The God of the Gaps Argument

[Quintessence]

What is wrong with the God of the Gaps in and of itself?

A question that should perhaps be asked more often.

The answer always seems to be: "because it offends my personal values and sensibilities!"

Perhaps we should get over ourselves a tad? So what if someone else wants to define "god" as the Eternal Mystery?

 

[George-ananda]

Not every theist beliefs in the same kind or same god or for the same reasons or use the same arguments in favor.

of course

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You must have a very different idea of what a valid argument is.

Hmm. Maybe I'm wrong, this is how I see it.

I believe in unicorns.
They fly all over the place. I can see them and experience them.
How do they fly, they have wings.
How do I experience them, because they give me delight of looking a their beautiful colors.
Why do I believe them, because they make me smile and make my day

It's a valid belief.

Usually, animal with wings can fly. So, that's logical.
If we see beautiful colors, that gives delight in a psychological point of view too, that's logical.
As a result this, it makes my day wonderful; why would it not? That's logical to assume it would.

This is a valid/logical belief that unicorns exist and my explanation why. There is no problem with this unless I use this logical and valid belief and impose it on others and kill people who dont agree with me.

Is it wrong/not factual, yes.
It's it logical/valid/agreeable belief, yes.

Is there a problem in either of these two cases, I dont see one.

I'd think the god of the gaps is the same.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

A question that should perhaps be asked more often.

The answer always seems to be: "because it offends my personal values and sensibilities!"

Perhaps we should get over ourselves a tad? So what if someone else wants to define "god" as the Eternal Mystery?

Basically.

 

[McBell]

The answer always seems to be: "because it offends my personal values and sensibilities!"

Because in order to show that god exists, you need an argument that is not as equally valid when you replace the god in the argument with the tooth fairy.

 

[George-ananda]

The simplest and best known examples are First Cause, unspecific, argument along with the transition from the cause into God, specific.

I think there is some merit to the first cause argument short of proof. I don't see how you can make the jump to a specific God though.

 

[McBell]

I'd think the god of the gaps is the same.

I disagree.
Your scenario is not the same.
You are not trying to use your belief as proof that unicorns exist.

 

[outhouse]

You were ignorant to the fact that we were not created from Adam and Eve

But the point is.

I had placed god in the gaps of my knowledge.

In other words god exist in my ignorance.

Ignorance should not equal a god. But it factually does in many cases. So god of the gaps is a human error.


The hard trick is learning from ancient mens mistakes, many want to repeat them.

 

[George-ananda]

Here are two commonly used examples:
"One of the more prominent examples of current "God of the Gaps" thinking is the Intelligent Design movement, which claims that some aspects of how life formed are impossible to explain — not only with today's scientific knowledge, but ever.
I think the argument that complex life forming through only the forces accepted by science is highly unlikely. It's an argument but not proof.

Another well-worn God-gap is that of abiogenesis. Again, as there is no generally accepted explanation for the appearance of life on the planet, the position thatGoddidit is taken as default by creationists." (http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps)

I think the argument that complex life forming through only the forces accepted by science is highly unlikely has merit. It's an argument but not proof. It convinced the great atheist Antony Flew.

 

[outhouse]

People have believed in god for years and those who dont abuse that believe and die with it, where is the problem?

That does not address god of the gaps.

The problem is most do abuse it to some extent.

 

[outhouse]

I think the argument that complex life forming through only the forces accepted by science is highly unlikely has merit

That is fanaticism talking not academic knowledge.

That is a prime example of the dangers of theism placing mythology in gaps of your knowledge.

Education shows how abiogenesis is chemistry, and in the right conditions, you cannot keep life down.

Life will evolve on any similar planet, and that life will flourish, and mythology only slows mans progression knowledge, because of the example you just provided.

 

[outhouse]

accepted by science is highly unlikely

You forfeit all credibility when you say things like that.

It amount to saying I refuse knowledge and facts from people who know 1000 times more then I do on any given topic, because my ignorance must be correct because its mine and mine alone.

That's does not fly anywhere.

 

[Skwim]

Getting in kind of late here, and find it surprising that the poll is currently showing 24%, 5 out of 21, people believe a god-of-the-gaps-argument is "valid."

My only guess is that these five people just don't understand the argument. Maybe the following taken from Wikipedia will help.

Usage in referring to a type of argument
The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:

• There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
• Therefore the cause must be supernatural.

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge increases, the dominion of God decreases
source​

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I disagree.
Your scenario is not the same.
You are not trying to use your belief as proof that unicorns exist.

Is that the problem "using ones belief to proove something exist" and not the belief itself?

 

[Unveiled Artist]

But the point is.

I had placed god in the gaps of my knowledge.

In other words god exist in my ignorance.

Ignorance should not equal a god. But it factually does in many cases. So god of the gaps is a human error.


The hard trick is learning from ancient mens mistakes, many want to repeat them.

I have to reread to reply fully but how is the error a problem, though? Does it harm others? Does it harm oneself in an unhealthy way? Yes, we believe in a lot of things that dont make sense. Its not a life and death situation.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

That does not address god of the gaps.

The problem is most do abuse it to some extent.

Thd god of thr gap has more to do with people abusing the beliefs in god?

 

[outhouse]

Does it harm others?

Yes. The biggest problem in the world today is the lack of education.

Many use such an extreme mythological filter that all incoming information goes through, that credible education is stunted at best, and or thrown out the window completely.

Lets use you as an example. You have been around a while and I would posit, you are educated in religions. But you are the minority. If the world was full of people like you we would probably have a more peaceful and educated worlds. You communicate well despite different beliefs and knowledge and faith.

Many people are not well educated, this breeds poverty, hatred and violence, disease and belief in mythology over reality. When all you have is religion, you have no moderation and this faith is dangerous and not healthy.

 

[outhouse]

Thd god of thr gap has more to do with people abusing the beliefs in god?

No.

Its a system in which people generally place ignorance over knowledge. It has nothing to do with a god.


Again most of the time it is used in conversations discussion religious zealot fundamentalist promoting mythology into reality. It does not often get used in a generals sense against the common theist.

Hence the "context" part I used in my first post to address your reply.

Often it is used in debates against topics like evolution where someone is describing the fanaticism of said theist

 

[George-ananda]

Getting in kind of late here, and find it surprising that the poll is currently showing 24%, 5 out of 21, people believe a god-of-the-gaps-argument is "valid."

After reading your post I went back and voted 'Yes'. Even though the OP was insinuating the question was 'who supports a stupid argument'.

My only guess is that these five people just don't understand the argument.

I'm the 6th and I understand.

Maybe the following taken from Wikipedia will help.

Usage in referring to a type of argument
The term God-of-the-gaps fallacy can refer to a position that assumes an act of God as the explanation for an unknown phenomenon, which is a variant of an argument from ignorance fallacy. Such an argument is sometimes reduced to the following form:

• There is a gap in understanding of some aspect of the natural world.
• Therefore the cause must be supernatural.

One example of such an argument, which uses God as an explanation of one of the current gaps in biological science, is as follows: "Because current science can't figure out exactly how life started, it must be God who caused life to start." Critics of intelligent design creationism, for example, have accused proponents of using this basic type of argument.

God-of-the-gaps arguments have been discouraged by some theologians who assert that such arguments tend to relegate God to the leftovers of science: as scientific knowledge increases, the dominion of God decreases
source​

Now, first of all, do you know that Wikipedia was hit by a group called Guerilla Skeptics? Here's the link Guerilla Skeptics on Wikipedia

I remember reading about a noted parapsychologist and there was a balanced article about him. I went back a couple of months later and there wasn't a decent word to say about him. 'Caveat Emptor' with Wikipedia.

Now my main point is an 'argument' here is being confused by many with 'proof'. On controversial subjects there can be arguments both for and against.

In this case I think the argument from First Cause and the argument for Design are valid arguments (not proof). The argument against evolution I believe is not a valid argument (too weak). As I said earlier even the great atheist Antony Flew was convinced by the Design argument. Again, don't confuse 'argument' with 'proof'.

The term "God of the Gaps' is a pejorative created by atheists.

 

[Quintessence]

Because in order to show that god exists, you need an argument that is not as equally valid when you replace the god in the argument with the tooth fairy.

I disagree. Then again, there is also nothing I would classify as "doesn't exist." The question to me is never "does X exist" but "in what way do I experience X."