Skip to content
Carmelics
TopicsThinkersChangesContributorsLoading account…

    Carmelics

    A reasoning platform. Break down any belief into clear reasons, explore both sides, and weigh the evidence honestly.

    Navigate

    • Topics
    • Search
    • Recent Changes
    • Contribute
    • How It Works
    • Glossary
    • Thinkers
    • Contributors
    • About
    • Statistics
    • Terms
    • Privacy

    Database

    Statements
    —
    Perspectives
    —
    Topics
    —

    Press ? for keyboard shortcuts

    LoyalLoyalJusticeJustice
    Made withinDC&Austin
    Statements
    321,452
    Perspectives
    108,905
    Topics
    42
    Home/Original/inverse
    See Original
    Inverse View

    It is not the case that Invoking divine causation where a complete physical description already exists commits the 'God of the gaps' fallacy identified by Bonhoeffer and Pannenberg.

    ?Set your confidence on the premises below to see your aggregate.

    Reasons For

    1 perspective
    Reason for
    ?
    • 1.Physical description and divine causation operate at different ontological levels; completeness at one level doesn't exclude the other.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Some philosophers argue divine action explains *why* the physical laws themselves exist and hold—a gap no physical description closes.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Bonhoeffer/Pannenberg themselves rejected naive gap-filling but allowed non-competing divine explanation within complete physics.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Reasons Against

    1 perspective
    Reason against
    ?
    • 1.If physical description is complete, adding divine causation introduces explanatory redundancy without empirical consequence.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 2.Historical pattern shows 'God did it' retreats as science advances, suggesting divine explanations fill ignorance, not genuine gaps.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    • 3.Methodological naturalism succeeds precisely by excluding non-physical causes; invoking them abandons proven explanatory framework.
      ?

      Think about whether this reason is strong or weak

    Next step

    Based on where you are in your exploration

    Strongest counterpoint
    Explore the most compelling reason on the other side.