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?

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #170]

Tanager, I see that you are organizing our discussion into five broad questions, but I want to highlight a critical issue:

Your framework assumes that we are neutrally assessing two equally valid perspectivesone where space-time is fundamentally caused and another where it is an emergent transformation. However, this is not the actual structure of our debate.

You are not simply presenting one possibility among manyyou are making a claim that space-time must have had an absolute beginning.
You have still not demonstrated why space-time should be treated as a distinctly caused entity rather than an emergent feature of transformation.
Your premises assume an absolute beginning rather than proving one.

While organizing the discussion into these five steps might help clarify things, it does not resolve the fundamental issue that your framework is constructed to lead to P4 rather than neutrally assessing possibilities.

I do not deny that conceptual distinctions can be made between different states of realitybut conceptual distinctions do not necessitate ontological divides.

You are subtly shifting the argument by treating a conceptual distinction as proof that space-time must be an ontologically separate entity. But in my model:

Time and space are not distinct entitiesthey are aspects of transformation.
Conceptual labels like "before transformation" and "after transformation" do not imply an absolute beginning. You need to justify why space-time is fundamentally separate rather than simply a changing state from the same eternal reality.

Your attempt to classify space-time as "distinctly caused" relies on assuming a divide that has yet to be demonstrated. You need to provide a reason why space-time must be fundamentally different from what preceded it.

Your analogy misrepresents the core issue.

You describe your model as one where space-time "came from something"but you still have not justified why space-time should be considered a distinct introduction rather than an emergent transformation.

In my model, waves do not "appear" from an external sourcethey are transformations of the same eternal ocean.
You have still not provided a reason why space-time should be viewed as something that "began" rather than a localized expression of an eternal framework.
Your analogy assumes your conclusionthat space-time must have had a beginningrather than proving it.

So again: Why must space-time be treated as a distinctly caused entity rather than a transformation?

You are misapplying Hilberts Hotel.

Hilberts Hotel is a mathematical abstractionit does not prove that reality itself cannot be infinite.
You are assuming that time must be a series of discrete events rather than an emergent aspect of transformation.
I want to make something clear:

There is nothing about my model that requires infinite regress to be a point of critique.

Your argument against infinite regress assumes that my model depends on an infinite sequence of past discrete events, similar to the way the KCA describes the universe in temporal terms. But that is a mischaracterization.

In my model:
Reality is not a sequence of discrete past eventsit is an eternally transforming framework.
Time and causality are emergent features of transformation, not fundamental aspects of reality itself.
Your attempt to critique infinite regress only applies if time is an absolute linear progressionwhich I have already rejected.

Thus, your objection is misapplied. You are critiquing a view I do not hold instead of engaging with the actual framework I have presented.

Thus, trying to force my model into a linear "infinite regress" framework when it already provides a coherent explanation that avoids this issue entirely is unnecessary.

Your five-part framework assumes neutrality, but it is designed to justify your conclusion rather than prove it.
Conceptual distinctions do not necessitate an ontological divide.
Your ocean analogy misrepresents my model by assuming space-time is a distinct introduction rather than a transformation.
Hilberts Hotel is a mathematical abstractionit does not disprove infinite regress in reality.
You still have not justified why space-time must have had a beginning rather than being an emergent transformation.


If your argument is truly sound, then demonstrate why space-time must be fundamentally distinct rather than an emergent aspect of reality. Simply repeating that your premises lead to a conclusion does not justify them. Show why your assumptions should be accepted over mine.

Now I no longer think it fair of me to ask you to provide what no one has ever been able to provide, even that it is my right to do so in relation to debate and claims.

Which is to say I acknowledge your continued avoidance as a symptom of an impossible ask which is why the steady silence and change of tact from you in an effort to salvage the unsalvageable, and I wouldn't expect even Craig to be able to tackle that and bring forth any evidence which would justify the assumption-based beliefs you both have about this.;

What I am interested in though, is getting an agreement with you, re the truthful premises I outlined in my prior post.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #172]

Here were the seven critiques I saw in your post:

W1. Im not demonstrating why my framework is true.
W2. My argument is constructed to be beg P4.
W3. Im offering a conceptual distinction as proof for my framework and they arent proof of ontological divides.
W4. Im offering an analogy as proof for my framework.
W5. My view is something from nothing.
W6. I am misapplying Hilberts Hotel since it is a mathematical abstraction.
W7. Williams AAU framework would not be a linear time and, therefore, argument Q doesnt apply to it.

Here is my defense of everything, with your critiques where they seem to fit:

1. Is there a conceptual distinction between spatio-temporal reality and non-spatio-temporal reality?

My defense was that there is a clear conceptual distinction and that your frameworks talk of transformations assumes this conceptual distinction as well. Critique W3 fits in here:

W3. Im offering a conceptual distinction as proof for my framework and conceptual distinctions arent proof of ontological divides.

This is a complete misunderstanding. I agree conceptual distinctions arent proof of ontological realities and have never claimed they are. The only reason I brought this up is that you used phrasing that questioned the conceptual distinction itself. You probably really meant this as a critique of an actual ontological divide, but your phrasing didnt make that clear and I wanted to cover my bases.


2. What are the logically possible answers to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing"? [rephrased from earlier for better clarity]

Here I offered 3 possibilities:
(a) a state of absolute nothingness followed by the absolute beginning of space-time
(b) a state of something that eternally transforms into space-time
(c) a state of something non-spatio-temporal that brings about the absolute beginning of space-time

I see no logical contradiction in terms here. You seemed to offer no critique on this point.


3. Can something come from nothing? And does this rule out any options from 2?

We both agree something coming from nothing is unreasonable. The two critiques that seem to fit in here:

W4. Im offering an analogy as proof for my framework.

The analogy isn't meant to prove my conclusion; that's not how analogies are used. It is meant to clarify a concept/principle within an argument that is being misunderstood. Since you arent using it for that purpose (but treating it as an argument), Ill drop all attempts at offering an analogy to avoid that source of your misunderstanding.

W5. My view is something from nothing.

Im not sure we mean the same thing by the phrase "something from nothing". I mean it in its traditional sense, where there needs to be a cause for the effect. Do you mean it in a more narrow sense, where you feel there needs to be a material cause (i.e., stuff already present for it to be made out of) for every effect?


4. Does space-time have an absolute beginning?

Here I gave the following argument in favor:

Q1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
Q2. An infinite temporal regress of events (which is what space-time would be) is an actual infinite
Q3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

I then offered reasons to believe Q1 and Q2: First, Q1 would result in logical absurdities (shown by Hilberts Hotel), which could not take place in reality and, therefore, should be rejected. Second, Q2 seems to be a clear description of how spatio-temporal matter works. So, the critiques:

W1. Im not demonstrating why my framework is true.

My Q argument (and the R argument to come) is the demonstration and I've supported every premise. If the premises are true, then the argument is sound and the conclusion is the rational position to take (namely, that space-time has an absolute beginning).

W2. My argument is constructed to beg P4.

I asked for clarification here, since all good arguments are constructed to reach the conclusions of the argument. Q1 and Q2 dont mention anything about an immaterial cause existing, and Q3 follows from those two premises, so how can they be begging P4?

W6. I am misapplying Hilberts Hotel since it is a mathematical abstraction.

Could you clarify the problem you see here? Math tells us what an actual infinite is and, so, we must apply the abstract concept to reality if we are saying an actual infinite could be a reality. And if that reality would lead to absurdities, then it should be rejected as an actual reality.

I will say, though, that even if you think reality can contain such absurdities, the second argument I will offer works even when assuming actual infinites exist in reality.

W7. Williams AAU framework would not be a linear time and, therefore, argument Q doesnt apply to it.

Im sorry I missed you saying your view of time isnt linear. Yes, this would be a good critique of me bringing in the Q argument, if your view really isnt linear and we have good reason to believe this view of time is true.

So, first, help me better understand how your view of time isnt linear. Time is a measurement of change and transformations are changes by definition, even transformations that have been going on eternally. You seem to speak of one change after another. That sounds linear to me. How is your view of time not linear? Is it circular? Does it skip around? What is it, if its not linear?


5. Is the KCA sound?

Here I contested your understanding of P1, saying that even if your model were true, P1 would still be true because it is about the relationship of causality to things beginning to exist, not about if anything actually begins to exist. You said nothing in response.

If Q (or R, which I havent given yet) is sound, then P2 of the KCA is sound. We are currently discussing if Q is sound.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #172]

Tanager, I appreciate that you acknowledge conceptual distinctions do not prove ontological divides. However, you are still treating space-time as a fundamentally distinct entity without justifying why this separation must exist.

My critique was never about whether a conceptual distinction can be madeit was about whether such a distinction reflects reality.
Your framework assumes space-time must have had an absolute beginning as a distinct entity, but you have not justified why this assumption is necessary.
You need to provide a reason why space-time must be fundamentally different from what preceded it, rather than assuming that divide exists.

Until you justify that assumption, your argument does not establish that space-time was "brought into existence" rather than being an emergent transformation.

My critique of your model as "something from nothing" is based on the fact that your framework still requires a fundamental leap in existence.

You claim that space-time "came from something"but what is that something?
If the answer is a non-material cause, then you are assuming your conclusion before proving it.
If the answer is unknown, then your framework is incomplete and cannot claim superiority over mine.

If you are defining "something from nothing" as needing a cause, then you still need to demonstrate why your supposed cause (a non-material reality) should be considered an actual "something" rather than an assumption. Otherwise, your framework is simply inserting an undefined entity to fill a gap.

Your framework avoids the issue of "something from nothing" because you propose a non-material cause. However, this is not a real explanationit is a placeholder assumption.

A supposed "immaterial cause" is functionally equivalent to "nothing" because it has no definable properties that explain how it can cause anything, let alone be anything.
If "immaterial" means it has no physical properties, no structure, and no defined mechanism for interaction with space-time, then functionally, it is no different from nothing.
Simply labeling "nothing" as "non-material cause" does not give it explanatory powerit remains undefined and unobservable.
You are using "immaterial" as a convenient label for an unknown, but without justification for how it operates, it is indistinguishable from claiming that space-time came from nothing.

You keep applying the infinite regress objection to my model as though the AAU requires traversing an infinite past sequence of discrete events. This is a misrepresentation.

The AAU is infiniteit has no "space" and is "timeless."
It does not matter how many transformations occur from the body of the AAU, or whether they involve time or space in some waythis does not make the AAU itself subject to an infinite sequence of past events.
You are treating time as a necessary component of existence, but in my model, time is an emergent feature of transformation, not a fundamental structure of reality.
The "sin" of infinite regress only applies if one must traverse an actual infinite sequence of past discrete events to reach the presentwhich does not apply to an eternal transformative framework.

So again: Why do you keep applying the infinite regress objection to a model that does not require traversing an infinite past sequence?

You are still assuming that time in my model must follow a strict linear sequence like the one described in your framework. This is a misrepresentation.

Time and causality in my model are emergent properties of transformationthey are not fundamental constraints of the AAU reality itself.
Your attempt to critique infinite regress assumes that time must always be a series of discrete steps, but I have already rejected that assumption.
You need to demonstrate why time must be an absolute linear sequence rather than a feature of transformation.

Until you engage with this difference, your argument does not apply to my model at all.

Your argument is structured to force P4even if you do not explicitly mention it in Q1 and Q2.

The entire purpose of the KCA premises 1-3 is to lead to P4the claim that the cause must be non-material.
Your premises are designed to eliminate all possibilities except an absolute beginning, which then allows you to claim an external cause.
Even if you do not mention P4 explicitly in Q1 and Q2, the entire framework is structured to lead to it.

I noticed that you did not engage with my reformulation of the premises, which highlights that they are based on presumption rather than necessity. Instead, you simply restated your position as if my clarification had never been made.

P1 ("Everything that begins to exist has a cause") is only assumed to be trueit is not demonstrated as a necessary reality.
P2 ("The universe began to exist") is also assumed, based on how you frame space-time rather than demonstrating why it must have an absolute beginning.
P3 follows only if the first two assumptions holdwhich I have already challenged.

You claim that even if my model were true, P1 would still holdbut this ignores my actual point. P1 does not state an observed law of reality, only a presumption based on inductive reasoning from limited experience within space-time.

So again: Will you engage with my reformulated premises, or will you continue to avoid addressing whether your original premises are merely assumptions rather than demonstrated truths?

P1: Everything that is presumed to have begun to exist has a presumed cause.
P2: The observable universe is presumed to have begun to exist.
P3: Therefore, the observable universe has a presumed cause.

If you want to argue that your premises do not force P4, then you must demonstrate why P4 does not necessarily follow from your argument. Otherwise, you are just trying to disguise the fact that your conclusion is predetermined by your premises.

Re the overall response above.

It exposes that the KCA argument is structured to force P4, making it assumption-based rather than neutral.
It calls out the failure to engage with my reformulated premises, which undermines the entire foundation of the KCA argument.
It dismantles the misuse of infinite regress and the mischaracterization of time in my model.
It highlights that the "immaterial cause" is indistinguishable from "nothing"forcing the necessity to either define it or admit its just a placeholder.
It challenges the KCA supporters to justify why space-time must be treated as a fundamentally distinct entity rather than a transformation.

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #174]

1. Is there a conceptual distinction between spatio-temporal reality and non-spatio-temporal reality?

My critique was never about whether a conceptual distinction can be madeit was about whether such a distinction reflects reality.

Good, then we are agreed on question 1; there is a conceptual distinction.


2. What are the logically possible answers to the question "Why is there something rather than nothing"?

You have said nothing to disagree with me on this point either.


3. Can something come from nothing? And does this rule out any options from 2?

So far, we both agree that something coming from nothing is illogical.

I clarified that I never offered my analogy as proof for my framework/view. You didn't respond, so I'll gather that means you agree unless you clarify now.

Then I said we need to clarify what we mean by "something coming from nothing". I shared that I meant all effects have causes. I then asked if you meant it more narrowly, in that you mean all effects have material causes. You ignored this (#1)

A supposed "immaterial cause" is functionally equivalent to "nothing" because it has no definable properties that explain how it can cause anything, let alone be anything.
If "immaterial" means it has no physical properties, no structure, and no defined mechanism for interaction with space-time, then functionally, it is no different from nothing.
Simply labeling "nothing" as "non-material cause" does not give it explanatory powerit remains undefined and unobservable.
You are using "immaterial" as a convenient label for an unknown, but without justification for how it operates, it is indistinguishable from claiming that space-time came from nothing.

You have continually made this mistake in our conversations. First off, knowing how something works is not required to know that it works or exists. My kids dont know how medicine works, but they can observe truly that medicine works.

Second, we do have a description of the how. Immaterial does mean it has no physical properties, but that doesnt mean it doesnt have structure. Obviously, it means it doesnt have physical structure, but so what? And immaterial things do have mechanisms for interaction. If it is personal, for instance, it has a will as that mechanism. Immaterial isnt undefined, a label for unknown, and, while it is not physically observable (by definition), it would be illogical with 100% certainty to fault it for that.

Meanwhile nothing (by definition) can have no properties, structure, or mechanism. Therefore, it is clearly functionally different from nothing.


4. Does space-time have an absolute beginning?

A big part of your latest response involved claiming I havent offered reasoning that space-time had an absolute beginning (everything I didn't quote). Save the space and stop repeating this because it is obviously silly. Ive offered reasoning and youve responded to parts of it so, obviously, you know Ive offered a demonstration. If this is another way to simply say you disagree that my demonstration is sound, then save the space and stop repeating this because it is obviously silly; we know you disagree when you respond to my demonstration with critiques.

To reiterate my reasoning:

I offered what I called the Q-argument (just to try to keep arguments straight):

Q1. An actual infinite cannot exist.
Q2. An infinite temporal regress of events (which is what space-time would be) is an actual infinite
Q3. Therefore, an infinite temporal regress of events cannot exist.

You said my argument begs P4 (of the KCA) and I supported why it doesnt by saying that Q1 and Q2 mention nothing about an immaterial cause, so it logically cant be begging P4.

Your argument is structured to force P4even if you do not explicitly mention it in Q1 and Q2.

The entire purpose of the KCA premises 1-3 is to lead to P4the claim that the cause must be non-material.
Your premises are designed to eliminate all possibilities except an absolute beginning, which then allows you to claim an external cause.
Even if you do not mention P4 explicitly in Q1 and Q2, the entire framework is structured to lead to it.

If you want to argue that your premises do not force P4, then you must demonstrate why P4 does not necessarily follow from your argument. Otherwise, you are just trying to disguise the fact that your conclusion is predetermined by your premises.

All arguments work this way. Thats how logic works. You structure an argument so that the premises work together to lead to conclusions. If there are flaws, then you point out the flaws in the individual premises or the logical form of the argument. That's how logic works.

I supported Q1 through the rationality of rejecting anything that results in logical absurdities, such as Hilberts Hotel. You said I was misapplying that and I asked for clarification since all Im doing is taking the mathematical concept for what it claims to be and then noticing the logical absurdities. You ignored this (#2). I then said that even if Im wrong, the R-argument (I havent offered yet) is true even if actual infinites could exist in reality.

I supported Q2 by the regular scientific understanding of space-time. You stated that your framework/view doesnt view time as linear. It seems linear to me because time is a measurement of change and transformation is a type of change, so I asked for clarification.

You keep applying the infinite regress objection to my model as though the AAU requires traversing an infinite past sequence of discrete events. This is a misrepresentation.

The AAU is infiniteit has no "space" and is "timeless."
It does not matter how many transformations occur from the body of the AAU, or whether they involve time or space in some waythis does not make the AAU itself subject to an infinite sequence of past events.
You are treating time as a necessary component of existence, but in my model, time is an emergent feature of transformation, not a fundamental structure of reality.
The "sin" of infinite regress only applies if one must traverse an actual infinite sequence of past discrete events to reach the presentwhich does not apply to an eternal transformative framework.

So again: Why do you keep applying the infinite regress objection to a model that does not require traversing an infinite past sequence?

You are still assuming that time in my model must follow a strict linear sequence like the one described in your framework. This is a misrepresentation.

Time and causality in my model are emergent properties of transformationthey are not fundamental constraints of the AAU reality itself.
Your attempt to critique infinite regress assumes that time must always be a series of discrete steps, but I have already rejected that assumption.
You need to demonstrate why time must be an absolute linear sequence rather than a feature of transformation.

Until you engage with this difference, your argument does not apply to my model at all.

First off, (once again) my Q-argument says nothing against infinite regresses as such. The objection is to actual infinites as a whole, not infinite regresses in particular.

Secondly, I paused on trying to represent your view of time and asked you questions to clarify what your view is (while pointing out how it seems to me to help you see where my misunderstanding may be). You say time is an emergent feature, not a fundamental structure of reality. Okay, doesnt that mean time had an absolute beginning? But that contradicts your view that there are no absolute beginnings. Otherwise, time as time is eternal and can't have emerged at some point as a transformation of something non-temporal. Ultimately, your concept of time is very hazy, so please pin it down more clearly.

For my view, I dont treat time as a fundamental aspect of reality. I dont think it is, either. I believe God existed eternally and then created time, so you are obviously misunderstanding me there. Time is a measurement of change. If there is no change, then no time. See, not a fundamental aspect of reality. You speak of changes, yet no time. That doesnt make sense to me, but if you can provide a coherent model of time that makes sense of this, I'm open.


5. Is the KCA sound?

I stated that even if your framework is true, P1 is still true and that we are still discussing the truth of P2.

You claim that even if my model were true, P1 would still holdbut this ignores my actual point. P1 does not state an observed law of reality, only a presumption based on inductive reasoning from limited experience within space-time.

No, it doesnt ignore your point; it disagrees with it. P1 is not offered as an observed law of reality. Only when combined with P2 does it claim to be an observed law of reality. The reasons I offered for P1 went beyond inductive reasoning (which itself is from the ONLY experience we have within space-time).

I noticed that you did not engage with my reformulation of the premises, which highlights that they are based on presumption rather than necessity. Instead, you simply restated your position as if my clarification had never been made.

P1 ("Everything that begins to exist has a cause") is only assumed to be trueit is not demonstrated as a necessary reality.
P2 ("The universe began to exist") is also assumed, based on how you frame space-time rather than demonstrating why it must have an absolute beginning.
P3 follows only if the first two assumptions holdwhich I have already challenged.

Im sorry, I thought the implications were clear. Your reformulation is built off of the earlier critiques that Im addressing. Since Im rejecting those (and sharing why), I thought it obvious that I was rejecting your reformulations. I think you are wrong in your reformulation of the premises used in the KCA, because they are demonstrated as inferences to the best explanation for the reasons Ive been offering. You have responded to most of the points (although you ignored 2 points, which I marked above).

[Purple Knight]

God of the Gaps is a terrible argument. God of Everything-That-Isn't-a-Gap is a better one. A world that has missing pieces that cannot be explained is the work of randomness or an inferior creator.

If you want the universe to be created by some sort of cosmic McGuyver who has to keep reaching in his pocket for paperclips to keep it working, sure. But that's not the God the Christians posit.

An omnipotent creator can make a watch that continues to tick without his intervention.

I'm not endorsing the fine-tuning argument, however.

[William]

[Replying to The Tanager in post #174]

Tanager, you are still avoiding the core issue.

You have structured your argument in a way that assumes an absolute beginning and a non-material cause, rather than demonstrating them. You are treating P1 and P2 as necessary truths when they are merely assumptions.

You claim that P1 is more than an inductive generalization from space-time experience, but you have not justified this claim. You have only asserted that P1 holds in all cases without evidence beyond our limited observations.

You claim that space-time must have had an absolute beginning, but you have not demonstrated why it must be fundamentally different from what preceded it. Your premises
assume an absolute beginning, but that is precisely what needs to be proven.

You claim that the KCA is an "inference to the best explanation," but you have not demonstrated why your explanation is better than mine. You have only assumed that your premises are justified, rather than showing why they should be accepted over my reformulated premises.

You also continue to ignore the fact that your argument is structured to force P4. You say, "All arguments work this way." But that is exactly the problemyour argument is not neutrally assessing all options. It is designed only to eliminate alternatives so that P4 can be asserted as necessary.

So lets make this simple:

I will not entertain any further tangents or reframing attempts.

I am asking you one direct question: Do you agree or disagree with the reformulated premises?

P1: Everything that is presumed to have begun to exist has a presumed cause.
P2: The observable universe is presumed to have begun to exist.
P3: Therefore, the observable universe has a presumed cause.

This is the real issue. If you agree with these premises, then you are admitting that your argument is based on presumption rather than necessity.

If you disagree, then you must justify why your original premises should be taken as necessary truths rather than assumptions.

Until you engage directly with these three premises, there is nothing more to discuss.

This is the only question you need to answer now: Do you agree or disagree with the reformulated premises? Yes or no?

[The Tanager]

[Replying to William in post #177]

You obviously didn't read my last post fully. I directly said (in the last paragraph) that I rejected your reformulated premises.

[William]

[Replying to William in post #177]

You obviously didn't read my last post fully. I directly said (in the last paragraph) that I rejected your reformulated premises.

This is because I already knew by your persistent stance what it was you were rejecting. Now that you have stated it without those illusionary surrounds, the reader can clearly see your position on the matter.

Thank you for your interaction Tanager. I hope one day soon you might pause to agree that - whether theist or atheist is arguing for the view that something can "actually" come from nothing - the argument is based upon presumption rather than actual factual stuff.

On that note, Go Well my friend.

[William]

Dear Invisible Readers,
First off, I trust that just because you are invisible to me from this position, you do indeed exist and are indeed reading this.
Now, down to businessthe business of peeling back the thin fabric of illusion to reveal what so many are trying to hide or hide from.
Ah, the irony! The fabric of Ism-ism is so thin, so utterly transparent, that it can be considered "non-material." And yet, there it pretends to be, draped around ideas like "logic" and "reason," insisting it is fully clothed.
All that is required from the observer is to acknowledge the illusionand reality shifts accordingly.
________________________________________
Ismism: The Ultimate Mirage
Ism-ism is not a single belief systemits the art of believing in paradoxes while pretending they make sense. It thrives in both The-ism and Athe-ism, wherever people cling to assumptions and call them "truth."

Theisms Squarecircle:
"God is immaterial, but He thinks and acts like a material being."
"God exists outside of time, but also chooses, plans, and createsall temporal actions."

Atheisms Squarecircle:
"Mind is an illusion, but my mind is certain of this."
"Something must have come from nothing, but lets call it a quantum fluctuation so it isnt called God."

The Universal Squarecircle of Ism-ism:
"It just is." The last refuge of those who run out of answers but refuse to rethink their assumptions.
________________________________________
Meanwhile, in Reality

Mind is material. No magic tricks required.

The AAU is eternal. No absurd absolute beginnings needed.

Causality happens within the material. There is no "immaterial realm," no ghost hands pulling the strings.


But of course, exposing these simple truths appears to be "dangerous" to the Ism-ists. The moment they acknowledge that their beloved Squarecircle is logically impossible, the whole mirage crumbles.

And so, they clingdesperately, defensively, and predictably.

But who exactly are they? Are they somehow separate from the "rest of us"? Or do we all, at times, hold onto our own Squarecirclesthose cherished illusions we refuse to question?

Because no matter how hard one tries to dress it up, a Squarecircle is still just a Married Bachelor in fancy clothes.

And Reality? It doesnt require a costume. It simply is.

May all Married Bachelors fade into the non-dust that they are.

Go Well, Dear Readers.

[RBD]

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?

I've never heard of anyone arguing against scientific principle, in order to support their faith.

I've heard of people saying miracles are against scientific principle, and should not be believed.

In any case, the Author of the Bible warns against trusting in miracles, in order to believe the truth.