God of the Gaps

[Fred]

How is the theist even hypothetically to win?  You’d have to provide convincing evidence that the supernatural exists. But you’re right, this isn’t easy.  If this seems frustrating, consider this: what if the supernatural actually does not exist (as I believe to be the case, and as you should accept to be a logical possibility since it can’t be logically proven to exist).  How is the atheist, even hypothetically, to convince you of this? You see, in either case, prior beliefs are difficult to defeat when they are beliefs in logically possible states of affairs.

I think a supernatural event can be said to be the best explanation if the circumstances are charged with the expectation that it would occur.  For example, someone who was born blind could one day receive their sight out of the blue.  We couldn't necessarily say it was a miracle because it could be an unknown natural occurrence.  However, if a group of people were praying at their church and they felt led to come over to this person's house to pray for them to receive their sight, and then they were able to see, then I think a miracle would be a better explanation.

This would only be a reasonable conclusion if there were a statistical correlation. Lot's of people pray for such miracles as curing blindness, but very few have their blindness go away (with or without prayer).  I'm not aware of any controlled studies showing the efficacy of prayer.

If you think that the universe has a cause, then the cause is supernatural by definition.  You could argue against the supernatural by showing a better explanation for the universe, for someone being healed, or for Jesus' resurrection, or show a necessary logical contradiction in a concept of God.

Why should we think the universe has a cause?  There is a chain of causes in the universe because there is natural law in the universe.  This implies that natural law is the cause of causation.  There need be no cause for the cause of causation. And note, this would also be true if God is the cause of causation.  God could have chosen to NOT have causation, therefore a theist should agree that causation is not a metaphysical necessity.  But if causation isn't a metaphysical necessity, the causation argument fails to prove God's existence.

[Hawke123]

As you said above, it’s a question of probability and plausibility - but these are subjective judgments. We judge explanations to be plausible based on our own subjective sets of beliefs. If I believe there is no supernatural, then I will consider a supernatural explanation to be less plausible than a natural explanation.  You, who believe in the supernatural, will have a different view of what’s plausible. 

How is the theist even hypothetically to win?  You’d have to provide convincing evidence that the supernatural exists. But you’re right, this isn’t easy.  If this seems frustrating, consider this: what if the supernatural actually does not exist (as I believe to be the case, and as you should accept to be a logical possibility since it can’t be logically proven to exist).  How is the atheist, even hypothetically, to convince you of this? You see, in either case, prior beliefs are difficult to defeat when they are beliefs in logically possible states of affairs.

Fred, if what we're ultimately doing here is just "subjective judgments" then why are we even debating?  I don't think it is helpful to thrust debate about the nature of ultimate reality into the fog of relativism where every position becomes equally rational or irrational.  Such an approach would shut down debate about not just God, but anything people disagree over. 

Additionally, I do not assume the plausibility/probability of the supernatural because already believe in the supernatural a priori.  Rather, I believe the supernatural because the arguments in favor of it are more rationally compelling.  That said, the atheist could persuade me otherwise if he/she provides a better explanation.  But thus far, I have not seen any such thing.  So I do not agree that assessments of plausibility/probability plunge us into the self refuting arena of relativism.  Some interpretations really are better than others.

[Fred]

As you said above, it’s a question of probability and plausibility - but these are subjective judgments. We judge explanations to be plausible based on our own subjective sets of beliefs. If I believe there is no supernatural, then I will consider a supernatural explanation to be less plausible than a natural explanation.  You, who believe in the supernatural, will have a different view of what’s plausible. 

How is the theist even hypothetically to win?  You’d have to provide convincing evidence that the supernatural exists. But you’re right, this isn’t easy.  If this seems frustrating, consider this: what if the supernatural actually does not exist (as I believe to be the case, and as you should accept to be a logical possibility since it can’t be logically proven to exist).  How is the atheist, even hypothetically, to convince you of this? You see, in either case, prior beliefs are difficult to defeat when they are beliefs in logically possible states of affairs.

Fred, if what we're ultimately doing here is just "subjective judgments" then why are we even debating?  I don't think it is helpful to thrust debate about the nature of ultimate reality into the fog of relativism where every position becomes equally rational or irrational.  Such an approach would shut down debate about not just God, but anything people disagree over. 

I’m just saying that plausibility assessments are subjective.  The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy defines plausibility as:
A claim is plausible if it subjectively seems worthy of belief even if we have not necessarily studied its objective ground. Plausibility is thus acceptable credibility, and its degree of credibility can depend in part on the authority that advocates it. A plausible claim can turn out to be false, and an implausible claim can turn out to be true.

In a debate, it doesn’t have to stop there.  You can challenge, and try to defeat, the beliefs that are pertinent to the plausibility assessment.  Alternatively, present arguments that are not dependent, or at least less dependent, on assumptions of what is plausible.
Regarding the “fog of relativism” –  I do think there is an objective reality “out there” and what we should be doing is trying to overcome our natural subjectivism in order to figure out what that objective reality is, as  much as possible.  One very important way to do this is to engage with people who have differing views, and find out the basis of the disagreement.  This does two things: 1) identifies the subjectivity that is present – often in both parties; 2) helps one understand the rationality of the other party’s position.  Of course, it might also expose some irrationality on the part of either – which affords the opportunity to correct oneself. 

Additionally, I do not assume the plausibility/probability of the supernatural because already believe in the supernatural a priori.  Rather, I believe the supernatural because the arguments in favor of it are more rationally compelling.  That said, the atheist could persuade me otherwise if he/she provides a better explanation.  But thus far, I have not seen any such thing.  So I do not agree that assessments of plausibility/probability plunge us into the self refuting arena of relativism.  Some interpretations really are better than others.

OK, so you believe you have a rational basis for your belief in the supernatural.  I think it would be hopeless for me to try and convince you otherwise, because I expect that supernaturalism is present in many nooks and crannies of your world view.  So even if I could show that one particular argument for supernaturalism is weak, you would still have others.  I also happen to think it very possible that your supernaturalistic world view is coherent – and therefore indefeasible. 

That said, I don’t believe in the supernatural, and I think I have a rational basis for this belief.  We can agree to disagree, or you could challenge this belief if you like.   But let’s say you challenge it, and are unable to find a rationality defeater.  Wouldn’t that be a hint that, perhaps, naturalism can be a coherent world view? 

[Hawke123]

I’m just saying that plausibility assessments are subjective.  The Blackwell Dictionary of Western Philosophy defines plausibility as:
A claim is plausible if it subjectively seems worthy of belief even if we have not necessarily studied its objective ground. Plausibility is thus acceptable credibility, and its degree of credibility can depend in part on the authority that advocates it. A plausible claim can turn out to be false, and an implausible claim can turn out to be true.

In a debate, it doesn’t have to stop there.  You can challenge, and try to defeat, the beliefs that are pertinent to the plausibility assessment.  Alternatively, present arguments that are not dependent, or at least less dependent, on assumptions of what is plausible.
Regarding the “fog of relativism” –  I do think there is an objective reality “out there” and what we should be doing is trying to overcome our natural subjectivism in order to figure out what that objective reality is, as  much as possible.  One very important way to do this is to engage with people who have differing views, and find out the basis of the disagreement.  This does two things: 1) identifies the subjectivity that is present – often in both parties; 2) helps one understand the rationality of the other party’s position.  Of course, it might also expose some irrationality on the part of either – which affords the opportunity to correct oneself.

Of course a plausible claim can turn out to be false, but how can we determine that either way if, as you say, assessments of plausibility are subjective?  You go on to say that one can address this via challenging the underlying beliefs behind someone's plausibility assessment.  But one shouldn't impose their underlying beliefs onto an argument that weakens its plausibility a priori.  For instance, if one presupposes the truth of naturalism when approaching any theistic argument, then of course he/she will never change his/her mind.  One should assess an argument based on its own merits (ie: coherence, explanatory power).

You don't believe there's an external world of truth outside of yourself?  If that's the case, then why debate anything at all?  You say you don't believe there's an objective reality yet you say we should overcome subjective beliefs to figure out objective reality.  I'm not following you here.

OK, so you believe you have a rational basis for your belief in the supernatural.  I think it would be hopeless for me to try and convince you otherwise, because I expect that supernaturalism is present in many nooks and crannies of your world view.  So even if I could show that one particular argument for supernaturalism is weak, you would still have others.  I also happen to think it very possible that your supernaturalistic world view is coherent – and therefore indefeasible. 

That said, I don’t believe in the supernatural, and I think I have a rational basis for this belief.  We can agree to disagree, or you could challenge this belief if you like.   But let’s say you challenge it, and are unable to find a rationality defeater.  Wouldn’t that be a hint that, perhaps, naturalism can be a coherent world view?

I hold to a theistic worldview because of its impressive explanatory power and coherence, especially when compared to the competing secular worldviews.  Coherency is necessary but not sufficient for a worldview to be rationally compelling.  Explanatory power is also a necessary ingredient.  If someone can present me with a secular worldview with superior coherency and explanatory power compared to a theistic (particularly Christian) worldview, then I'm all ears.  Endless volume of dubious criticisms against the theistic paradigm won't do.  Secular folks need to make a positive case for a worldview characterized by atheism/naturalism.  Pointing out the weeds in another person's garden won't keep the man-eating monster plants out of your own garden.

Debating with naturalists isn't exactly a new experience for me.  So while possible, it's doubtful to me that I would encounter a naturalistic worldview that cleans up the incoherency I see in naturalism.  Also, to reiterate what I said above, explanatory power is also a necessary part of a rationally compelling worldview.

[Jon S]

Is there any argument that leads to the conclusion that God exists that you wouldn't consider to be God of the Gaps? 

It is most interesting to me how people conveniently overlooked this post.

The ontological argument is not a God of the Gaps argument.  Arguments based on the historical record of scripture are usually not (they can be, but I think typically they avoid that trap).  CS Lewis' argument from desire isn't a God of the Gaps argument.  If the trilemma counts as an argument for the existence of God, then that is not God of the Gaps.

[Fred]

Of course a plausible claim can turn out to be false, but how can we determine that either way if, as you say, assessments of plausibility are subjective?  You go on to say that one can address this via challenging the underlying beliefs behind someone's plausibility assessment.  But one shouldn't impose their underlying beliefs onto an argument that weakens its plausibility a priori.  For instance, if one presupposes the truth of naturalism when approaching any theistic argument, then of course he/she will never change his/her mind.  One should assess an argument based on its own merits (ie: coherence, explanatory power).

I think you’re basically saying that we should strive for objectivity, and that ought to mean setting aside our a priori beliefs.  I agree in principle.  Regarding assessing the argument, I agree coherence is a necessary condition, but judging the merit of an argument needs to look at more than just explanatory power.   Ad hoc-ness and parsimony are additional factors.  I also suggest that it’s not just a matter of finding the best explanation, but one that is also sufficiently probable to warrant belief.  It may be that hypothesis H1 is more probable than H2 – H20, but the question is: is H1 more probable than ~H1? "I don't know" is an acceptable answer in many cases.

You don't believe there's an external world of truth outside of yourself

Did you overlook my statement, “I do think there is an objective reality ‘out there’” ?  I do actually take exception to your wording “external world of truth”- but that pertains to the theory of truth to which I hold (correspondence theory) – but that’s a technicality. I am not a subjectivist – one who denies the existence of objective reality. 

OK, so you believe you have a rational basis for your belief in the supernatural.  I think it would be hopeless for me to try and convince you otherwise, because I expect that supernaturalism is present in many nooks and crannies of your world view.  So even if I could show that one particular argument for supernaturalism is weak, you would still have others.  I also happen to think it very possible that your supernaturalistic world view is coherent – and therefore indefeasible. 

That said, I don’t believe in the supernatural, and I think I have a rational basis for this belief.  We can agree to disagree, or you could challenge this belief if you like.   But let’s say you challenge it, and are unable to find a rationality defeater.  Wouldn’t that be a hint that, perhaps, naturalism can be a coherent world view?

I hold to a theistic worldview because of its impressive explanatory power and coherence, especially when compared to the competing secular worldviews.  Coherency is necessary but not sufficient for a worldview to be rationally compelling.  Explanatory power is also a necessary ingredient.  If someone can present me with a secular worldview with superior coherency and explanatory power compared to a theistic (particularly Christian) worldview, then I'm all ears.  Endless volume of dubious criticisms against the theistic paradigm won't do.  Secular folks need to make a positive case for a worldview characterized by atheism/naturalism.  Pointing out the weeds in another person's garden won't keep the man-eating monster plants out of your own garden.

I’m not sure what you mean by “superior coherency.”  A worldview is coherent if it lacks contradiction – so it either is, or is not, coherent.  “Explanatory power” is a dubious criteria for deducing God as the explanation for something we see in the natural world, because unknown natural cause has an equal degree of explanatory power. 

Debating with naturalists isn't exactly a new experience for me.  So while possible, it's doubtful to me that I would encounter a naturalistic worldview that cleans up the incoherency I see in naturalism.  quote]
I’ve debated Theists a few times myself, and have done a little reading of Theist philosophy.  My current belief is that theism can be coherent, so I would never suggest I could prove otherwise.  The position I take is, what I call, “agnostic deist.”  First of all, I believe there is an ontological foundation of reality.  This foundation could possibly be some form of deity, but it could also be purely materialistic.  I have encountered no compelling arguments to sway me in either direction, so I consider both of these broad possibilities to be of equal epistemic probability.  When you start bundling characteristics onto this generic deity, the probabilities start diminishing.  Does the deity possess the omni-attributes? Is the deity activist (i.e. intervenes in the material world)? Is the deity (in any meaningful sense) truly a person?  Any combination of these is logically possible

What is the incoherency you see in naturalism?  If you can truly show there’s an internal contradiction in it, I will have to revise my position. 

[Yogurt_Master]

Dr. Craig will never admit it but its obvious that his argument IS a god of the gaps argument.  Why is the debate not called "God and Meteorology".    Sean Carroll would argue that pressure and temperature cause thunder and Craig would be arguing that "God is the best explanation for Thunder"
The reason we are not having this debate is because the science on that matter is settled. The origin of the universe and cosmology are at the limits of our scientific understanding and therefore that is where the god of the gaps always resides.

SMH

Scientific understanding isn't going to be able to get you to the most important part of the question.  Why?

It's not due to any lack of understanding.  Some people love to know how an automobile is built in full detail and some people just drive them and have fun.   It doesn't mean that an automobile doesn't exist.

There is a fact that the Universe exists and it is designed and then there are people looking for understanding how it is done in detail and some that just enjoy what was built.

There is nothing wrong with knowing the details of how things work, the problem is that a lot of those people "ASSUME" that other people are not intelligent when they are either not as interested or they enjoy a beauty in looking at things differently.

When I look at all things, I see beauty in them.  When I look at the Universe and when I look at conception.  I know that there are deeper levels and there are layers of complexity and deeper knowledge of how things work, but it still doesn't stop at the awe and wonder of how beautiful it is.

[Rick Dawkins]

It's a deductive argument, but when Craig says "either God or abstract objects", he's positing God as an explanation.

Not really because when the cause must be immaterial, postulating a material cause would be contradictory. Surely no rational person would do that. Secondly, the atheist is welcome to give a better explanation that meet the desciption of the cause of the universe.

"Nonphysical" follows, in the sense of "not the stuff discussed in our current scientific paradigm", but that does not logically entail it is mental stuff.

Physics has already given up on trying to successfully describe the world in terms of things amenable to common sense. They speak of "curved space time" and other bizarre concepts. Although the KCA shows it is not something currently in the resources of physics, there is no reason to think future developments or a new paradigm wouldn't allow scientists to figure it out.

This is like the ancient physicists. They'd compare the competing "explanatory virtues" of positing the various elements as the fundamental nature of the universe: and indeed, that's all they had the conceptual tools to deal with. They had no idea about the widened conceptual tools that allow us to think about that question today. Maybe fire was the only explanation of the fundamental dynamic yet static appearing universe, as Heraclitus felt, but it was totally incorrect.

The history of science is filled with examples like this. Proponents of old paradigms make theoretical posits, without independent explanatory motivation (without empirical predictions, for example), and fail to see the real solution because they don't have the right concepts yet.

I'm suggesting that theists are making the same mistakes these ancient scientists made.

"They speak of "curved space time" and other bizarre concepts. "

curved space time is not bizzare and  i would say, it is more a truth than a concept, space and time are inevitably entwined . because, unless u can explain how yoiu can have time with no space ,or space with no time ,then my brute fact stands.


space time is curved or has curvature , mass of objects mess with space time, thus has been concluded by orbiting experiments involving atom clocks.
       when said objects mess with said space time it changes time and spaes shape - curving it.

-----
maybe i am wrong, but i am pretty sure on this one.

[dorel]

I think there's a big difference between these two arguments:

1.) We don't know what caused the universe so it must have been God.

2.) Something can't be caused to exist by something that it caused to exist, so if something caused matter and energy, then it can't be caused by matter and energy, so it must transcend them.  If the universe has a cause, then there exists something in reality that transcends matter and energy and has the power to cause a universe.  At the very least, this cause corresponds to our idea of God.

i believe that god causes the beginning of our universe, i believe it by faith.
the problem will be, from now to eternity, that beyond this boundary which is the big bang, we never will be able to "know" we always will "believe" one way or another.
if we are atheist-believers we believe that the universe has a natural cause.
if we are theism-believers we believe that god created the universe.