Science, Metaphysics, and "God of the Gaps" Arguments

[gnostic]

I know exactly what science and metaphysics are, and I know the differences between the two.

But what you are professing about metaphysics, or more precisely supernatural metaphysics, is that these are merely expression of your faith and personal belief for the existence of the supernatural.

Such belief is based on "fear" and "ignorance", which is another word for SUPERSTITION.

Would you give the metaphysical existence to a fairy equal weight as you would to a god?

Why or why not?

To me, both fairy and god are both mythological. Their "being" rely on the belief of their imaginary existences.

With science, you would have to base conclusion upon evidence or the result of test, and not on personal and most likely biased belief. Supernatural metaphysics, like religious belief, rely on belief regardless if they exist or not in reality.

 

[Shad]

Shad,

I not going to have a metaphysical debate with someone like yourself who is unwilling to take a metaphysical position.

That is your problem. You only want to preach to the choir and hear your own echo chamber. Your confirmation bias and group think has blinded you.

 

[Gambit]

All observation is ultimately subjective: This is an inescapable fact. There is no such thing as an "objective observation" (except in the narrow sense of the phrase being shorthand for an "inter-subjectively verified observation").

That's exactly what I meant. Something is objective if I can observe what you can observe. Consciousness is not objective because I cannot observe your subjective awareness even as you cannot observe mine.

But science can subjectively observe human consciousness and then inter-subjectively verify those observations.

No, it can't.

As for "divine consciousness", if such a thing can be experienced (i.e. subjectively observed) by two or more people, then it can be (in principle) inter-subjectively verified.

I cannot observe God's subjective awareness for the same reason why I cannot observe yours.

 

[Sunstone]

That's exactly what I meant. Something is objective if I can observe what you can observe.

How do you know that you are observing what I observe? Through inter-subjective verification.

Consciousness is not objective because I cannot observe your subjective awareness even as you cannot observe mine.

It is meaningless to say that "consciousness is not objective" (i.e. incapable of being objectively observed) because there is no such thing as "objective observation": All observation is ultimately and finally subjective.

On the table between us is an apple. Neither one of us objectively observes the apple. Instead, I observe the apple, you observe the apple: Then we swap notes, find significant correspondence between each of our observations, and declare the apple -- not inter-subjectively observed -- but inter-subjectively verified. It is not inter-subjectively observed because you can't get in my head, and I can't get in yours.

Again, I observe my consciousness. You observe your consciousness. We then swap notes, find significant correspondence between each of our observations, and declare that consciousness is -- not inter-subjectively observed -- but inter-subjectively verified.

You may posit that you and I are observing the same apple but different consciousnesses, but that distinction is in this context irrelevant. It is irrelevant here because there is no such thing as inter-subjective observation, not even in the case of the apple. In the end, both the apple and consciousness are on the same epistemological footing: Both are subjective observations.

 

[Rick O'Shez]

The opposite problem also exists. If God's eternal existence can not taken without proof, why not the eternal existence of universe be accepted in the same way?

Exactly. It's a non-argument.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Nevertheless, the question is illegitimate, as it is erroneously assuming that there was "nothing" at some time in the past.

At one time that the coin and the feather fall with the same speed also was considered illegitimate.

 

[HonestJoe]

Well, we can also observe the effect of God, namely, the creation.

Yes, and we can do so using scientific method. The point is that you can’t define a creator god but declare it completely immune to scientific study.

By the way, on the materialist view, consciousness (subjective awareness) is causally inert. Free will (which materialism precludes) is the only possible role that consciousness can play. In fact, belief in any kind of intelligent agency is a supernatural belief because methodological naturalism (a.k.a. science and the basis for metaphysical naturalism) cannot detect intelligence (divine, human, or otherwise).

If intelligence is just a function of brains structure and the electrical impulses across it (and you’ve given no reason to assume this can’t be the case), it would be perfectly within the scope of scientific method. Humans in 2017 might not have the capability to apply it to the point of complete understanding but that’s true of lots of things. Yet again, our limitations are not science’s limitations.

The basis is rational. Reason tells me that I am seeking the highest or supreme good (which presupposes a telos and therefore a conscious intelligence).

How does what you’re seeking define what must be? If I declare that I’m seeking an entirely functional, non-intelligent universal creation process, would that make it rational to assume the existence of that process, declare it supernatural and therefore inaccessible to science then start describing definitive characteristics and features of it?

The rest of your post amounts to nothing more than rambling about nothing.

I’d suggest the distinction between proposing the existence of some kind of sentient creator and proposing the existence of a specifically defined god is very significant. That it opens a logical hole in your world-view isn’t a valid reason to ignore it.

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

Your rebuttal also apples to your claims. You are already assuming a lesser mind requires a greater one. Also you have no linked your conclusion with any premises. You made one statement then a conclusion but do nothing to infer any link between the two that is sound or valid.

you do not comprehend logic

 

[Jonathan Ainsley Bain]

. Once the theist actually treats their religious views as faith rather than knowledge, as so many claim, then there is nothing to talk about.

Then why are you talking about it?

Once more you are being obstinately illogical.

You completely contradict your own claim by actually talking about it?

Now! Do you have anything more to say?
No? Yes?

 

[ak.yonathan]

This thread is to educate those of you who apparently do not understand the difference between science and metaphysics. It is also to educate those of you who apparently do not understand what a "God of the gaps" actually is.

Definitions:







Why is all this relevant? Because there are more than a few here (primarily atheists and agnostics, albeit, there are some theists) who have argued that the belief in the existence of God cannot be rationally justified because "God" cannot be scientifically validated by empirical observation. This is a ridiculous argument because it demonstrates a fundamental misunderstanding of science. Science (which is based on methodological naturalism) is in the business of explaining physical phenomena by identifying natural causes. God (as traditionally understood) is a supernatural cause and therefore beyond the purview of science. Also, metaphysics is in the business of explaining the fundamental nature of being. So, a metaphysical argument which posits God (who has traditionally been understood as subsistent being itself) as the explanation for why there is something rather than nothing is not a "God of the gaps" argument. Why? Because the mystery being is within the domain of metaphysics, not of science.

Wikipedia isn't always right, nor do I agree with what is being stated here. The branch of science that concerns itself with nature is physics. I think that it is entirely possible that there is something beyond physics which is still within the realm of science. But even if there isn't, can it be demonstrated that natural causes cannot give rise to omnipotence? If natural causes alone can make a being omnipotent, than God can be explained by physics.

 

[leibowde84]

And anyone who denies that God is metaphysically necessary, denies God.

This seems counter-intuitive, as many theists don't see God as metaphysically necessary, but still believe in God nonetheless. Obviously, there are many things that people believe in that aren't "metaphysically necessary". So, can you support this claim?

 

[leibowde84]

If you deny that God is necessary, then you deny God.

See previous post. Can you support this claim?

 

[leibowde84]

At one time that the coin and the feather fall with the same speed also was considered illegitimate.

Correct, and then the scientific method was used to figure out that it was true and why it happens like that.

 

[viole]

Metaphysical naturalism cannot be validated by methodological naturalism (not even in theory).

True. However, the success of methodological naturalism (as deployed in science) gives us a certan confidence level. The conditional probability of metahysical naturalism, given the effectivity of the methodological one, is surely positively affected.

How many times a metaphysical explanation has been replaced by a natural one? And how many times a natural explanation has been replaced by a metaphysical one? The law of big numbers seems to be on our side, i think

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

Because reason tells us that every thing that comes into existence has a cause.

I feel tempted to ask you if your free will has a cause. For, if it does not have a causal chain that begins at the Universe's birth , then it contradicts your claim. If it does, then it is not free. Your call.

And I believe I already showed you a very viable model of the Universe that did not come into existence. Not only viable, probably the only model compatible with modern science (i.e. Relativity).

By the way, even if we forget the block universe, your "reason" is based on an already baked universe in thermodynamical unbalance. You need that physical state in order to have a time arrow and introduce the assymetry that allows you to differentiate between causes and effects. All your experiences and reasons work only in such context.

But I think it is self evident that we cannot apply mechanisms valid within a context in a certain state to the whole context. That would be a typical instance of the composition fallacy. Properties of the elements of a set do not necessarily transfer to the whole set. A universe contaning only red balls, is not necessarily a red ball. It follows that if all things that begin to exist in the universe have a cause, that does not entail that the universe has a cause, even if it really began to exist.

Ciao

- viole

 

[Scuba Pete]

Once the theist actually treats their religious views as faith rather than knowledge, as so many claim, then there is nothing to talk about.

Theist's are usually pretty honest about their reliance on faith, while atheists are far less so. Both belief and disbelief require faith. Only true agnostics can ascribe to not needing any faith. I have yet to meet a true agnostic, which makes reliance on faith fairly universal, at least in practice.

 

[viole]

Theist's are usually pretty honest about their reliance on faith,.

With the possible exception of the theists who claim that God is necessary. Ergo, that faith is not required and whoever needs it, by not accepting the logical necessity of God, denies God. Go figure.

Ciao

- viole

 

[viole]

The only rational explanation for why there is something rather than nothing is the theistic explanation.

Which does not explain why there is a God instead of no God, either. You basically explain the existence of something by postulating the existence or the necessity of the exitence of something (God). Which is painfully circular. Probably the shortest circular argument I can think of. Something exists because something exists. Great.

Let me ask you this: is "nothing" logically possible?

Therefore, atheism is irrational. Indeed, many atheists embrace the absurd as if it were some kind of badge of honor. Such is the spiritually-impoverished worldview that is atheism.

Even if the spiritual (whatever that means) lives of atheists were impoverished by the atheistic worldview, that does not entail that they are wrong. Only that they have an impoverished life. Period. So, I am not sure who is being irrrational here.

Ciao

- viole

 

[prometheus11]

Theist's are usually pretty honest about their reliance on faith, while atheists are far less so. Both belief and disbelief require faith. Only true agnostics can ascribe to not needing any faith. I have yet to meet a true agnostic, which makes reliance on faith fairly universal, at least in practice.

If it's a reasonable belief then it's not faith.

I have yet to meet an atheist or agnostic who doesn't reasonably believe what is reasonable to believe and who doesn't believe what is unreasonable to believe.

Are you one of those who insist that it takes the "wonder working power" of faith to attempt to crank the car in the morning since there's the small possibility it won't crank?

 

[Gambit]

With science, you would have to base conclusion upon evidence or the result of test, and not on personal and most likely biased belief. Supernatural metaphysics, like religious belief, rely on belief regardless if they exist or not in reality.

In epistemology, knowledge has traditionally been defined as justified belief. So, all forms of knowledge are actually beliefs, with the possible exception of our first-person perspective of our own subjectivity. That being said, metaphysical naturalism cannot be validated (not even in theory) by methodological naturalism (a.k.a. science). All metaphysical positions must be rationally justified. This is the methodology of philosophy.