The God of the Gaps Argument

[leibowde84]

There are just limitation of what "Time" Plus "Chance" can create...

1. The assumption that is made here is a clear use of the God of the gaps argument, and one that the available evidence contradicts. There is no evidence that conclusively shows this "impossibility". It is a mere assumption.
2. Even if this assumption were true, it would not support the argument of God's existence. It would merely show that there is some aspect of the process that is not understood. The "leap" in logic to the necessity of God is unwarranted.

 

[leibowde84]

It is clear that you misunderstood the meaning of The notion "God of the Gaps argument."

There is a difference between what they refer to as a "Gap" in knowledge and what is called impossibility.

There are just limitation of what "Time" Plus "Chance" can create...

It is not an issue of "Gaps" in knowledge...

In fact, there is no plausible or scientific reasoning that would preclude evolution from accounting for life as we see it today. The assumption that we understand the "limitations" of what "time plus chance" can achieve is not only unfounded and contrary to the opinions of virtually all experts in the field, but fills a "gap" in our scientific understanding (namely how time and chance could account for current life-forms) with God. And, on top of that, it ignores the obvious factor that makes it possible ... Natural Selection.

"The worldwide scientific research community from over the past 150 years has discovered that no known hypothesis other than universal common descent can account scientifically for the unity, diversity, and patterns of terrestrial life. This hypothesis has been verified and corroborated so extensively that it is currently accepted as fact by the overwhelming majority of professional researchers in the biological and geological sciences (AAAS 1990; AAAS 2006; GSA 2009; NAS 2005; NCSE 2012; Working Group 2001). No alternate explanations compete scientifically with common descent, primarily for four main reasons: (1) so many of the predictions of common descent have been confirmed from independent areas of science, (2) no significant contradictory evidence has yet been found, (3) competing possibilities have been contradicted by enormous amounts of scientific data, and (4) many other explanations are untestable, though they may be trivially consistent with biological data.

When evaluating the scientific evidence provided in the following pages, please consider alternate explanations. Most importantly, for each piece of evidence, critically consider what potential observations, if found, would be incompatible with a given alternate explanation. If none exist, that alternate explanation is not scientific. As explained above, a hypothesis that is simply compatible with certain empirical observations cannot use those observations as supporting scientific evidence."

 

[McBell]

I asked what you meant by "solid" as it refers to arguments. Your non-answer makes me think it's just a meaningless comment.

I have not the patience to play pigeon chess with you.
i explained the difference between solid and valid.
Your ignoring the difference is on you, not me.

 

[leibowde84]

If a God-in-the-gaps argument invalid, why isn't Chance-in-the-gaps? It's an argument I see atheists use all the time.

I assume you mean the argument that there is a chance that science will some day have a natural explanation for a given mystery. That is a valid claim, as we have no idea what science will be capable of in the future. But, it is a claim, not an argument, unlike the God of the Gaps argument. God of the gaps is a logical fallacy because it erroneously assumes that we know the future limits of science and what it will discover in the future. Your "chance in the gaps" merely points out the FACT that we don't yet know the limits of what science can achieve.

 

[Kartari]

Hi Nous,

Then please provide the evidence that this proposition is false: "All phenomena whose origin cannot possibly be accounted for by an empirical finding are accounted for as the creation of God."

Now you are shifting the burden of proof. The proposition that "All phenomena whose origin cannot possibly be accounted for by an empirical finding are accounted for as the creation of God" is your claim to prove, not mine to disprove. It stands as unsound unless you can demonstrate otherwise.

So you're claiming only P1, not the argument itself, is "circular"? And you're claiming that P1 is both "circular" and false? Please show it. Please explain in what way my P1 is "circular" in a way that P1 of the Socrates argument is not.

Regarding its falsity, I've already shown it in my previous posts:

...as I wrote last time, before your P1 can be accepted as true and your entire argument accepted as logically sound, you will need to demonstrate the truth of (a) God's existence as well as both (b) God's capacity to do what we cannot yet explain and (c) the certainty (certainty, because you wrote "all," not most or some) that God has indeed done so. Simply stating Goddidit is either a case of begging the question or circular reasoning more generally.

Also, as I added in a later post is the most fundamental requisite assumption you are making in your P1:

Indeed, is "God" even a coherent idea? @Nous - You will need to clarify what you even mean by God in your argument to me, as well. God is such a nebulous term that means different things to different people, it fails to denote anything meaningful on its own.

As to being based on circular reasoning, not one person to my knowledge has ever made a single argument for God's existence that couldn't have holes poked into it, usually due to being based either on circular reasoning or begging the question. So you will need to demonstrate the validity and soundness of all the requisite assumptions you made that I have named in my quoted posts before you can validly and soundly assert that, "All phenomena whose origin cannot possibly be accounted for by an empirical finding are accounted for as the creation of God."

BTW, do you have any problem with this argument:

P1: All phenomena whose existence cannot be accounted for as an empirical effect within the closed system of the universe are accounted for as having an extra-empirical origin.
P2: Energy is a phenomenon whose existence cannot be accounted for as an empirical effect within the closed system of the universe.
C: Therefore, energy is accounted for as having an extra-empirical origin.

Yes. Multiple problems: it is another unsound P1. First of all, since there is no evidence of "extra-empirical" existence (and what exactly does that mean?), your premise P1 is unsound. You will need to demonstrate this claim.

Second, do you mean to imply that everything we do not understand empirically today can never be understood empirically? A look at human history clearly demonstrates many who thought we've reached the limits of understanding and who have time and time again been proven wrong. Just because we do not understand something empirically today certainly does not imply we never will empirically.