God of the Gaps

[Jubilee]

Nonphysical means that it cannot be studied by science. Science is limited to the physical realm. This subject has to do with philosophy, not science. And yes, if it can be shown that the cause of the universe is not a personal agent, then we should believe it.

It only follows that we cannot understand it because it follows outside Of current scientific definitions of physical. For example, imagine a conversation between a Newtonian and an Einsteinian, talking about the orbit of Mercury. A Newtonian physicist cannot explain it within his scientific paradigm. If an Einsteinian came along and said that, "no, space is curved, and we can explain its orbit" a Newtonian would say "impossible! Space is absolute. If space is not absolute, then we are no longer talking about 'space' as scientists do".

Hopefully you don't cling to outdated physics, but I think you are making the same mistake a Newtonian would make. If by "space" you define it rigidly by the Newtonian paradigm, then the Einsteinian explanation is "non-spatial" and unscientific. However, what is unscientific and unthinkable to one paradigm is perfectly thinkable to another. Definitions, like what is "physical" (or what "force is"--although expressed as a tautology now, force=mass x acceleration, that took quite a bit of fighting) are not forever settled.

Now, if a future science explains the origin of the physical world, it won't be "physical" in the sense that we define it (just like Einstein's relativity is not "spatial" if by "spatial" you mean Newtonian space), but as you see, that's a mere linguistic accomplishment.

Historically, theologians have positived god as the explanation where a paradigm cannot speak because of its limitations. For example, Newton posited God to explain gravity because the future explanatory power of curved space-time was unthinkable in his conceptual toolbox.

Given the huge track record of plugging God into the edges of our conceptual tools has failed, it is likely to fail now.

[Soyeong]

"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.

Indeed, that's why WLC argues that it has an intellect and will.

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.

The cause of matter and energy can't be matter and energy, so it's not something that can ever be in the resources of physics.

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

Scientists propose hypotheses and then attempt to disprove them.  Those hypotheses that survive rigorous testing are believed until evidence is found that contradict it.  If a better explanation for the KCA is found, then we'll likewise reevaluate the argument at that time.

[joppe]

It only follows that we cannot understand it because it follows outside Of current scientific definitions of physical.

We can understand things without science. Just look at the laws of logic, morality and many others. In fact, science is based on them.

[/quote]
Hopefully you don't cling to outdated physics, but I think you are making the same mistake a Newtonian would make. If by "space" you define it rigidly by the Newtonian paradigm, then the Einsteinian explanation is "non-spatial" and unscientific.[/quote]

I think you are trying to define my views without actually knowing my views. And I am talking about philosophy and you are talking about science. What I tried to tell you that in the absence of space, time or energy, we can't use science to understand the world. We have to use philosophy (the laws of logic and so on).

Now, if a future science explains the origin of the physical world, it won't be "physical" in the sense that we define it (just like Einstein's relativity is not "spatial" if by "spatial" you mean Newtonian space), but as you see, that's a mere linguistic accomplishment.

Science can't find a material cause for matter. In the same sense, science can't explain how I created myself. I cannot create myself, I have to exist in order to do that. The people who are postulating different models of how 'our universe' came into existence aren't actually explaining how our universe came into existence. Instead, they are trying to describe a continuation of previous physical phenomea that caused our universe. That is NOT a physical reality coming into existence.

And as I said earlier, it is very narrow minded to start with only allowing material causes and when one model fails, create another one. We should allow both, material and immaterial causes.

Historically, theologians have positived god as the explanation where a paradigm cannot speak because of its limitations. For example, Newton posited God to explain gravity because the future explanatory power of curved space-time was unthinkable in his conceptual toolbox.

Yes. It reminds me of some of today's scientists trying to plug up the gaps in our knowledge with different models that are logically incoherent.
Nevertheless, Newton was wrong...

Given the huge track record of plugging God into the edges of our conceptual tools has failed, it is likely to fail now.

What most secularists fail to understand that many theists don't want to plug up the gaps in our scientific knowledge. We accept material AND immaterial causes. We are open to the evidence where they lead. Yes, there are many uneducated theists who say silly things but there are as many atheists/naturalists too that do the same!! If you don't believe me, come to Finland (I live there). It is a very secular country.

[Fred]

What is odd is that it is you who is using supposed scientific ignorance to defend a position (the possibility of naturalism), not Craig.  Theists aren't saying "we can't explain x therefore God," but rather the best explanation of x is an intelligent, timeless, transcendent, powerful, personal Being.  It certainly cannot be refuted that it may be possible that x can be explained better without referring to an intelligent, timeless, transcendent, powerful, personal Being; but then again it may be the case that further study in this matter provides even more evidence for that being than before.   

Maybe you haven’t seen theists saying "we can't explain x therefore God," but I have.  Regarding the “best explanation” – that is a fine approach, when applied correctly. 

For "God of the gaps" to have any potency aside from its current status as a lazy rhetorical device, it has to do more than assume naturalism from the start and then argue that we can never infer God because one day Magic science may provide an explanation.

Keep in mind it’s also easy to say “goddidit” as your default answer to any question that has not been answered by science. This no more, and no less, credible than claiming it was some unknown natural cause.  Consider the origin of life: there is no sure scientific answer as to how this occurred, if it was natural.  But if God did it, exactly what did he do?  Did he create each species directly? Did he create the first single cell organism so that it could evolve?  Or did he kick off the big bang, and structure the laws of nature such that life would appear?   Without the specificity, there’s no justification for claiming “God did it” is a better explanation than “unknown natural processes.” 

[Hawke123]

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.

[Fred]

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 Leibnizian Cosmological Argument,  Ontological arguments, and the Argument from Objective Moral Values are not "God of the Gaps" arguments.

I also agreed that arguments for God's existence being the "best explanation" avoid the problem.  One could correct a "God of the Gaps" argument by changing the argument from "therefore it must be God" to "therefore it is possibly God," acknowledging that it is also "possibly an unknown natural cause" and then arguing that God is the best explanation. 

[Soyeong]

I also agreed that arguments for God's existence being the "best explanation" avoid the problem.  One could correct a "God of the Gaps" argument by changing the argument from "therefore it must be God" to "therefore it is possibly God," acknowledging that it is also "possibly an unknown natural cause" and then arguing that God is the best explanation.

If you take an unknown natural cause of the universe and add a will and intellect, then you get God. 

[Fred]

I also agreed that arguments for God's existence being the "best explanation" avoid the problem.  One could correct a "God of the Gaps" argument by changing the argument from "therefore it must be God" to "therefore it is possibly God," acknowledging that it is also "possibly an unknown natural cause" and then arguing that God is the best explanation.

If you take an unknown natural cause of the universe and add a will and intellect, then you get God.

God does not fit my definition of "natural."  I term him, "supernatural." But if your point is that "God" is one of the possible answers to an unanswered question in nature, I completely agree.  I'm only pointing out that it's a fallacy to claim "necessarily God is the answer," when the answer should be "possibly God and possibly something other than God." 

[Serge]

I have a very brief question about this argument. Is "God of the Gaps" an argument for atheism or agnosticism? If it is agnosticism (In my opinion the answer I would choose) why so many atheist still using it and call themselves atheist?

[Fred]

I have a very brief question about this argument. Is "God of the Gaps" an argument for atheism or agnosticism? If it is agnosticism (In my opinion the answer I would choose) why so many atheist still using it and call themselves atheist?

"God of the Gaps" is one example of the general fallacy called "argument from ignorance."  When used, it is an an argument for theism.  When we point out that someone is using a "God of the Gaps" argument, it is simply pointing out that the argument is fallacious. Identifying a fallacious argument for God's existence doesn't prove God's non-existence.  However, if someone starts out as an atheist or agnostic, obviously the argument will provide no rationale for altering their position.  If someone starts out as a theist, it also provides no rationale for altering that position either, unless the fallacious argument happens to have been the basis for her theistic belief. 

[Jon S]

God of the gaps means that you postulate God in order to plug up a gap in our knowledge. A deductive argument leading to the conlcusion cannot be a God of the gaps argument because it isn't trying to plug up a gap, instead it is a conclusion of premises.

This is a little offtopic but why are naturalists never accused of naturalism of the gaps? I mean the following: 'I don't know, however we WILL find a naturalistic explanation at some point'.

Because "God of the Gaps" is an argument used to prove God's existence.  "naturalism of the Gaps" would be trying to establish that a particular sort of natural phenomenon existed by pointing to a lack of any other explanation.

[Hawke123]

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 Leibnizian Cosmological Argument,  Ontological arguments, and the Argument from Objective Moral Values are not "God of the Gaps" arguments.

I also agreed that arguments for God's existence being the "best explanation" avoid the problem.  One could correct a "God of the Gaps" argument by changing the argument from "therefore it must be God" to "therefore it is possibly God," acknowledging that it is also "possibly an unknown natural cause" and then arguing that God is the best explanation.

Arguments typically are about establishing probability and plausibility for something over the alternatives, not mere possibility.  It sounds like your approach precludes the possibility of concluding that God might be superior to competing explanations.  The god of the gaps objection seems to just arbitrarily fault any argument that has God as the conclusion, which just begs the question in favor of naturalism.

It doesn't make sense for the atheist/naturalist to ask the theist to provide evidence for a supernatural explanation if the atheist/naturalist rules out supernatural explanations in advance.

How is the theist even hypothetically ever supposed to win against a methodology that precludes his/her victory?

[Soyeong]

God does not fit my definition of "natural."  I term him, "supernatural."

Whatever this unknown natural cause of the universe is, it is not subject to the natural laws that it caused, so it is essentially the same thing as an unknown supernatural cause. 

But if your point is that "God" is one of the possible answers to an unanswered question in nature, I completely agree.  I'm only pointing out that it's a fallacy to claim "necessarily God is the answer," when the answer should be "possibly God and possibly something other than God."

If an argument is logically sound, then the conclusion necessarily follows from the premises.  You can think that the premises are probably true, but you can't grant that the premises are true and have the conclusion be only probably true.  On the other hand, if you're arguing to the best explanation, such as with the Fine Tuning argument, then any logical alternative explanation is possible.  WLC grants that and doesn't argue that the Fine Tuning argument shows that God necessarily exists.

[Fred]

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 Leibnizian Cosmological Argument,  Ontological arguments, and the Argument from Objective Moral Values are not "God of the Gaps" arguments.

I also agreed that arguments for God's existence being the "best explanation" avoid the problem.  One could correct a "God of the Gaps" argument by changing the argument from "therefore it must be God" to "therefore it is possibly God," acknowledging that it is also "possibly an unknown natural cause" and then arguing that God is the best explanation.

Arguments typically are about establishing probability and plausibility for something over the alternatives, not mere possibility.  It sounds like your approach precludes the possibility of concluding that God might be superior to competing explanations.  The god of the gaps objection seems to just arbitrarily fault any argument that has God as the conclusion, which just begs the question in favor of naturalism.

You don’t seem to have read all my posts in this thread.  When arguments strive to establish probability and plausibility, there’s no logical problem.  I am not precluding those arguments a priori, and I would never label  that a “god of the gaps” argument. 

It has been pointed out that there could be a “naturalism of the gaps” argument as well, that would be just as fallacious.  This would be an argument that concludes an unknown is necessarily answered by an unknown natural cause. 

It doesn't make sense for the atheist/naturalist to ask the theist to provide evidence for a supernatural explanation if the atheist/naturalist rules out supernatural explanations in advance.


How is the theist even hypothetically ever supposed to win against a methodology that precludes his/her victory?

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. 

[Soyeong]

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.

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.