Who throws the dice for you?

[Faith No More]

Certain known artifacts of our reality....not gaps in our understanding....are suggestive of the existence of God. You're just going to have to learn to live with that.

Quantum randomness isn't suggestive of the existence of god. You claim that if god exists, non-local, non-physical events would be expected. But to say that it is suggestive implies you understand the probability of a universe with non-local, nonphysical events but no god existing, which is something you can't possibly know.

Essentially, you're just pointing to something and saying, "See! This could be my god!" and nothing more. To say it's suggestive is grossly misleading.

[Ryantology]

Suppose that ancient Greeks had discovered that lightening could not be the result of local physical causes. Such a finding would be evidence supporting the Zeus hypothesis.

First, you said that it's not a 'god in the gaps' argument, and then as an example of how it's not, you offer a sample 'god in the gaps' argument. Secondly, it's not even correct methodology. Competing hypotheses aren't given automatic boosts of credibility simply because one hypothesis fails. In your scenario, you have one hypothesis which has apparently failed testing, and one which is of no value because it cannot be tested.

[Ben Davis]

I think you're over-interpreting things.

Entirely possible

- If a pie is tasty to me, then I like that pie.
- Only if a pie is tasty to me, then I like that pie.

There may be other reasons that I like that pie (perhaps its color).

Possible in the first statement, impossible in the second: If the only reason for liking the pie is the taste, there can be no other reason; the condition is wholly sufficient and necessary with no other condition required or available for resolution of the statement. Consequently, it is equivalent to cause: 'I like the pie because it is tasty to me'.

[RobbyPants]

I get tired of you claiming this a God of the Gaps argument when it is not. We do know these observations cannot be explained by local physical phenomena. There is no gap in scientific understanding that is being filled by God.

Suppose that ancient Greeks had discovered that lightening could not be the result of local physical causes. Such a finding would be evidence supporting the Zeus hypothesis. It wouldn't be proof of the existence of Zeus, but it is an observation that would be expected to be made if Zeus did indeed exist.

Certain known artifacts of our reality....not gaps in our understanding....are suggestive of the existence of God. You're just going to have to learn to live with that.

I'm confused about how this doesn't qualify. What is the difference between things that "cannot be explained (by local physical phenomena)" and "gaps in our understanding"? Is there somehow an "understanding" in things that cannot be explained? If so, what is it? If not, then it's a gap.

To say that the unexplained phenomena is "suggestive of God" sounds like you're trying to insert God into something we have yet to explain. As Ryantology already said, just because you can't explain X doesn't mean that Y suddenly become right (or more right). Y has to stand on it's own merits. How do you know its not Z? Couldn't randomness be indicative of unicorns, or something?

[Heywood]

I'm confused about how this doesn't qualify. What is the difference between things that "cannot be explained (by local physical phenomena)" and "gaps in our understanding"? Is there somehow an "understanding" in things that cannot be explained? If so, what is it? If not, then it's a gap.

Yes, there is a scientific understanding(Bell's theorem) that quantum randomness cannot be fully explained by any theory of local hidden physical variables.

To say that the unexplained phenomena is "suggestive of God" sounds like you're trying to insert God into something we have yet to explain. As Ryantology already said, just because you can't explain X doesn't mean that Y suddenly become right (or more right). Y has to stand on it's own merits. How do you know its not Z? Couldn't randomness be indicative of unicorns, or something?

Ryantology's criticism can be applied against scientific conclusion...so its a crappy criticism. How do you know the cosmic background radiation is an artifact of the big bang and not a property of a steady state universe(or cosmic unicorns for that matter)? You don't. But if the big bang hypothesis were true, you would expect to observe cosmic background radiation. Since you observe this background radiation you have reason to increase your confidence in the big bang hypothesis.

If the God hypothesis is true, you would expect to find artifacts of reality which cannot be explained by hidden local physical variables. When low and behold this if found to be a fact of the universe....it gives you reason to increase your confidence in the God hypothesis.

No God of the gaps here.

[Angrboda]

If the God hypothesis is true, you would expect to find artifacts of reality which cannot be explained by hidden local physical variables. When low and behold this if found to be a fact of the universe....it gives you reason to increase your confidence in the God hypothesis.

One possible virtue that a theory might have is its predictive power, that it allows us to tell, from the theory, what observations will count as confirmation of a theory, and what observations will count as disconfirmation of the theory. Now you obviously have some theory as to the nature of God which, in your view, leads to the expectation that effects which have no cause will be observed (randomness). What is this theory? What leads you to expect randomness to be a confirmation of His existence, and the lack of randomness to be a disconfirmation? What is your theory of how God works such that 'randomness' is a logical prediction of that idea?

[pocaracas]

I'm confused about how this doesn't qualify. What is the difference between things that "cannot be explained (by local physical phenomena)" and "gaps in our understanding"? Is there somehow an "understanding" in things that cannot be explained? If so, what is it? If not, then it's a gap.

Yes, there is a scientific understanding(Bell's theorem) that quantum randomness cannot be fully explained by any theory of local hidden physical variables.

To say that the unexplained phenomena is "suggestive of God" sounds like you're trying to insert God into something we have yet to explain. As Ryantology already said, just because you can't explain X doesn't mean that Y suddenly become right (or more right). Y has to stand on it's own merits. How do you know its not Z? Couldn't randomness be indicative of unicorns, or something?

Ryantology's criticism can be applied against scientific conclusion...so its a crappy criticism. How do you know the cosmic background radiation is an artifact of the big bang and not a property of a steady state universe(or cosmic unicorns for that matter)? You don't. But if the big bang hypothesis were true, you would expect to observe cosmic background radiation. Since you observe this background radiation you have reason to increase your confidence in the big bang hypothesis.

If the God hypothesis is true, you would expect to find artifacts of reality which cannot be explained by hidden local physical variables. When low and behold this if found to be a fact of the universe....it gives you reason to increase your confidence in the God hypothesis.

It's a god of the gaps argument, even if the gap is unfillable.

If the God hypothesis is true, I'd expect to have physical evidence of said god interacting all over the planet in a like manner with the people... guess what? nope! Hence, following the rules of logic, there is no such god!

If there is a god whose sole responsibility is maintaining randomness at the quantum level, then what good is that god? Why worship it? Why believe it exists at all? It seems to be merely an intrinsic property of space... a random-giver.

[Ryantology]

If the God hypothesis is true, you would expect to find artifacts of reality which cannot be explained by hidden local physical variables. When low and behold this if found to be a fact of the universe....it gives you reason to increase your confidence in the God hypothesis.

No God of the gaps here.

This assumes, incorrectly, that there is a finite supply of possible explanations one can come up with to describe any kind of phenomena, when in reality, anyone can simply make up a completely new one out of thin air. One can, in fact, simply make up a new god and apply to it attributes that better correspond with the real world, and you automatically have a better "god" hypothesis than yours.

Your god hypothesis is in no way strengthened by the failure of any competing hypothesis because yours lacks any actual explanatory power and cannot itself be explained. The failure of every existing competing hypothesis would still mean that yours is just one worthless non-answer in an ocean of them.

All you are doing is attempting to work the GOTG backwards by postulating a gap that science can't fill, anyway.

[RobbyPants]

I'm confused about how this doesn't qualify. What is the difference between things that "cannot be explained (by local physical phenomena)" and "gaps in our understanding"? Is there somehow an "understanding" in things that cannot be explained? If so, what is it? If not, then it's a gap.

Yes, there is a scientific understanding(Bell's theorem) that quantum randomness cannot be fully explained by any theory of local hidden physical variables.

The fact that randomness can't be explained by things we can observe isn't up for question. However, why can't it be? That is still up for grabs. We don't know that. And you're saying it points to God.

[Cyberman]

If the God hypothesis is true, you would expect to find artifacts of reality which cannot be explained by hidden local physical variables. When low and behold this if found to be a fact of the universe....it gives you reason to increase your confidence in the God hypothesis.

No God of the gaps here.

"Lo and behold". It's sort of a biblical thing.

If we were to find the things you describe, it may be the case that they do indeed bolster the God Hypothesis.

Got any?