God of the gaps argument

[coolduude]

Hi all,

In a nutshell, the God of the gaps argument tries to refute (among other things) the first cause argument. The theist says that 1) the universe was created and 2) God is it’s creator. The atheist says that this is a God of the gaps argument- something else could have caused the universe, why must it be God?

If I’m wrong here, please correct me

How does one go around refuting the God of the gaps argument as I have described it?

Thanks,
Coolduude

 

[Pieman333272]

Hi all,

In a nutshell, the God of the gaps argument tries to refute (among other things) the first cause argument. The theist says that 1) the universe was created and 2) God is it’s creator. The atheist says that this is a God of the gaps argument- something else could have caused the universe, why must it be God?

If I’m wrong here, please correct me

How does one go around refuting the God of the gaps argument as I have described it?

Thanks,
Coolduude

Its actually a fallacy, not an argument. It is also called the argument from ignorance, appeal to ignorance, or the easy way out fallacy. There are a few ways to refute it:

1. Point out that there are no other plausible theories, or all other theories are metaphysical assumptions, which is actually true in the example of God causing the Big Bang. Note this is rarely convincing or strong, but sometimes works.
2. Present evidence that God did it - such as, for the Design Argument, point out that A) All species are descended from the same common ancestor and B) DNA is too complex to self-assemble from the chemicals alone, even if all are present under proper heat/gravity/pressure/water level.
3. Criticize them for their “science of the gaps” - that they shouldn’t say science will eventually have the answer when there are no current or stable theories besides God. But be careful not to cause a Non sequitur or “two wrongs make a right” fallacies into your arguments as a result.

There are, of course, other ways, but these three are the ones I find myself using (and seeing) most as answers.

 

[lemondiesel]

1. Point out that there are no other plausible theories, or all other theories are metaphysical assumptions, which is actually true in the example of God causing the Big Bang. Note this is rarely convincing or strong, but sometimes works.

The burden-of-proof fallacy lies with you making the claim.

1. Present evidence that God did it - such as, for the Design Argument, point out that A) All species are descended from the same common ancestor and B) DNA is too complex to self-assemble from the chemicals alone, even if all are present under proper heat/gravity/pressure/water level.

A) Didn’t the scientific theory of evolution shake some of the Church’s teachings on creation?

B) Bacteria has been found in our solar system outside of our atmosphere. Are you saying this DNA could not have formed by itself?

1. Criticize them for their “science of the gaps” - that they shouldn’t say science will eventually have the answer when there are no current or stable theories besides God.

Why do you claim that science will not have the answer, yet use its theory of evolution to describe how human beings got here? Are you picking and choosing certain scientific discoveries that fit your claim?

There are, of course, other ways, but these three are the ones I find myself using (and seeing) most as answers.

If you have the answers, then you must be a god yourself then.

 

[coolduude]

A) Didn’t the scientific theory of evolution shake some of the Church’s teachings on creation?

Not really. Here’s what Catholics have to believe about creation:

1 The creation by God of all things at the beginning of time
2 The special creation by God of man
3 Formation of woman from man
4 Unity of the human race
5 The original happiness of our first parents in a state of justice
6 The divine command laid upon man by God to prove obedience
7 Transgression of that command at the instigation of the devil in the form of a serpent
8 The fall of our original parents from their primitive state of innocence.
9 The promise of a future redeemer

If anything, science has helped. Check this out:
how stuff works:

In 1987, a group of geneticists published a surprising study in the journal Nature. The* researchers examined the mitochondrial DNA (mtDNA) taken from 147 people across all of today’s major racial groups. These researchers found that the lineage of all people alive today falls on one of two branches in humanity’s family tree. One of these branches consists of nothing but African lineage, the other contains all other groups, including some African lineage.

*Even more impressive, the geneticists concluded that every person on Earth right now can trace his or her lineage back to a single common female ancestor who lived around 200,000 years ago.

(science.howstuffworks.com/environmental/life/evolution/female-ancestor.htm)

lemondiesel:

B) Bacteria has been found in our solar system outside of our atmosphere. Are you saying this DNA could not have formed by itself?

Can you cite this?

 

[Pieman333272]

The burden-of-proof fallacy lies with you making the claim.

Yes, I know, we’ve been through this like 90 times on this forum. I’m saying the burden of proof lies on them if they push a non-proven theory or metaphysical assumption. If they can’t name anything, they may also claim ignorance, which is BoP free and a sign for you to use a different counter to their fallacy or argument altogether.

A) Didn’t the scientific theory of evolution shake some of the Church’s teachings on creation?

Not that I know of… see Humani Generis on evolution. As long as we believe that God
A) Created the universe (by any means)
B) Ultimately, the humans ended up on earth, and God gave them a soul

B) Bacteria has been found in our solar system outside of our atmosphere. Are you saying this DNA could not have formed by itself?

I’m saying it’s highly improbable, “could not” was a bad choice of words. And even then, we can’t say that means God (should he exist) didn’t cause life or DNA. I would also like to know how far off, as certain conditions could still be traced to earth as the place where DNA originated.

Why do you claim that science will not have the answer, yet use its theory of evolution to describe how human beings got here? Are you picking and choosing certain scientific discoveries that fit your claim?

I’m not saying that, I’m saying atheists shouldn’t say science will one day have the answer, instead they should either claim ignorance (bad idea in a debate) or push a theory/metaphysical assumption, preferably with evidence on their part. If they don’t have a legit explanation besides God, they should say that, even if it gives the theist a chance to strike (note I’m applying this to a debate situation but it can be applied to others too).

If you have the answers, then you must be a god yourself then.

I meant I had responses to the fallacy.

 

[buffalo]

There will always be at least one gap or we would be God.

 

[The_Exodus]

Reductio ad absurdum is a valid form of argumentation, since it follows from the principle of contradiction, and it is what was used by the Aristotlean theologians of the Church for centuries. Modern philosophers (post-Kant) want to say that the principle of contradiction may not apply to things outside the mind, and this is the point atheists are really getting at (even if they don’t know so) when they say that theists are plugging a gap with God, or saying “we don’t know, therefore God did it.”

To give an indepth answer would take a long time, but the short of it is that, if one doesn’t think the law of contradiction applies to reality or “phenomena”, then science and knowledge is impossible, things can be true and not true at the same time, and reality would be totally absurd and intelligible (whether you want to say “in itself” or “to us” makes no difference.) All our words would be meaningless, since they would have no actual correspondence to things which “are” outside our minds. Being itself would be unintelligible and unknowable, and our life would be nothing more than an illusion - Schopenhaur’s “unconscious” or Nietzsche’s “will to power”: an intellect absurdly unfolding itself, not related on any knowable object.

 

[edwest2]

The burden-of-proof fallacy lies with you making the claim.

A) Didn’t the scientific theory of evolution shake some of the Church’s teachings on creation?

B) Bacteria has been found in our solar system outside of our atmosphere. Are you saying this DNA could not have formed by itself?

Why do you claim that science will not have the answer, yet use its theory of evolution to describe how human beings got here? Are you picking and choosing certain scientific discoveries that fit your claim?

If you have the answers, then you must be a god yourself then.

Please stop being silly. Scientists tell us life cannot come from nonlife. Nothing was shaken in the Church. The truth about our first parents stands. Science is incapable of explaining the work of God. No scientists I’m aware of have any practical use for this theory.

God bless,
Ed

 

[reggieM]

Are you saying this DNA could not have formed by itself?

DNA is a code or language. How could it form by itself?

 

[coolduude]

DNA is a code or language. How could it form by itself?

I’ve heard that argument before but I’m fuzzy on the details.

Can you explain it more or show me some resources where I can read about that claim?

 

[Sonoran_Son]

DNA is a code or language. How could it form by itself?

I’m interested to know how DNA is a code or language. I know DNA contains information where information is the observable data of a system.

 

[buffalo]

I’ve heard that argument before but I’m fuzzy on the details.

Can you explain it more or show me some resources where I can read about that claim?

Languages and codes do not appear naturally. They always come from a mind.

They have a sender, a receiver and a key.

 

[lemondiesel]

There will always be at least one gap or we would be God.

Thank you. :newidea:

Can you cite this?

I know this doesn’t look like the most reliable source, but it definitely has the best pictures haha. You can google this though for better reference.
spider.seds.org/spider/Mars/Marsrock/marsrocks.html

Not really. Here’s what Catholics have to believe about creation:

Not that I know of… see Humani Generis on evolution. As long as we believe that God
A) Created the universe (by any means)
B) Ultimately, the humans ended up on earth, and God gave them a soul

Dealing with both of your replies. I didn’t clarify my post. Sure, until recently (within 100 years) evolution has worked with Catholics teachings on creation, but am I correct in assuming that you know it wasn’t always like this? Remember, Clement of Alexandria and Augustine believed in literal interpretations of the Genesis. My point of “shaking” the Church’s teachings was more along these lines. Many theist claim that science is never stable, and it is always changing. Yet when science interferes with biblical teachings, you either
a) accept these theories and change your teachings to incorporate them,
or b) you claim these theories false.
My question is, why is it okay to accept evolution as a plausible theory, but claim that sciences theory of creation false? This is a complete picking-and-choosing method.

Please stop being silly. Scientists tell us life cannot come from nonlife. Nothing was shaken in the Church. The truth about our first parents stands. Science is incapable of explaining the work of God. No scientists I’m aware of have any practical use for this theory.

HAHA, please good sir. Now you are the one who is being silly. Do these scientists work at the Vatican? If every scientist claimed that life cannot come from nonlife, then we wouldn’t have any scientist that were atheist now would we? It is not a debate of life coming from nonlife, it is over whether nonconscious matter can produce a conscious thinking being, like us, and recognize existence.

If it is incapable, then why do some theists believe in evolution? This is science explaining the work of God, meaning how we as humans physically and mentally changed through billions/millions of years of evolution, since the first single celled organism, to the primates. I will stop though, as seeing evolution topics are still banned.

Languages and codes do not appear naturally. They always come from a mind.

They have a sender, a receiver and a key.

Language and codes come from the mind, because these are human made concepts. Patterns appear in nature all the time. We are the ones who influence the genes in DNA due to natural selection. All species are subject to this. I view DNA as a set of all possible physical outcomes, where evolution and natural selection influence which genes are used and which are ‘hidden.’

 

[buffalo]

Language and codes come from the mind, because these are human made concepts. Patterns appear in nature all the time. We are the ones who influence the genes in DNA due to natural selection. All species are subject to this. I view DNA as a set of all possible physical outcomes, where evolution and natural selection influence which genes are used and which are ‘hidden.’

Yes nature contains patterns, but not symbols or codes. Languages always contain symbols, codes and patterns.

The DNA language is the driver for the diversity of life. The language (design and plan) has been breathed bu God.

 

[lemondiesel]

Yes nature contains patterns, but not symbols or codes. Languages always contain symbols, codes and patterns.

The DNA language is the driver for the diversity of life. The language (design and plan) has been breathed bu God.

What symbols and codes are you talking about? Each DNA ‘code’ is just a certain individual pattern.

Our complex DNA is due to the early ancestor discovering new amino acids, which is a by product of metabolism. This is why I believe the earliest DNA was much simplier, and as physical evolution changed, so did the expansion of DNA.

 

[buffalo]

What symbols and codes are you talking about? Each DNA ‘code’ is just a certain individual pattern.

Our complex DNA is due to the early ancestor discovering new amino acids, which is a by product of metabolism. This is why I believe the earliest DNA was much simplier, and as physical evolution changed, so did the expansion of DNA.

And these patterns are called upon to perform certain functions. What is the driver?

 

[lemondiesel]

And these patterns are called upon to perform certain functions. What is the driver?

Survival of the fittest, natural selection.

 

[buffalo]

Survival of the fittest, natural selection.

I don’t think so…

 

[lemondiesel]

I don’t think so…

So are we coming to a disagreement on this issue and just walking away?

I thought we have something going

 

[reggieM]

Survival of the fittest, natural selection.

DNA actually has layers of code. There’s a meta-code, or higher-level code which controls other codes, which control functions.

Now the hard part is having a complex, specified, functional code come into existence by itself.

An information circuit will have a coder and sender, a transmission, a decoder and receiver.

So, DNA code needs a receiver that can decode the instructions and carry out functions from them.

It’s the same with human language. You can create your own language, but you can’t communicate unless others know the code to understand its meaning.