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]

I've never heard of anyone arguing against scientific principle, in order to support their faith.

You've never heard of creationists?

"Evolution can't have happened because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics," therefore God lives in that gap.

[Perspectivo]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1]

I think creationists should abandon ontological arguments completely, and elaborate how religion has benefited them personally. If I wanted to recommend something beneficial to you, I'd explain how it has benefited me.

If I wanted to recommend that you acquaint yourself with someone who is invisible, I'd explain how my relationship with them has benefited me personally. If I can't explain how the relationship has benefited me, but only speculate why they're invisible, then I demonstrate how the speculation of the invisible is more meaningful to me than the actual relationship. This is the greatest challenge to religion.

I've never argued with someone who said Jesus saved them from drugs or depression. I haven't the heart for that. Few would. But apologetics and ontological arguments. I rejoice to see it wallow in its death throes.

[RBD]

I've never heard of anyone arguing against scientific principle, in order to support their faith.

You've never heard of creationists?

"Evolution can't have happened because of the Second Law of Thermodynamics," therefore God lives in that gap.

That's an argument of science for God. I don't subscribe to them.

The Bible itself is proof enough of it's own inerrancy. So long as no verifiable evidence in or outside the Book is know, then it's possible for any intelligent person to believe it is true as written.

It's not about proving the Bible is true, nor compelling anyone to believe it. No amount proofs can make anyone believe anything, if they choose not to.

[RBD]

[Replying to Difflugia in post #1]

I think creationists should abandon ontological arguments completely, and elaborate how religion has benefited them personally. If I wanted to recommend something beneficial to you, I'd explain how it has benefited me.

If I wanted to recommend that you acquaint yourself with someone who is invisible, I'd explain how my relationship with them has benefited me personally. If I can't explain how the relationship has benefited me, but only speculate why they're invisible, then I demonstrate how the speculation of the invisible is more meaningful to me than the actual relationship. This is the greatest challenge to religion.

I've never argued with someone who said Jesus saved them from drugs or depression. I haven't the heart for that. Few would. But apologetics and ontological arguments. I rejoice to see it wallow in its death throes.

Totally agree, if anyone is seeking to convert someone. As well as it being a waste of time trying to prove the invisible, whether by religion, experience, philosophy, or science.

However, the objective debate about errancy of any book, including charges of external evidence against it, can be a worthwhile study of the book itself, as well as unexpected cause for archeological, historical, and scientific research.

That's not about conversion, but about the discipline of objective analysis, which is a good exercise in itself. Remaining objective with visible evidence, apart from our own beliefs, prejudices, desires, etc... is recognized as one of the most important goals in an accurate conclusion. Whether it's of a book charged with malfeasance, or a criminal investigation of murder.