. In our reality, that means that sometimes it is. The uncertainty principle isn't a possibility, but a probability that can be measured. Even if it's a low probability for any given electron whose wavelength overlaps both sides of an otherwise impervious barrier, it sometimes happens.

Why does it mean it actually sometimes happens? Why is the Heisenberg principle about actuality and not predictability? My understanding is that there are quite a few different interpretations of quantum mechanics and that they don’t all agree with what you seem to be saying here.

I'm content with empiricism. If I start to miss navel-gazing and magic, I'll go back to church.

I’m questioning the basis for that. One, why, in principle, if something popped into existence uncaused, and was bigger than what the uncertainty principle covers

Emphasis mine. You're resorting to special pleading.

No, I’m trying to understand why you say that, in principle, something popping into existence uncaused, couldn’t be falsified. Can you explain that or is it just another assumption you are content with?

Do you have scientific evidence that scientific evidence is true?

I'm content with empiricism. If I start to miss navel-gazing and magic, I'll go back to church.

Only if you've been away from science too long. "It seems" is the expression of the possibility that we're wrong. It's also the gap where the gods hide.

You are the one that won’t explain why “it seems” that science is reliable. You are content with that assumption alone. If it’s a gap; it’s yours in this conversation. You are content with assumptions; I’m not.