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?

[The Tanager]

[William]

[The Tanager]

[William]

[The Tanager]

[William]

[The Tanager]

[William]

[The Tanager]

To ensure the definition fully reflects the totality of The Universe, I propose refining it as follows:
The Universe: The totality of all the space, time, matter, energy, the physical laws and constants that govern this reality, and the consciousness or mindfulness that is also an aspect of it.

Including consciousness in the definition avoids leaving out an undeniable aspect of reality and ensures that The Universe is understood as a comprehensive, self-contained totality. Once we agree on this refined definition, I am happy to address your critique regarding causality and the relationship between parts and wholes.

Would you agree to this refinement, or would you like to discuss it further? I think this step is essential to maintain clarity and consistency in our discussion.

I think you are trying to do to much with definitions. Definitions define concepts; they aren't meant to answer questions of existence or non-existence. Unicorns are defined; they don't exist.

For instance, if you are trying to say that consciousness is another instance of all the space, time, matter, etc., that calls for an argument, not a definition. And if you are saying consciousness is a distinct substance/thing, then it needs its own definition and you can still argue for its existence alongside of the spatio-temporal universe as both being parts of all of reality.

[William]