If you present the cosmological or design arguments to skeptics at least a few times, it’s extremely likely that you’ll hear the words “That’s a ‘God of the gaps’ argument.” This objection is rooted in the idea that because a number of things throughout human history have been wrongly attributed to the supernatural activity of God or gods, we can now safely dismiss God as a cause behind anything else we observe. These previous misfires include primitive myths like lightning bolts being signs from Zeus and Thor to the universally admired Isaac Newton positing God as a mechanic to straighten out errant orbits. We later learned that lightning has to do with electrical qualities, while wobbly orbits turned out to be the result of other bodies in orbit around the sun. ¹
So, in the mind of many skeptics, this trumps any theistic argument. Because science has previously found natural causes behind assumed supernatural events, it will do so in the future. “So”, says the skeptic, “you have a gap in knowledge, and you just arbitrarily insert God into the gap.” There are problems with this argument, one being that not all proposed gap fill-ins are equal. As John Lennox discusses here, there are arguments for God’s existence that are based on what we do know, rather than what we don’t.
Indeed, both the cosmological and design arguments rely on the same method of inductive reasoning that the anti-supernatural position relies on. After observing that natural causes have replaced miracles as an explanation for a number of events, the inference is drawn that all events will be explained by natural causes. Likewise, the design argument is based on the observation that complex specified information (such as that found in DNA) has never been shown to originate from anything other than an intelligent mind. The cosmological argument also relies on the same logic, that every time we observe something that comes into existence, there is always a cause behind it.
Well, not exactly. There is one very important difference. The anti-miracle conclusion is not by any means the only obvious or plausible way of interpreting the data. For example, 19th century scholars were often highly skeptical of claims made by ancient historians. However, archaeology has revealed that these historians were correct on a number of doubted claims key. But it would be totally illegitimate to infer that archaeology will vindicate them at every point someday. It just means that they were more reliable than previously thought. Likewise, natural causes to certain events would only show at best that the universe has less supernatural activity than previously believed. The origin of information and the necessity of causality conclusions that belong to their respective theistic arguments also have far more instances of observation, without any reasonable alternative rearing its head.
But in the case of false supernatural claims, there is another alternative that presents itself. To illustrate, let’s ask the question “Does this really tell us more about the universe, or more about humanity?” For example, there are many cases of UFO sightings turning out to involve something more down to earth. Does this tell us anything about what is “out there” in space? No, it tells that humans are curious and prone to believing that aliens do exist. But this has not stopped the search for intelligent extraterrestrial life from being a live area of scientific research. As a total hypothetical, let’s say an alien space craft did land and interact with several people. Once they told others, it is pretty likely that others would start to see moving objects in the sky and jump to unjustified conclusions about them being a sign of alien life. False reports about aliens would be almost certain feature of a universe where they actually have visited earth. False reports could also be a feature of a universe where they don’t exist at all. The existence of false reports doesn’t tell us much by itself. We’d have to decide based on other evidence.
But in the same way, in a universe where God has put a spiritual desire for Himself in the human heart, it is to be expected that some humans would falsely attribute some or even a lot of phenomena to the divine. This is an almost certain feature of what a theistic universe with fallible humans would look like. This by itself doesn’t prove that God exists or acts in the universe, but by itself it also doesn’t point in the opposite direction, either.
One other point is worth mentioning. It wasn’t because of science that people began to disbelieve that Zeus was throwing lightning bolts from the sky. It happened because, unlike paganism, which saw the gods as not being distinct from the creation, Christians saw God as being separate from it. ² There was no need to see a god behind virtually every force of nature.
¹. Wiker, Benjamin. Moral Darwinism, pp. 127-28
². Carroll, Bruce and Shiflett, David. Christianity on Trial. p. 58-59
Brent I would trust your accounting knowledge because you have a actual degree and have experience as a financial analyst because that is your job.
Do you hold any degrees in science or history? Because that is really the topic not accounting. Am I committing a ad hominem by acknowledging you have no training in cosmology or genetics or stating a fact?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
Christianity is product of its time, environment, and culture a man made artifact. There is no reason to think Jesus was a god the same as Mohammad didn’t talk with angel Gabriel, they are both cultural myths take out of their historical context.
Thanks for the vote of confidence in matters financial. 🙂 The issue addressed was not an issue of highly scientific details, but basic logic instead.
If you can show where my reasoning was erroneous or flawed, I’m happy to address that, and rethink and correct, if necessary. Without that, yes, it’s just an ad hominem.
The issues you bring up do deal with science specifically cosmology, evolution, biology and even history. The fact you bring up issues as mentioned your degree in accounting doesn’t cut it.
Cosmological argument if true doesn’t mean it supports your god or your Christian denomination god, it could be other gods, or gods on other planets, but to directly link it to the god you just happen to believe in light of other explanations is a argument of ignorance.
I did not say the cosmological argument by itself establishes that the Christian God exists.
What factual issues was I incorrect about?
I am at a Christian (which denomination?) web site in conversation with a Brent H who has a certificate in Certificate in Christian Apologetics and your not making an argument for the Christian god as the creator of the universe?
>>>What factual issues was I incorrect about?
What facts did you present?
You’re free to read it and respond to something I wrote.
I did not say the cosmological argument by itself establishes that the Christian God exists.
I have a problem with this, what god are you promoting?
Do you ever review the premises under review when you interface with Christian premises being reviewed?
Your premise that “Being Itself” could be something different than “Being Itself” is bizarre, but it’s not the premise under review.
>Your premise that “Being Itself” could be something different than “Being Itself” is bizarre, but it’s not the premise under review.
What are you talking about, no really.
This is argument for intelligent design which is no better than creationism. Are you proponent of either?
Can you tone done your posts? Unless you like enjoy reading feedback, as in “What did you just say?”
As in hit and dodge for a 90th time followed by what college did I go to followed by…..?
No thanks.
Inductive reasoning isn’t a complicated topic. I think that’s why Brent asked for you to point out a flaw in the logic and evidence trail.
No, I think your use of inductive reason is a flat out doge.
I will use this analogy: You argue someone farted in the room, rather than the person who actually did farted.
Its not a complicated subject:
All religions are products of man imagination
Christianity is a religion
Therefore Christianity is a product of man’s imagination.
We have no “God of the Gaps” because we have no gods to examine, therefore this narrative is wash.
Of course there are no gaps — assuming we grant all knowledge of all physical systems, which we’re happy to do, as described earlier.
So you’re both intellectually satisfied with said grant, and done. No?
The Non-Theist’s paradigm sacrifices too much as it is a metaphysic which doesn’t give any options other than various appeals to ontological cul-de-sacs, but there are no such realities. Reasoning included. Perception included. Testimony and evidence included. Such boxes don’t float in midair. We can only say to our Non-Theist friends that, for now, they can only sail on. They may be right – the world may be flat.
[…..as per http://www.str.org/blog/jp-moreland-responds-what-caused-god#.WNt6-jsrJPY and the comment near the end-ish (…as of now…) which opens with, “The “None”, the “Non-“, the Non-Theist and how that segues into the Non-Theist’s assertion that The World Is Flat…..]
This sounds like special pleading.
Zeus is a god a product of Greek culture.
Yahweh is a god a product of Hebrew culture
Thus gods are products of culture.
Of course it sounds like that when you don’t travel far enough downstream, or upstream depending on your perspective.
Really, I have no clue of what you are talking about. What is the motivation for you to replay, knowingly I am not going to understand what your saying?
Well, since you can’t or won’t read, comprehend, and quote the four linked essays, it seems we’re done.
Anything else? If not, thanks for your time.
Seriously did Jesus explain his beliefs like Edward Feser?
Because it really sounds like a modernistic interpretation that is more wordy than necessary.
Thanks for your time as well, have a good night.
Did Feser say he, Feser, is the Truth and the Life? No. Far from it. That such X’s exist bothers you and counts as evidence against the Christian metaphysic. Okay. Got it. So we’re done then? If so, a good day to you too.
Because we have no gods to examine and ideas like the “Cosmological Argument” and “intelligent design” can mean any god, gods from different universe, or even an advanced civilizations.
Christianity has a start date. It has a set geographical location. Christianity has a history not of acts of gods, but acts of people. I think its red herring to argue about events billions of years ago, when the actually events happened less than 2000 years ago. You can’t prove the events 2000 years how are going to prove events billions of years?
Yes, we agree with respect to knowledge of physical systems in the context of the ultimate self-explanatory principle, as alluded to earlier.
So you’re should be content.
What do you mean by physical systems?
What is ultimate self-explanatory principle?
From my past conversation with you, you seem to avoid talking about virgin births and rising from dead events and go off on vague explanations to describe you faith.
You are talking about some religion and because of your use of philosophical language its not all that clear your even a Christian.
Did you read the quoted links earlier? Apparently not. So take a look and then please quote them and show us the problem with your grant.
I am referring to the responses towards me,, I didn’t read responses to other people, my apologies.
PS
What do you mean by physical systems?
What is ultimate self-explanatory principle?
See the four (4) links provided earlier in my comments. Quote them and show us the problem with your grant. We can even use one to cross-reference the other amid 1 ← → 2 ← → 3 ← → 4. What? Reinvent the wheel, or a bigger wheel when the first round-ish thing-y hasn’t been ridden yet? Na…. (….and [2] ….)
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/03/an-exchange-with-keith-parsons-part-iv.html
There are 22 matches for god, but no matches for Christian other than one of the people posting is named Christian. if you were not at a blog written by a Roman Catholic, how would you know this has anything to do with Christianity? Considering some Christians denominations think Roman Catholicism is a cult.
Quote them and show us the problem with your grant. We can even use one to cross-reference the other amid 1 ← → 2 ← → 3 ← → 4.
What am I talking about? Uhmmm….see… the… four…
Again, what are you talking about?
What?
http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/03/an-exchange-with-keith-parsons-part-iv.html
There is 22 matches for god, but no matches for Christian other than one of the people posting is named Christian. if you were not at a blog written by a Roman Catholic, how would you know this has anything to do with Christianity? Considering some Christians denominators think Roman Catholicism is a cult.
No really it has nothing to do with “logic” but science, biology, and history. If you are going to make arguments for the origins of life on earth and the origins of the universe then you should write a paper and have a peer reviewed.
Christianity had a beginning which is historical, not logical. We don’t need logic to figure out the origins of Christianity, we have paper trail. The same as Islam has its own paper trail of its origins.
I am not going to argue against cosmological argument or intelligent design there are better people than me that have accomplished that task better than I ever could.
It seems you don’t feel that your standard applies to yourself. Here you are, making assertions about Christian origins in a comments section on a blog, not writing a paper that has been peer reviewed. And do you have any academic qualifications in any field related to Christian and Islamic origins?
Hi BrentH:
What assertions about Christianity and Islam I am making other these two religions had a start date? Christianity and Islam have no specific start dates? Am I wrong about this that Muhammad started working on the Qu’ran about 610 and Jesus was born at 0002 AD?
I am restating that if you going to discuss the origins of universe (if it has one) and the beginning of biological life on Earth write a peer reviewed paper or this post is just a opinion piece.
What I find odd is you support intelligent design but Rajkumar Richard supports creationism. So which is it creationism or intelligent design?
http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2016/11/18/why-believe-adam-eve-defending-adam-eves-existence/
I ike to ask about this again:
I did not say the cosmological argument by itself establishes that the Christian God exists.
Which god are you advocating for?
What is your denomination?
“Being Itself” has a start date? Please justify that assertion.
You said we could “figure out” the origins, which infers a “how”, not just a “when”.
Let me explain – the cosmological and design arguments are arguments for the God of what is called “Classical Theism” – one who transcends the physical universe. Jews and Muslims have used these same arguments, so BY ITSELF it doesn’t prove Christianity. HOWEVER, there are other arguments to be brought in to argue for Christianity in particular. It’s one piece of the puzzle.
My post was addressing a particular objection to those arguments. I’m not going to continue to engage someone who won’t address my post.
sure, have a great week just the same.
You seem to have missed the point of the “God of the gaps” argument. Please go back and think again. The point is not that previous “God of the gaps” arguments were debunked by science. The point is that any explanation of physical things must be physical, or else it’s empty of all practical application.
To say that Zeus throws thunderbolts does not help us invent the lightning rod or understand electricity. In fact, when you use such a “God of the gaps” argument, the effect is to shut down all attempts to find a practical, physical explanation. We can’t understand God’s infinite mind, so we might as well stop trying to understand lightning bolts. That’s the problem.
By the way, your last paragraph sounds really odd because many Christians today really do believe that God strikes things with lighting. When people stopped thinking Zeus did it, they simply switched over to thinking that the Judeo-Christian God did it.
Description isn’t explanation. Brute Fact. Finally the illusory and the absurd at all “levels”. You’re missing the point entirely. It’s not about missing knowledge of physical systems. It’s about what granting all knowledge of physical systems does not grant.
“But where is your degree!!” Typically what we see from too many of our Non-Theist friends is an evasion of the actual topic at hand (…knowledge of physical systems in the context of the ultimate self-explanatory principle…), such as discussed at [1] http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2013/10/why-is-there-anything-at-all-its-simple.html and also in part at [2] http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2016/02/parfit-on-brute-facts.html and also at [3] http://edwardfeser.blogspot.com/2014/03/an-exchange-with-keith-parsons-part-iv.html (…for context and so on…). Rather than discuss the topic, typically there are all sorts of “changing-of-the-topics” such as asking folks how on earth they have any right to make claims about love and pain as they suffer through the death of their beloved when they — after all — never did get their degree in love and pain. Because degrees matter more than premises and claims made by claim-makers. Oddly, when biologists make reasonable proposals with respect to philosophical questions, the Christian gets it and does not shout, “But your degree on love and pain! Where is it!” Rather, one would hope, the Christian would reply along the lines of this or that reasoned set of premises, and discuss the strengths and weaknesses thereof. Such is a sort of “blog” thing-y.
A bit more from [1] https://www.str.org/blog/are-science-and-christianity-mutually-exclusive#.WQ2e0ojytPY and from [2] http://christianapologeticsalliance.com/2017/01/02/some-atheists-will-never-believe-in-god/
Methodological Naturalism Compels Reason Godward:
Methodological naturalism affirms its own inability to function as ontology. Just keep employing it and it keeps bringing you back to that same humility, and demonstrably so. It actually embraces that humility, while the Non-Theist rejects it. Why? Can physics even in principle qualify as ontology?
Of course not. It is an unfortunate error to go on (as Non-Theists so often do) speaking and arguing “as-if” cosmology and/or physics are convertible with ontology.
Methodological Naturalism teaches us quite a lot in fact. The Non-Theist and Physicist Sean Carroll (rightly) follows “Physics-Full-Stop” out to the painfully “illusory” ends of all syntax as “useful, but not true” is the driving current over in that corner. In short, cosmic absurdity forces an ultimately deflationary truth-value upon all claims upon reality. Given that the only other option to absurdity is God, his move is understandable *given* the sorts of Non-Christian and anti-scientific premises he is working off of. Why anti-scientific? Because he makes the irrational move of speaking “as-if” cosmology / physics are convertible with ontology and when Methodological Naturalism’s humility finally carries Carroll to that “Y” in the road where (on the one hand) it will be *GOD* or else (on the other hand) it will be the reductio ad absurdum (reduction to absurdity), well then Methodological Naturalism has given her testimony – and she rests her case.
1. There is a God.
2. You are not He.
Once arriving there the Non-Theist is found asserting an obviously false dichotomy (…scientism / valid knowledge…). Perhaps he should aim for a “Methodological Scientism” instead. But of course that’s impossible to pull off. Why? Well because first of all, [A] Science can’t detect lots of things and [B] Science can detect lots of things, and, then, second of all, with respect to knowledge both [A] and [B] are employed in all relevant methodologies.
I don’t see a way out for him except absurdity (the cosmically illusory) and/or evasion. As for “Philosophical Scientism”, such is again just as hopeless.
Interestingly, on the Christian’s metaphysic, it is the entirety of logically compulsory moves which in aggregate carry reason (…in her role as truth finder…) into a thoroughly Trinitarian metaphysic. Non-Theists often like to isolate an X within that aggregate and then claim traction against that aggregate – but – because neither reality nor knowledge actually work that way the Non-Theist’s methodological approach there fails.
Perhaps the Non-Theist has some *other* methodological approaches he’d like to try?
Or perhaps he’s just done? He seems to be out of options:
[1] Methodological Naturalism
[2] Philosophical Naturalism
[3] Philosophical Scientism
[4] Methodological Scientism
Hi, John, thanks for your feedback. That previous arguments were debunked, and the number of times that it has occurred, is a popular argument among atheists, and so I was responding to that. Here is a quote from Richard Carrier in that regard –
https://infidels.org/library/modern/richard_carrier/carrier-wanchick/carrier1.html
“The cause of lightning was once thought to be God’s wrath, but turned out to be the unintelligent outcome of mindless natural forces. We once thought an intelligent being must have arranged and maintained the amazingly ordered motions of the solar system, but now we know it’s all the inevitable outcome of mindless natural forces. Disease was once thought to be the mischief of supernatural demons, but now we know that tiny, unintelligent organisms are the cause, which reproduce and infect us according to mindless natural forces. In case after case, without exception, the trend has been to find that purely natural causes underlie any phenomena. Not once has the cause of anything turned out to really be God’s wrath or intelligent meddling, or demonic mischief, or anything supernatural at all. The collective weight of these observations is enormous: supernaturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always lost; naturalism has been tested at least a million times and has always won. answer is obvious.”
As I replied, it only tells us something about people – not the universe.
One of the reasons that science got off the ground was because it was thought, as Johannas Kepler said, that unlocking the secrets of the physical world was thinking God’s thoughts after Him. So God as an explanation is part of why the enterprise was even launched.
I can’t recall ever hearing a Christian attribute a lightning bolt to God, except in a joking manner. Neither have I heard of anyone in church history doing that, either, though I suspect there’s probably one or two. But that’s a far cry from what you claim.
It’s just that Carrier wasn’t talking about the “God of the gaps” argument. It’s a different thing.
I don’t agree. Here is Rationalwiki defining the issue as I do.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/God_of_the_gaps
“The human brain appears to be hardwired to find causes for any “effect” experienced in the world, from eerie sounds, to scary thunder, to terrifying ground shakes, and deadly diseases. Early humans, just beginning to seek explanations for natural things they experienced in their world, found answers by saying those things were caused by gods, or other supernatural figures (like ghosts or witches); many early “gods” are storm gods (such as Thor) or gods of the wind (the kami, in Japan). The very act of birth was apparently seen as magical and godlike.
But as humans explored more, they found naturalistic answers to simple things they once attributed to gods. As humans developed a simplified scientific method, more “gaps” were filled with naturalistic answers. God or the supernatural were no longer needed as an explanation for those items. And finally, as science took hold of humanity’s quest to understand the world, each advance in scientific knowledge reduced the area where a divine power was necessary. Galileo and Newton undid the idea that planetary motion was accomplished through the efforts of angels. Lightning was revealed to be an electrical buildup and discharge in the atmosphere. We learned that earthquakes were shifts in the plates of the Earth’s crust. Even things not yet proven can be shown to have likely or possible natural causes. For example, the discovery by astronomers of organic molecules in space revealed that life on Earth had a possible explanation that did not (necessarily) involve a creator god.”