God of the gaps

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Warning: Philosophy Ahead

The other day in another thread, I was accused of (horror) using the God of the Gaps argument. I had made the statement that when considering the very origin of the universe (broadly defined) one has to explain the fact of existence itself. The Syntopicon of the Great Books says this:

"The Greeks, notably Plato and Aristotle, began the inquiry about being. They realized that after all other questions are answered, there still remains the question, What does it mean to say of anything that it is or is not? After we understand what it means for a thing to be a man or to be alive, or to be a body, we must still consider what it means for that things simply to be in any way at all;. . ." "Being" Great Books of the Western World, Vo. 2 (Chicago: Enclyclopedia Britannica, 1952), p. 129

Now, looking at all the options for the reason of the universe's existence (or at least the ones I can think of), we have

1. God
2. the universe itself
3. logic
4. vacuum
5. inflaton field
6. ourselves


These may not be totally independent causes. God could use the vacuum to create the universe, but what we are interested in is the First Cause of the universe, that which in some sense 'always was' although that in itself is a bad term to use because it implies time before the Big Bang.

Let me run through these contenders for the first Cause to illustrate why I do not beleive the question of existence itself is susceptible to the God of the Gaps charge.

With God, the game is very familiar. God zaps something into existence which either leads to our universe through an evolutionary process or God zaps thing after thing into existence created ala a magician, our present world. Science can not ask God to step into the lab and be tested so this option, if true, is beyond science.

The Universe

The universe itself might be an odd way for a creation, but Hawkings No-Boundary proposal for the universe posits that there are no temporal boundaries either. The universe always has been and there are no singularities. Hawkings writes:

Stephen Hawking said:
“What is the point of introducing the concept of imaginary time? Why doesn’t one just stick to the ordinary, real time that we understand? The reason is that, as noted earlier, matter and energy tend to make space-time curve in on itself. In the real time direction, this inevitably leads to singularities, places where space-time comes to an end. At the singularities, the equations of physics cannot be defined; thus one cannot predict what will happen. But the imaginary time direction is at right angles to real time. This means that it behaves in a similar way to the three directions that correspond to moving in space. The curvature of space-time caused by the matter in the universe can then lead to the three space directions and the imaginary time direction meeting up around the back. They would form a closed surface, like the surface of the earth. The three space directions and imaginary time would form a space-time that was closed in on itself, without boundaries or edges. It wouldn’t have any point that could be called a beginning or end, any more than the surface of the earth has a beginning or end." Stephen Hawking, Black Holes and Baby Universes and Other Essays, (New York: Bantam Books, 1993), p. 82-83


Now, what this does is posit eternal existence to the universe itself and does away with the Big Bang. But, why does it EXIST? What logic requires such a self-contained universe to actually exist rather than absolutely nothingness be the case? Science can't seem to answer that and it seems very difficult to construct an experiment to address that question. Lacking such an experiment, it seems to me that we have gone outside of science when we address the existence of Hawking's no boundary universe. But even if his view is accepted, one must posit god-like properties to his universe--the property of self-existence, self-creation, and eternal life. This proposal actually tries to avoid explaining existence.

Logic

This concept comes to my mind from an article I read in New Scientist a couple of years ago (Feb 17, 2001, p. 26). Anton Zeilinger has proposed that at the basis of all reality is the bit. The article, entitled 'In the Beginning was The Bit,' argues that the world is quantized because reality is informational bits, the atom of information is the bit. WE can only inquire of the world in yes or no questions. Now to my mind, existence itself is also binary. Either one exists or one doesn't exist, yes or no. And if that is the case, then one could propose that we exist because the answer came up yes. But one must then ask, why would the entire mechanism of a yes-no logic exist out of which came the answer 'yes'? How could logic exist when all else was nothingness? So once again, we are at the point of having to postulate god-like attributes to something other than God in order to have existence. Logic must have been always self-existing, self-created and had the ability to create.

The Vacuum

This is the view that the universe is created by a quantum fluctuation in the pre-existing vacuum. Edward Tryon says:

Edward Tryon said:
“If it is true that our universe has a zero net value for all conserved quantities, then it may simply be a fluctuation of the vacuum, the answer to the question of why it happened, I offer the modest proposal that our universe is simply one of those things which happen from time to time.” Edward P. Tryon, “Is the Universe a Vacuum Fluctuation?” Nature, 246(1973):396-397, reprinted in John Leslie, ed., Modern Cosmology & Philosophy, (Amherst: Prometheus Books, 1998), p. 224

But Tryon's answer is incomplete. In his view the universe would exist because the vacuum existed previously. But one must then ask why the vacuum existed? What logic requires it to be here rather than be NOT HERE? One can see quickly that godlike properties have to be attributed to the vacuum. It must exist eternally, it must be self-creative, it must be capable of creating our universe. Once again, we have something incredibly godlike but we dare not call it god.

Alexander Vilenkin has proposed a universe which comes out of nothing and it is an extension of Tryons idea. He has it start with no matter and no space or time. But he can't do without the existence of equations which somehow have the power to actually cause what Vilenkin's theory says. In other words, Vilenkin has to start with the existence somehow of logic and math. In what substrate is the INFORMATION encoding these equations held when there is no space, no time and no matter. Information requires matter (Rolf Landauer, “Information is Physical,” Physics Today, May 1991, p. 24). So where was the equation residing and how was it put into play? Why this equation and not another one? Vilenkin really doesn't start with absolutely nothing because equations and logic are actually something. In order to solve the problem one must start with absolutely nothing--no equations, no logic, no space, no time, no vacuum etc ad nauseum.

The inflaton field

This is not that much different from the Vacuum and the arguments will be much the same. Alan Guth proposed that an inflaton field creates universe after universe in cosmic eternity and we are just one of those universes. But there are lots of problems with the idea.

=Joao Maguijo said:
”However, inflation is not yet fact; it still awaits experimental confirmation. As I pointed out before, no one has ever seen an inflaton, the field that supposedly drives inflation. Until we do, there is a market for alternative ways to solve these riddles, and scope for much childish bickering among cosmologists.” Joao Magueijo, Faster than the Speed of Light, (Cambridge: Perseus Publishing, 2003), p. 132

And, one must still ask why did the inflaton field exist? Is it the ultimate god-like thing possessing self-creation, eternal existence and magnificent creative powers? Why does it exist and how does science address that simple question. I know of no way to address the question of existence via science at all.

Ourselves.

This comes from the need for an observer in the Copenhagn interpretation of quantum. The universe exists because we observe it to exist. I doubt there are many adherents to this view and I find it odd to place mankind in the place of god, but given that science can't even explain the existence consciousness and self-awareness, much less even define it, we have to list this only for completeness sake. To take this option makes us observers the godlike beings with properties of self-creation. And that is not a view I will hold. But once again, I know of no scientific test one could possibly use to determine if that is true or not. Why do we exist?

In this brief survey it is clear that whatever road we take, we must posit godlike properties to something. Even self-creating universes become godlike in the traditional sense of that word.

Is there a science experiment which will distinguish between the above options when it comes to existence itself? I can't think of one. In order to do it one would have to start with a lab full of....utterly nothing and then try each of the above options to see which one turned utterly nothing into something. And that is impossible to do.

So where does science get us? If you define science as the positivists did, then science is only what we can observe, then our science does not allow us to observe things very close to the origin of the universe. I know we have lots of mathematical theories going back to those times but we have no verification. The cosmic microwave background allows us to see the universe only back to the decoupling era, when electromagnetic radiation and matter decoupled and atoms were able to form. This is about 300,000 years after the Big Bang (Silk, Big Bang, 3rd ed. p. 163). While we think we know what happened before that, we actually have no observations from astronomy.

But we do have evidence from particle physics. The collisions of particles in the upcoming Large Hadron Collider will take us back to 10^-15 seconds after the Big Bang. But there it stops. It is highly unlikely that we will ever build an accelerator big enough to probe the big bang itself.

“At earlier times and higher energies, the temperature increases continuously back to the Planck instant, where it attains the incredible value of 10^32 kelvins. For physicists who ordinarily work with giant particle accelerators, such conditions are unattainable. The corresponding energy is 10^19 gigaelectron volds (giga- billion): the largest planned terrestrial accelerators may smash particles together at energies of thousands of gigaelectronvolts. The early universe offers a marvelous particle accelerator: we would need to build an array of superconducting magnets 1 light-year across to duplicate it.” Joseph Silk, The Big Bang, 3rd ed. (New York: W. H. Freeman 2001), p. 110


Now, given that we will always have this observational gap and given that science can not possibly explain why things exist without positing god-like powers to something and given that one can't have a lab full of nothing to test the efficacy of various theories for our existence, this question is entirely outside of science.

If this question of existence is outside of science, then it can't be a God-of-the-Gaps argument. That argument is when someone says something like: Flowers can't grow therefore God does it. In such a case science has the possibility of answering how flowers grow. But in the case of existence itself, science has NO opportunity to answer the question and that means, NO God-of-the-gaps is involved here. THe gaps refers to gaps in scientific knowledge, but existence itself is not a scientific question. The question of how the universe possesses existence itself is an open question which leaves one free to chose his favorite poison.
 

Physics_guy

Well-Known Member
Dec 11, 2003
1,208
66
✟1,687.00
The question of how the universe possesses existence itself is an open question which leaves one free to chose his favorite poison.

Certainly does, but it also means that saying one is any more rational than any other is simply wrong.

The only truly truthful and rational answer is simply: "We don't know." Now, of course, we can all have beliefs.

I will say though that is gets sticky where one draws the line. Cosmology has a habit of jumping over that line. Right now, our scientific models are shrouded as we approach Planck Time, but that may not be the case forever. A cogent theory of quantum gravitation may take us back quite a bit further and may give us a much clearer view on how the Universe formed. Of course, God can remain safely outside that box because even if there are an infinite number of baby universes being born thoughout an infinite multiverse, that doesn't mean that such a situtation was just not the way God created.
 
  • Like
Reactions: USincognito
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Bargainfluger said:
Curiosity is killing me. Mr. Morton, why are half of all of your posts in one font, and the other halves are in a completely different one?

Cause I have a database of information I pull things from. Some of them are in different fonts in Word. Sorry for the bother, I should finish the post and then change the font, but I didn't and don't often.
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Physics_guy said:
Certainly does, but it also means that saying one is any more rational than any other is simply wrong.

The only truly truthful and rational answer is simply: "We don't know." Now, of course, we can all have beliefs.

I will say though that is gets sticky where one draws the line. Cosmology has a habit of jumping over that line. Right now, our scientific models are shrouded as we approach Planck Time, but that may not be the case forever. A cogent theory of quantum gravitation may take us back quite a bit further and may give us a much clearer view on how the Universe formed. Of course, God can remain safely outside that box because even if there are an infinite number of baby universes being born thoughout an infinite multiverse, that doesn't mean that such a situtation was just not the way God created.

Two things. A cogent theory without empirical input will be just that. One can make mathematics postulate anything at all, but without a means of actually comparing the theory with observation, one is beyond science.

As to what is the proper response to the conundrum at the beginning, it is true that we don't know. But it is equally true that humans, like you or like me, will prefer to BELIEVE one or another of the possibilities. Unless you are trying to say that no one has a right to believe what they want when there are no answers (which would not be very democratic), then there is absolutely nothing wrong with chosing a preferred position so long as one doesn't then act like it is a demonstrable fact.

This last point is why it is wrong for someone to say or act like it is a fact that there is no God. The same goes for the theist. He can't say he has proof of God either. At the end of the day we are presented with a deep mystery and the only consistent thing about all the possibilities is that we must postulate something god-like at the root of it all, whatever that something is. And that is something that we DO KNOW. Whatever started it all, has to be eternal, self-created, and have the power and information to create a universe like ours. There is no 'I don't know' about this part of the issue.This we clearly know. If this pre-existing thing was not eternal, then how did it come into being? If this thing didn't have the power to create the universe, how did it come into being? These traits are bedrock and derivable from the information at hand. I prefer to call that pre-existing entity God. You might want to call it something else, but telling me that I have to say 'I don't know' misses the whole point.

Science and theology are on equal footings when it comes to the most basic question of all--why do we actually exist?. And this equal footing is often overlooked by some anti-theists who argue that science has disproven the need for God (i.e. Dawkins).
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
grmorton said:
But in the case of existence itself, science has NO opportunity to answer the question and that means, NO God-of-the-gaps is involved here. THe gaps refers to gaps in scientific knowledge, but existence itself is not a scientific question. The question of how the universe possesses existence itself is an open question which leaves one free to chose his favorite poison.

How do you figure that Glenn?

Even if science really cannot ever know how the universe was formed, does not mean you are free to make up whatever you like. Before todays science, many things werent knowable to ancient science. They used god of the gaps logic too but by your logic you are saying that was logically justified. In other words, how is it different? How is it not god of the gaps?

Ed
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Edx said:
How do you figure that Glenn?

Even if science really cannot ever know how the universe was formed, does not mean you are free to make up whatever you like. Before todays science, many things werent knowable to ancient science. They used god of the gaps logic too but by your logic you are saying that was logically justified. In other words, how is it different? How is it not god of the gaps?

Ed

The term God of the GAps refers to putting god into a gap in scientific knowledge, where that gap can later be closed by science, causing God to retreat further. Since the means by which the universe obtained existence, can not be determined by science, it is not a gap in the usual sense. Science has no capacity for determining how existence came to be. Thus it is not in a temporary gap in science's knowledge, it is a fundamental failure are for science. Now, if you can provide a means by which the scientific method can determine how the universe obtained existence, I would be glad to hear about it. If you can't, I would say it bends my direction that this is not a gap in science's knowledge or program at all.


Now, the term 'formed', is not the term I used. We know how the universe formed--big bang, evolution etc. We don't know how it obtained existence. One must be very careful in terminology or one will get all balled up. My point in all this is that whatever was the first cause of the universe, it had to be self-created (or existent), have the informational content to create what we see, it had to have the power to create what we see, it also had to have somehow the mathematical logic which appears in the world, unless one presumes that logic itself came into existence at the big bang. To start with absolute nothingness, no time, no space, to logic, no math, no matter and then end up with something--a vacuum, an inflaton field, a HIggs particle, whatever, is the deepest mystery of all.

And it isn't making it up to say that whatever it was which pre-existed had self existence/self creation, power, information and maybe math/logic. This last two things, information/math/logic is really interesting in my mind. INformation in this world requires matter. This was Rolf Landauer's big insight--Information if physical. If you want to store information (Shannon's definition), you need to manipulate particles. Computers use a few thousand electrons for a bit. Quantum computing will reduce that to one particle per qubit. But the same thing applies, information requires matter. And mathematics and logical formalism IS information. So, prior to when we had matter that could be arranged to store information, how were the equations which governed the vacuum/inflaton field/whatever stored? Absolute nothingness stores absolutely nothing. Given all this, why is it verboten to say that something like the pre-existing is not too far from our conventional concept of at least the deist's god? I didn't make up those concepts, the theologians did and logic leads us to them again.
 
Upvote 0

AnEmpiricalAgnostic

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany
May 25, 2005
2,734
186
49
South Florida
Visit site
✟11,486.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
Firstly Glenn, I agree with everything you are saying. Secondly, welcome to agnosticism. ;)

Obviously I kid as I agree that we are free to each have our own beliefs as long as we don't try to push them on others as fact, but to me this is the same line of rationale that led me to agnosticism. I don’t feel inclined to “believe” anything without proof. And since it looks like there will never be that proof, I will remain agnostic to the bitter end. :thumbsup:
 
Upvote 0

USincognito

a post by Alan Smithee
Supporter
Dec 25, 2003
42,058
16,810
Dallas
✟870,741.00
Country
United States
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Private
grmorton said:
...But, why does it EXIST?

Great OP. I agree completely with the gist of it. The God of the Gaps theory serves no other purpose than to eventually diminish God's magisterium on his creation. It's ironic that Creationists posing as IDers profess the former in order to do the opposite of the latter, while doing the latter without realizing it.

The reason I quoted the particular sentence I did was to note something all of us on the evolution side regardless of perspective have known all along - Evolutionary theory doesn't address the "why" or any other philisophical issue about the Universe, the Earth, Life, Humans, etc. It only addresses the mechanics of what's going on... not the purpose. That is the perview of philosophy, not science.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:
Firstly Glenn, I agree with everything you are saying. Secondly, welcome to agnosticism. ;)

Obviously I kid as I agree that we are free to each have our own beliefs as long as we don't try to push them on others as fact, but to me this is the same line of rationale that led me to agnosticism. I don’t feel inclined to “believe” anything without proof. And since it looks like there will never be that proof, I will remain agnostic to the bitter end. :thumbsup:

Oh man, I got a big kick out of this reply!:p Thanks for the laugh, I needed it after the last 24 hours in which someone has called me lots of bad names.
 
Upvote 0

Bargainfluger

Playin' in Joes Garage
Sep 14, 2004
1,353
99
MD
✟1,946.00
Faith
Atheist
grmorton said:
Cause I have a database of information I pull things from. Some of them are in different fonts in Word. Sorry for the bother, I should finish the post and then change the font, but I didn't and don't often.
Ah, I figured you were working from something larger. Don't worry about changing fonts. They are still perfectly legible. Thanks for the response.
 
Upvote 0

Edx

Senior Veteran
Apr 3, 2005
4,626
118
✟5,474.00
Faith
Atheist
grmorton said:
The term God of the GAps refers to putting god into a gap in scientific knowledge, where that gap can later be closed by science, causing God to retreat further. Since the means by which the universe obtained existence, can not be determined by science, it is not a gap in the usual sense. Science has no capacity for determining how existence came to be. Thus it is not in a temporary gap in science's knowledge, it is a fundamental failure are for science.

It may be true that determining how existence came to be is impossible, but it certainly isnt a given. If we are talking realistically, then you are probably correct. If you are talking theoretically, then stating something so absolute is wrong.

God of the gaps refers to gaps in scientific knowledge, yes. However if it were true, hypothetically speaking, that "determining how existence came to be" really is impossible then what we should be saying is "we dont know". You can have all kinds of beliefs you want, but it doesnt mean you arent using the god of the gaps argument if that is what you are doing. In ancient times they had no understanding of the universe as we do now, that is why they created all these fancifull tales of warring deties and that theirs was the cause and reason for the human condition. They put god where their ignorece lay. Your ignorence, as is everyones, is in what caused the universe to come into being. You too put god where your ignorences lies. You put god in that dark empty space you wish you could fill with something.

That is also still god of the gaps. In other words inventing things such as God to explain the universe does not mean it doesnt fall under god of the gaps, since it does not matter IF it will ever be possible to scienticially know, but mearly that there is a gap of knowledge in the first place.

Now, if you can provide a means by which the scientific method can determine how the universe obtained existence, I would be glad to hear about it. If you can't, I would say it bends my direction that this is not a gap in science's knowledge or program at all.

See above. God of the gaps is to do with "gaps", it doesnt rest of if its impossible to ever know scientifically what fills that gap or not. What it does rest on is if there is a gap to be filled. The existence of the universe is a mystery: a gap. If it remains that way long after humans are gone, it matters not. If it really is impossible to ever know, it matters not. What matters is its a gap, and rying to fill it with a "god" is still "god of the gaps".

Now, the term 'formed', is not the term I used. We know how the universe formed--big bang, evolution etc. We don't know how it obtained existence. One must be very careful in terminology or one will get all balled up.
Yes sorry, that is what I meant.

And it isn't making it up to say that whatever it was which pre-existed had self existence/self creation, power, information and maybe math/logic. This last two things, information/math/logic is really interesting in my mind.

Perhaps not, as long as it has sound argument for it. But aside from Quantum Mechanics there is no real way of really knowing, at least none at this time.

--snip--

I didn't make up those concepts, the theologians did and logic leads us to them again.

And thats the point isnt? Theologians have traditionally been very bad at determining truth outside the scientific method.

And logic is a funny thing. Philosophy requires it, and with philosophy you can logic you way anything into existence, compete with perfectly logical explanations of every aspect, and every variable accounted for. The problem using logic this way is really its an abuse of logic. You can create invisible beings, Matrix style computer generated universes, or even the universe being created last week and our memories implanted afterwards. And that is the underlying issue with calling logic in on this. Internally consistent arguments for just about anything are certainly possible and perfectly logical valid, except if it wasnt for the fact that it wasnt complete and total nonsense.

Ed
 
Upvote 0

spanner365

Active Member
Apr 18, 2005
94
3
42
✟15,224.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Single
grmorton said:
To start with absolute nothingness, no time, no space, to logic, no math, no matter and then end up with something--a vacuum, an inflaton field, a HIggs particle, whatever, is the deepest mystery of all.

(Bolded mine)

But this couldn't have happened. Without time there could be no before or after. Thus it is meaningless to say we started with nothing and then later there was something. There is no "before" the universe. The universe just is. This is what Stephen Hawking meant when he said that asking what was before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole. (I think that is what he said anyway).
To the question of "why is there something rather than nothing" I ask you "Why not?" What reasoning can you give me that proves that "nothing is more likely than something"? We both probably have the gut feeling that nothing is more likely but this is not enough.
This feeling and the fact that we are ignorant leads us to posit a deity to explain away the fact that there is something. We think by giving him supernatural powers we have explained something. But we haven't. It is no more likely that a supernatural being just is than it is that the universe just is.
 
Upvote 0
J

Jet Black

Guest
grmorton said:
The other day in another thread, I was accused of (horror) using the God of the Gaps argument. I had made the statement that when considering the very origin of the universe (broadly defined) one has to explain the fact of existence itself..........

do we? is it even possible to do so? that said though, I don't think that GOTG is the right counterargument. a more appropriate problem you are faced with is something along the lines of Gödel's incompleteness theorem, or just plain old question begging.

Furthermore, although you repeatedly make the point that the inflation field or whatever has these "God like qualities" you are not faced with a problem - these things first of all are not independent of the universe, they are in a very real sense, the universe, just described in a way we do not fully understand yet. Furthermore, these things are about as caring as the universe. we do not attribute fields with being sentient, loving their creation, and impregnating virgins with babies in order to alter the flow of some society on a little speck of rock, three out from an insignificant star in an insignificant galaxy in an insignificant cluster of some quiet little backwater spot of the universe. To me, those other qualities of sentience and love are somwhat superfluous. yeah sure we can say that "if something caused the universe to be" then it must share quantities with God, but those would be a minimal set. you have to explain all the other qualities and why they have to be before you can "choose your favourite position"
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums

AnEmpiricalAgnostic

Agnostic by Fact, Atheist by Epiphany
May 25, 2005
2,734
186
49
South Florida
Visit site
✟11,486.00
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Libertarian
grmorton said:
The term God of the GAps refers to putting god into a gap in scientific knowledge, where that gap can later be closed by science, causing God to retreat further. Since the means by which the universe obtained existence, can not be determined by science, it is not a gap in the usual sense. Science has no capacity for determining how existence came to be. Thus it is not in a temporary gap in science's knowledge, it is a fundamental failure are for science.
I have given your OP much consideration and have come to the conclusion, imho, that there is a minor flaw in your reasoning. I see Ed touched on this, but I wanted to put it into my own words. I was thinking about why it is that the same line of reasoning has let us each to such different paths (theistically speaking). I think the fundamental flaw is that you are singling out science. Once science is not the focus of the gap then you will realize that we are still dealing with a gap albeit a regular old gap of knowledge. Imho, man has been to quick to fill these gaps with god. Even if something is unknowable why should I feel compelled to fill the void of knowledge with god? Like the dog that will never comprehend higher mathematics, we may never comprehend the ultimate truth about how the universe exists. But you know what? I’m okay with that. Assigning the lack of knowledge with god would seem akin to asserting that god pulls the sun across the sky each day because I don’t understand how else it can happen.
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Edx said:
It may be true that determining how existence came to be is impossible, but it certainly isnt a given. If we are talking realistically, then you are probably correct. If you are talking theoretically, then stating something so absolute is wrong.

So are you saying that it is possible to start with a lab full of utter nothingness and perform experiments on it? Come on.

God of the gaps refers to gaps in scientific knowledge, yes. However if it were true, hypothetically speaking, that "determining how existence came to be" really is impossible then what we should be saying is "we dont know". You can have all kinds of beliefs you want, but it doesnt mean you arent using the god of the gaps argument if that is what you are doing. In ancient times they had no understanding of the universe as we do now, that is why they created all these fancifull tales of warring deties and that theirs was the cause and reason for the human condition. They put god where their ignorece lay. Your ignorence, as is everyones, is in what caused the universe to come into being. You too put god where your ignorences lies. You put god in that dark empty space you wish you could fill with something.


No, given that every single option leads us to a thing which has self-existence/ self-creation, power, information and logic/mathematics, it is ignoring the data to say that that isn't something godlike.

I am going to push a bit more on the information and logic/mathematics end. If we start with utter nothingness, no equations, no logic, no time, no matter, how is it possible for utter nothingness to decide to put into play a large equation in which is embedded the tensor for the four fundamental forces as we know them today. This is what utter nothingness had to be able to generate, if there is not something back there with mind capable of generating such things:

Einstein..|.M|.........|
..........|.A|Yang-....|Quarks
..........|.X|.Mills...|&
..........|.W|.........|Leptons
..........|.E|.........|
..........|.L|.........|
..........|.L|.........|
-----------------------|
Maxwell...|..|.........|
-----------------------|
.............|.........|
Yang-Mills...|.........|
----------------------------------
.Quarks................|
.&.Leptons.............|




The Einstein part of the equation is the gravitational tensor, the Maxwell part is what Kaluza and Klein added to that to incorporate electromagnetism. The Yang-Mills part is what comes out of particle physics. Utter nothingness put into play an equation which somehow embedded this equation? Why this equation rather than another? How does utter nothingness generate anything at all? And you say it is possible to experiment on utter nothingness or to do theoretical physics on utter nothingness? Even an utter nothingness devoid of equations and logic itself? Tell me of this miracle!


That is also still god of the gaps. In other words inventing things such as God to explain the universe does not mean it doesnt fall under god of the gaps, since it does not matter IF it will ever be possible to scienticially know, but mearly that there is a gap of knowledge in the first place.

Once again, it isn't inventing this godlike thing if all roads lead to a thing with those qualities. It is following the logic. Was the vacuum self-existent? How do you know? But all physics starts with something. No physics starts with utter nothingness Tell me the equation for utter nothingness--it is a contradiction in terms to ask that.



See above. God of the gaps is to do with "gaps", it doesnt rest of if its impossible to ever know scientifically what fills that gap or not. What it does rest on is if there is a gap to be filled. The existence of the universe is a mystery: a gap. If it remains that way long after humans are gone, it matters not. If it really is impossible to ever know, it matters not. What matters is its a gap, and rying to fill it with a "god" is still "god of the gaps".


The earliest usage of the term God of the Gaps, that I have ever seen, comes from a book Henry Drummond
_Ascent of Man_, (New York: James Pott & Co. Publishers, 1894), p. 333. He says


"There are reverent minds who ceaselessly scan the fields of Nature and the books of Science in search of gaps--gaps which they will fill up with God. As if God lived in the gaps? What view of Nature or of Turth is theirs whose interest in Scince is not in what it can explain but in what it cannot, whose quest is ignorance not knowledge, whose daily dread is that the cloud may lift, and who, as darkness melts from this field or from
that, begin to tremble for the plae of His abode? What needs altering in such finely jealous souls is at once their view of Nature and of God. Nature is God's writing, and can only tell the truth; God is light, and in Him is no darkness at all.

"If by the accumulation of irresistable evidence we are driven -- may not one say permitted-- to accept Evolution as God's method in creation, it is a mistaken policy to glory in what it cannot account for. The reason why men grudge to Evolution each of its fresh claims to show how things have been made is groundless fear that if we discover how they are made we minimize their divinity. When things are known, that is to say, we conceive them as natural, on Man's level; when they are unknown, we call
them divine--as if our ignorance of a thing were the stamp of its divinity. If God is only to be left to the gaps in our knowledge, where shall we be when these gaps are filled up? And if they are never to be filled up, is God only to be found in the disorders of the world? Those who yield to the temptation to reserve a point here and there for special divine interposition are apt to forget that this virtually excludes God from the
rest of the process. If God appears periodically, he disappears
periodically. If he comes upon the scene at special crises he is absent from the scene in the intervals. Whether is all-God or occasional-God the nobler theory?"


I bolded one sentence. If that can not ever be filled by science because science is fundamentally unable to fill it, in what way is it a gap in knowledge provided by science as discussed in the rest of the passage? NOw, IN some sense, we are both playing a bit of a semantics game. The typical colloquial use of God of the gaps involves things like flagellum. Evolution can't explain the cells flagellum therefore God must have created it. But in the case of existence, no science will ever explain that event. You can kid yourself that it will, but given that practically we will never even probe the earliest moments of the Big Bang because it would take an accelerator a lightyear in diameter, how on earth are you going to probe back before that?


As to making it up you wrote:


Perhaps not, as long as it has sound argument for it. But aside from Quantum Mechanics there is no real way of really knowing, at least none at this time.

Thanks for this.

And thats the point isnt? Theologians have traditionally been very bad at determining truth outside the scientific method.

So is this an argumentum ad past failure? Because they have been bad in the past, they will be bad on everything? My point was that they came up with the traits of the first cause and modern scientific knowledge can't seem to top what they did.

And logic is a funny thing. Philosophy requires it, and with philosophy you can logic you way anything into existence, compete with perfectly logical explanations of every aspect, and every variable accounted for. The problem using logic this way is really its an abuse of logic. You can create invisible beings, Matrix style computer generated universes, or even the universe being created last week and our memories implanted afterwards. And that is the underlying issue with calling logic in on this. Internally consistent arguments for just about anything are certainly possible and perfectly logical valid, except if it wasnt for the fact that it wasnt complete and total nonsense.

Ed

I would agree with you Ed if you could provide a single empirical test for anything prior to 10^-43 sec after the Big Bang. There is no empirical/observational data for you to check the logic. All we have is logic for this.

And indeed, logic is a funny thing. Where did it come from? I find it hard to bring it out of utter nothingness. Maybe you don't.

Edited to add: Ed, while you say that one can put anything into existence with logic, what do you think is happening with string theory? It now postulates an infinitude of unobservable universes and calls it science and they call it the brane theory. They can never observe these things, not even in principle. So, yes, Ed, one can use logic and math wildly when there is no input from the observable. So why is it wrong for me to do it and right for physics to do it?

And to push ahead a bit further, doesn't this creation of something ex nihilo sound a bit like what theists are often criticized for? I mean if all positions have to end with the creation of something out of utter nothingness, in what way are you less a creationist than I?
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
spanner365 said:
(Bolded mine)

But this couldn't have happened. Without time there could be no before or after. Thus it is meaningless to say we started with nothing and then later there was something. There is no "before" the universe. The universe just is. This is what Stephen Hawking meant when he said that asking what was before the big bang is like asking what is north of the north pole. (I think that is what he said anyway).

No. Time did not exist before the big bang. Time was created with this universe, yet modern physics speaks of lots of things external to the present universe and logically prior to it.


To the question of "why is there something rather than nothing" I ask you "Why not?"

Don't try to be Bobby Kennedy. It doesn't work here.



What reasoning can you give me that proves that "nothing is more likely than something"? We both probably have the gut feeling that nothing is more likely but this is not enough.
This feeling and the fact that we are ignorant leads us to posit a deity to explain away the fact that there is something. We think by giving him supernatural powers we have explained something. But we haven't. It is no more likely that a supernatural being just is than it is that the universe just is.

I don't think you understand the issues very well. Take a few philosophy courses and then come back
 
Upvote 0

grmorton

Senior Member
Sep 19, 2004
1,241
83
74
Spring TX formerly Beijing, China
Visit site
✟16,783.00
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
AnEmpiricalAgnostic said:
I have given your OP much consideration and have come to the conclusion, imho, that there is a minor flaw in your reasoning. I see Ed touched on this, but I wanted to put it into my own words. I was thinking about why it is that the same line of reasoning has let us each to such different paths (theistically speaking). I think the fundamental flaw is that you are singling out science. Once science is not the focus of the gap then you will realize that we are still dealing with a gap albeit a regular old gap of knowledge. Imho, man has been to quick to fill these gaps with god. Even if something is unknowable why should I feel compelled to fill the void of knowledge with god? Like the dog that will never comprehend higher mathematics, we may never comprehend the ultimate truth about how the universe exists. But you know what? I’m okay with that. Assigning the lack of knowledge with god would seem akin to asserting that god pulls the sun across the sky each day because I don’t understand how else it can happen.

I just admitted to Ed that we are all playing a bit of a semantic game here so see my reply to Ed. My argument is based upon the distinction that in the traditional god of the gaps argument, science has the capability of filling it. IN this area, science will forever be excluded and while it is a gap in our knowledge, it is not a gap in our scientific knowledge. Now, I would be perfectly happy to say it is a God of the Gaps argument IF you would actually explain why you are not a creationist as I outlined in my reply to Ed. To refresh, if all roads lead to the creation of something out of nothing--creation ex nihilo, Why are you not a creationist like me?

To reiterate the background, even Vilenkin's universe which he claims starts with nothing actually starts with math and logic, which of course is something. And then given that math and logic are forms of information and information requires (in every case we have ever observed) matter into which it is encoded, into what does Vilenkin encode his math before there is matter in his universe?

And if one truly starts with nothing, why does nothingness suddenly pop tensors into existence with which to create a universe? It seems to me that one is faced with something more than merely a naturalistic universe. Oh my gosh, I am close to using the G word again.

And I think that people are missing the impact of all roads leading to god-like traits in whatever we find back there. Maybe we are like the 7 blind men describing the elephant. Each road leads to a small piece of the elephant but the commonalities that come from all of the blind men give us the qualities of self-creation/self-existence, information, math logic, immense power, creativity, the ability to create ex nihilo, but we dare not call that God for fear of becomine a deist or theist. And at the end of the day are you not playing a similar semantic game as I was with god of the gaps? It looks like a god, it quacks like a god, but it aint god.
 
Upvote 0
This site stays free and accessible to all because of donations from people like you.
Consider making a one-time or monthly donation. We appreciate your support!
- Dan Doughty and Team Christian Forums
J

Jet Black

Guest
Edx said:
It may be true that determining how existence came to be is impossible, but it certainly isnt a given......

to me it sounds like you are trying to argue the objective nature of a completely abstract concept i.e. "existance".
Even if there is absolutely nothing, existance is still there because one can make a positive statement about it "absolutely nothing exists".

"Existance" is absolutely unavoidable. the interesting thing though is "why particular things exist" or "why things exist in the way that they do". I think people are getting the concepts of "the existance of the universe" and "existance" tangled up.
 
Upvote 0